Malaysia To Scour Internet for 'Harmful' Blogs

Sounds like Media Matters is setting up shop abroad.

MALAYSIA has formed a task force to scour the internet for blog postings deemed harmful to national unity.

Home ministry deputy secretary general for security Abdul Rahim Mohamad Radzi said the unit would involve the police, internet regulators, the information ministry and the attorney general's chambers.

"It is a mechanism that will coordinate these various agencies to help monitor what is being said in cyberspace and to take action against those that are trying to stoke racial tensions and disunity," he said.

Abdul Rahim said the group would also monitor alternative and mainstream media for similar content.

"There is a disturbing trend now appearing on the internet where some people are inciting racial unrest and causing confusion and this will damage the peace we have in the country," he said.

Sounds like a taste of what's eventually in store for us.

Police are also investigating ethnic Chinese rapper Wee Meng Chee for sedition, after he posted a three-minute rap on YouTube criticising a Malay headmistress accused of making racial slurs against minority students.

The government has ordered a probe into the case which caused anger among Malaysia's minorities, who complain their rights are being eroded as the country becomes increasingly "Islamised".

In another case, Malaysian journalist Irwan Abdul Rahman was charged this week over a satirical blog which made fun of the state power firm Tenaga, and faces a year's jail if convicted.

The prosecution caused a stir because unlike the mainstream press, the web and online media in Malaysia have remained relatively free, despite occasional raids, bans and government criticism.

Major newspapers and broadcasters are closely linked with the ruling coalition, so the internet has become a lively forum for dissent and debate.

Newspapers and broadcasters closely linked with the rulers? Hmm, that sounds so familiar.

Good News: New and Improved 'Fairness Doctrine' Could Apply to Web Content

Nothing would ignite a fire under the behinds of a million bloggers more than threatening them with the idea of having to provide "balance" on their sites.

Good luck with that.

Mark my words. Any politician dumb enough to vote for something like this should take the time to enjoy their final term in office. I'm almost curious to see them try, as the backlash would be so swift and enormous the notion of resurrecting this long-outdated scheme would never again see the light of day.

There’s a huge concern among conservative talk radio hosts that reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine would all-but destroy the industry due to equal time constraints. But speech limits might not stop at radio. They could even be extended to include the Internet and “government dictating content policy.”

FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell raised that as a possibility after talking with bloggers at the Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C. McDowell spoke about a recent FCC vote to bar Comcast from engaging in certain Internet practices – expanding the federal agency’s oversight of Internet networks.

The commissioner, a 2006 President Bush appointee, told the Business & Media Institute the Fairness Doctrine could be intertwined with the net neutrality battle. The result might end with the government regulating content on the Web, he warned. McDowell, who was against reprimanding Comcast, said the net neutrality effort could win the support of “a few isolated conservatives” who may not fully realize the long-term effects of government regulation.

“I think the fear is that somehow large corporations will censor their content, their points of view, right,” McDowell said. “I think the bigger concern for them should be if you have government dictating content policy, which by the way would have a big First Amendment problem.”

“Then, whoever is in charge of government is going to determine what is fair, under a so-called ‘Fairness Doctrine,’ which won’t be called that – it’ll be called something else,” McDowell said. “So, will Web sites, will bloggers have to give equal time or equal space on their Web site to opposing views rather than letting the marketplace of ideas determine that?”

The notion is so insane, so anti-freedom that only some pointy-headed libs could be stupid enough to dream it up.

I can see the left trying to stifle dissent by attempting to silence talk radio. After all, they hate free speech. But the idea that blogs would ever have to provide balance? With the sheer volume on both the left and right it would just not be possible. Considering it's the World Wide Web, how would they possibly control content that extends across the globe?

Code of Conduct for Bloggers? Better Yet, How About One for the Media?

Every now and then you see a story floated suggesting bloggers should adhere to a code of conduct, and while it makes some sense on the surface, it's impractical and impossible to enforce. The sheer number of blogs and online commentary sites grow daily and monitoring and enforcing any kind of speech codes and standards is virtually impossible.

Nearly half of all internet users would support a voluntary code of conduct for bloggers and online commentators, according to research.

A survey by legal firm DLA Piper said 46% of web users think bloggers should sign up to a code that reflected the laws on defamation, intellectual property and incitement, with 15% ambivalent and 4% strongly opposed.

Around 34% of bloggers opposed the idea but 32% supported it.

Three quarters of web users who have posted comment on blogs and news sites were oblivious to libel law, said the report, even though the person posting the comment, rather than the host site, would be liable for any offence.

The survey highlights the dangers created not only by self-publishing but also by more innocuous user content, such as video, photos and comment posted to media-sharing sites.

Most of the blogs I read on a regular basis are written by those with journalism, other media or legal backgrounds and the writers likely are well-versed in libel law. If not, they're mature enough to know when not to cross the line into personal defamation and keep to the facts.

When in error, they usually post updates and corrections immediately and prominently. That's a self-policing mechanism on the web, where your credibility is as good as your last post. If you run with incorrect material or make things up out of thin air, your reputation will quickly be shot and your readership nonexistent.

This item got me to thinking, however, that maybe it's time to turn this around and recommend to the media that they begin a self-imposed code of conduct. After all, facing dwindling readership and viewers abandoning news programs in droves, isn't it time the media tried to restore a modicum of credibility?

Here are some suggestions, and I welcome feedback on other possible practices the media could take on.

1. The media will rigorously protect national security and will vow never to reveal information that endangers the public.

2. The media will be fair to politicians: For every fawning puff piece on a political candidate (Barack Obama comes to mind), they will devote an equal amount of space and time to their opponent.

3. The media will not rush to the microphone every time racial arsonists hold their daily press conference.

4. The media will publish corrections to stories prominently in the space or time segment where their original erroneous report originated. In other words, the New York Times will have their corrections on Page A1 regularly.

5. The media will stop referring to terrorists as activists, militants, or freedom fighters.

6. The media will stop commissioning slanted polls designed to become news items. They are there to report the news, not create it.

7. The media will immediately cease reporting on programs that immediately precede it. Case in point: I never watch American Idol, nor do I have any desire to. So when I tune in to the news following it, I do not want to see some amateur singing as the top story. Which is why I've stopped watching those news programs.

8. Car chases on Los Angeles-area freeways are no longer newsworthy. Get it?

9. Stories about why nobody listens to liberal talk radio are not news. It's just regurgitating countless stories we've seen for, oh, about 20 years now.

10. Stop insulting your audience, or what's left of it, by printing junk like this that cannot be proven or verified.

So there, a starting point for the media on how they can conduct themselves.

Who knows, maybe if they follow just a few of their suggestions they might begin retaining an audience. Just like the bloggers work diligently to do.

Who Knew Blogs Were So Important?

An interesting dust-up in Australia. We noted earlier the vile anti-Semitic comments of Liberal Susan Chandler and now we have a full-blown purge over a blogging scandal.

Break out the popcorn.

THE purge of Liberals involved in undermining Victorian leader Ted Baillieu could reach into the offices of state or federal MPs, with several more staffers under threat of explusion over the blogging scandal that claimed a third scalp yesterday.

The internal war yesterday claimed a key ally of Mr Baillieu, the Victorian Opposition Leader, when state campaign manager Susan Chandler was forced to resign after revelations she described a party candidate in an email as a "greedy f..king Jew".

The anti-Semitic slur - which Mr Baillieu described as "appalling" - was released as retaliation by sacked former staffer John Osborn, who was dismissed for maintaining a blog called hewhostandsfornothing criticising Mr Baillieu's performance and policies.

In a bid to stem the rapidly escalating damage to the party, state president David Kemp gave a press conference yesterday announcing Ms Chandler's departure and revealing investigators were hunting a "small group" of dissident party members involved in the blog.

The crisis began when it emerged Mr Osborn and fellow staffer Simon Morgan were sacked for operating the blog.

Dr Kemp said investigations had revealed a "few" more Liberals were involved in the blog and they would be expelled over their actions.

However, he and Mr Baillieu now seem at odds over the extent of the crisis, with the Opposition Leader declaring it the "tip of the iceberg" and flagging a purge of his critics.

Purging? Hunting?

Wow, all over blog criticism? Touchy.

The blog in question is now an invitation-only site, as noted here.

More here.

"Their activities are a disgrace," Mr Baillieu said.

"They're at odds with everything that the Liberal Party stands for, but I don't believe they acted alone.

"(They are) a narrow, but deep-seated cell of people who are destroying this party," Mr Baillieu said.

"It is time to clean house. We have some cancerous elements . . . and they are destroying the Liberal Party."

The Herald Sun believes several other Liberal workers are now under investigation after the website was traced back to party headquarters.

It is believed Mr Morgan and Mr Osborn were exposed when a photograph was published on the site that could have been obtained only by a Liberal Party staffer.

Mr Osborn yesterday refused to back away from his criticism of Mr Baillieu.

Senior party figures told the Herald Sun the Liberal Party was in bad shape.

"It's the worst I have ever seen it for decades," one insider said.

Another said: "It's a complete disaster. Nothing good can come from it."

It's worth noting the Liberal Party is generally more along the lines of the GOP here in the United States, as the more left-leaning party is Labor.

2008 Myths and Blogs

Interesting piece by Barry Casselman in the Washington Times discusses the role of blogs in the 2008 elections.

His assessment notes while blogs may help generate support for some lesser-known candidates and help raise funds, in the end, their influence isn't as great as they think.

Think Ned Lamont.

On the upside, he notes that former comedian and fulltime moron Al Franken has been totally exposed by a Minnestoa blog.

because it is read primarily by activists in both parties. While most attention has been given to leftist blogs, some significant conservative blogs have grown and prospered, including Power Line in Minnesota. While Power Line is national in its focus, another partisan political blog in that state,Minnesota Democrats Exposed, has emerged as the most powerful political internet presence there. Its carefully researched campaign against comedian Al Franken's putative effort to win a Senate seat there in 2008 has devastated Mr. Franken's public image almost before he began to run for the seat, and has seemingly cemented the idea that the entertainer is an angry, foul-mouthed parvenu instead of a serious-minded candidate. This blog is Mr. Franken's worst nightmare, and it has provoked many Democratic strategists to try to find another candidate against popular incumbent Republican Sen. Norm Coleman.

Read the whole thing.

Media Bias Alive and Well

Just confirming the obvious.

The vast majority of American voters detect the presence of political bias in the mainstream news media, according to a Zogby poll released yesterday in conjunction with the George Washington University Institute for Politics, Democracy and the Internet.

Sentiment is strong: 83 percent of likely voters think bias is "alive and well." Of that number, 64 percent said the press leans left, while slightly more than a quarter -- 28 percent -- said there was a conservative bias.

Naturally, there's a partisan divide, and a pronounced one. Among Republican respondents, 97 percent said the press was liberal. Two-thirds of political independents agreed with them, with less than a quarter of the independents -- 23 percent -- saying there was a conservative bias.

The antique media responded by scoffing at the poll and calling the public stupid. But we'll have the last laugh.

Meanwhile, the Zogby findings also revealed a trend that may sober the enthusiasm of broadcasters, magazines and newspapers that have rushed to establish an Internet presence, complete with snappy blogs, message boards and interactive features.

Obama's Blog Problem

It appears John Edwards isn't the only one with a blog problem.

A blogger's rant calling for Hillary Rodham Clinton's death - and posted on one of Sen. Barack Obama's campaign Web sites yesterday - came as her security has been being dramatically beefed up, The Post has learned.

The Secret Service was alerted to the twisted item, which was on the Obama blog page for about seven hours before being yanked.

"You're too black for whites and too white for blacks," read the post, which went up at 8:59 a.m. "But please put up a good fight for us - and if you get a chance to shove a pillow over Hillary's face and smother her to death before the primaries, 20 black-eyed virgins will wait on you in paradise."

The sick note, which misspelled Obama's first name as "Barrack," also blasted the Illinois senator, saying he's a "politician who hasn't had experience wrestling in filth with the great whores in Washington."