The religious police in Saudi Arabia

Monsanto

Published time: April 04, 2013 16:34
Edited time: April 05, 2013 12:28  
 
Monsanto on Wednesday reported that its net income rose 22 percent to $1.48 billion, or $2.74 a share, in a one-year period. The profit increase, which occurred in the three-month period through February, marked a new record for the lucrative biotech company. Revenue rose 15 percent to $5.47 billion, much of which came from the sales of genetically modified corn seeds, particularly those sold in emerging markets like Brazil, Argentina, and other Latin American countries.

Concision

Concision refers generally to brevity, or the practice of using no more words than necessary to describe an idea. In the context of media criticism, the word concision is also used to describe the practice of limiting debate and discussion of important topics on broadcast news on the basis of broadcast time allotment.

Media critics such as Noam Chomsky contend that this practice, especially on commercial broadcasts with advertising, encourages broadcasters to exclude people and ideas that they judge cannot conform to the time limits of a particular program. This leads to a limited number of "the usual suspects" who will say expected ideas that will not require extensive explanation such as mainstream political ones. Furthermore, introducing controversial or unexpected statements that do not conform to those conventional ideas are discouraged as time inefficient because the person will be required to explain and support them in detail. Since this can often take considerable time in itself and digress from the primary discussion topic of the broadcast, this is discouraged. Alternatively, the explanation could be subject to extensive editing for time which could lead to an inadequate presentation of the subject's thoughts.

This media control idea is illustrated in the film documentary Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media where journalist Jeff Greenfield explains why a person like Chomsky may be excluded from being interviewed on air because he takes too long to warm up. The film then follows up with Chomsky himself explaining the concept while the film gives examples of controversial statements he has made in the past that would require extensive explanation in an interview.

The 1999 feature film The Insider has a dramatization of the media concept where journalist Mike Wallace goes public on a news show about the censoring of a controversial story on 60 Minutes. When Wallace sees his interview broadcast, he is furious that his testimony is limited to a cut part statement that does not adequately explain his position and the only excuse from the producers he receives is that it had to be cut for time.

the First Amendment

TOPEKA, Kan. (AP) -- When a high school senior tweeted that Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback "sucked," among other invectives, reaction at the state Capitol led her principal to demand an apology. Instead, it was the Republican governor offering a mea culpa Monday, forced to admit to a self-described overreaction by his staff that subjected him to ridicule for efforts to police a teenager's Internet musings.

Emma Sullivan's tweet from the back of a crowd listening to Brownback speak last week, and her subsequent refusal to write an apology letter, spurred several thousand supporters to rush to her online defense - boosting her Twitter following from 61 friends to more than 12,000 people in less than a week.

The 18-year-old from the Kansas City suburb of Fairway was taking part in a Youth in Government program in Topeka when she tweeted from her cell phone: "Just made mean comments at gov. brownback and told him he sucked, in person (hash)heblowsalot."

She said she was just joking with friends, but Brownback's office, which monitors social media for postings containing the governor's name, contacted the youth program. Sullivan said she was called to the principal's office for the first time ever and told to apologize in writing to the governor.

"My staff overreacted to this tweet, and for that I apologize," Brownback said in a statement Monday. "Freedom of speech is among our most treasured freedoms."

The reaction exemplifies what Bradley Shear, a Washington, D.C.-area social media attorney, called an example of the nationwide chasm between government officials and rapidly evolving technology.

"This reflects poorly on the governor's office," Shear said. "It demonstrates their P.R. department and whoever is dealing with these issues need to get a better understanding of social media in the social media age. The biggest problem is government disconnect and a lack of understanding of how people use the technology."

Brownback's office declined to discuss its social media monitoring in detail, but politicians and governmental offices across the county are increasingly keeping an eye on the Internet for mentions of their campaigns or policies, not unlike the way newspapers and television broadcasts have been watched for decades. Many officials even maintain their own Facebook and Twitter accounts to inform constituents of events or policy announcements.

Shear said the disconnect comes in determining how, or if, to respond in a new age of interactivity.

"Whatever issues are out there, we're just starting the conversation about them," Shear said. "There needs to be a national conversation on how to respond to these issues and how to do it right."

Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon's office, for example, doesn't formally monitor comments about the governor posted through social media sites, nor has the office reached out to anybody because of comments they posted, spokesman Scott Holste said.

"Our focus and concerns are really on bigger things," Holste said. "It's an occasional glance, but it's not something that is systematic."

Sullivan's tweet Nov. 21 caught the eye of Brownback's deputy communications officer, who forwarded it to two staffers in the governor's office, according to a string of emails obtained by The Associated Press.

Niomi Burget, assistant director of scheduling, forwarded the tweet to Deborah Brown with the Shawnee Mission School District, who is state coordinator for the Youth in Government program, and said she didn't know if the student was in Brown's group, but thought if she was Brown might want to know about the tweet.

Brown responded that she had contacted Sullivan's principal, was embarrassed for the program, and hoped Brownback would speak to students again next year.

As Sullivan's tweet and her school's call for an apology letter gained traction online, Shawnee Mission East Principal Karl Krawitz emailed Burget to say that the teen never was threatened with punishment if she refused to write the letter. Krawitz, who said he had received "disgusting" hate mail over the incident, acknowledged he wasn't a Brownback supporter but was troubled that a student had been disrespectful while on a school trip.

"I am not a big fan of the governor, but I respect the person and the office," he wrote in the email Saturday, adding that he thought the incident "will probably get ugly."

The Shawnee Mission School District said Monday it was no long seeking a letter from Sullivan.

"Whether and to whom any apologies are issued will be left to the individuals involved," the statement said. "The issue has resulted in many teachable moments concerning the use of social media. The district does not intend to take any further action on this matter."

Doug Bonney, legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Kansas and Western Missouri, said the teen's speech was clearly protected by the First Amendment.

"Saying that the governor is no good and is a blowhard is core protected speech," Bonney said. "It's absolutely what the First Amendment was designed to protect."

Sullivan said Monday that nobody from the school told her about the statement it issued saying she didn't have to write the apology letter, nor did she hear from the Brownback's office about its apology. She instead heard about both from news media seeking comment.

"They were just kind of out there for the world, but no one reached me directly," she said.

----

Milburn reported from Topeka. Draper reported from Kansas City, Mo. Associated Press writer Heather Hollingsworth in Kansas City, Mo., contributed to this report.

the ‘trust me’ concept

Can the U.S. Government close social media accounts?

Since September, at least 60 people have died in 14 reported CIA drone strikes in Pakistan’s tribal regions. The Obama administration has named only one of the dead, hailing the elimination of Janbaz Zadran, a top official in the Haqqani insurgent network, as a counterterrorism victory.
The identities of the rest remain classified, as does the existence of the drone program itself. Because the names of the dead and the threat they were believed to pose are secret, it is impossible for anyone without access to U.S. intelligence to assess whether the deaths were justified.
In outlining its legal reasoning, the administration has cited broad congressional authorizations and presidential approvals, the international laws of war and the right to self-defense. But it has not offered the American public, uneasy allies or international authorities any specifics that would make it possible to judge how it is applying those laws. . . .
“They’ve based it on the personal legitimacy of [President] Obama — the ‘trust me’ concept,” [American University Professor Kenneth] Anderson said. “That’s not a viable concept for a president going forward.”

That is the heart and soul of the U.S. Government’s framework: we can do what we want, in total secrecy and with no checks, including to U.S. citizens, and you don’t need to know anything about it and we need no checks: you should just trust us. That, of course, was precisely the rationale long offered by the neocon Right to justify the radical, transparency-free powers of detention, surveillance and militarism seized by the Bush administration: maybe these powers could theoretically be abused one day by a Bad Leader, but right now, we have a good, noble, Christian family man in office who only wants to Keep us Safe, so we can trust him. That has now been replaced by: maybe these powers could theoretically be abused one day by a Bad Leader, but right now, we have a good, noble, urbane, progressive Constitutional scholar and family man in office who only wants to Keep us Safe, so we can trust him (see, for instance, CAP’s Ken Gude dismissing concerns about the indefinite detention bill by expressly invoking the Goodness of President Obama: “if the president does not believe it is necessary or appropriate to order military operations in the United States, then there is no military detention authority in the United States”; “President Obama has made clear he does not want military detention in the United States. . . . Yes, a future president may interpret that authority differently, but that is [] a fight for another day . . .”).