|Home | Bookmark | Tell||Active petitions in over 75 countries||Follow GoPetition|
Petition Tag - media
I am starting this petition to try and get the TV channel GOLD (formerly UK Gold, UKTV Gold and G.O.L.D.) to join Freeview and be available to Freeview viewers.
The channel predominantly shows classic British comedies like Only Fools and Horses, Blackadder, One Foot in the Grave and Fawlty Towers for the vast majority of the day.
The channel is currently available only on Sky, Virgin Media and TalkTalk TV.
I feel it would be a great advantage to people who have Freeview, and who do not want to spend a lot of money on buying Sky/Virgin etc. Many people are fond of these old sitcoms.
Thank you and please sign.
If you let them take your right to free speech, how are you going to stop them from taking all the others?
We believe that freedom of speech and a free press is fundamental to the democratic principles that our country is based upon.
We believe that Fairfax have suspended Michael Smith for having information that if aired, would threaten both the position of Julia Gillard and the longevity of her minority government.
On Monday 8th August 2011, during the height of major civil unrest, BBC World Have Your Say on the BBC World Service broadcast a phone-in debate on the England riots entitled "Is there a problem with young black men?".
The programme made a clear link between the England riots and the idea that the cause was due to a problem with young black men in general. It invited calls and comments from around the world to respond.
There is no editorial justification for the topic and the majority of comments on the World Have Your Say Facebook site reflect the dismay and shock that this subject has been deemed worthy of a respected international broadcaster.
The BBC's own editorial guidelines state:
"5.4.38. We aim to reflect fully and fairly all of the United Kingdom's people and cultures in our services. Content may reflect the prejudice and disadvantage which exist in societies worldwide but we should not perpetuate it. In some instances, references to disability, age, sexual orientation, faith, race, etc. may be relevant to portrayal. However, we should avoid careless or offensive stereotypical assumptions and people should only be described in such terms when editorially justified."
Follows the discovery of widespread unethical and illegal activities by News Corporation in the United Kingdom, the Australian people have concerns over these practices happening in Australia, especially given News Corporation control around 70 per cent of major Australian newspapers and significant other media interests in this country.
Only a wide ranging Inquiry into all aspects of the conduct of the media in this country will satisfy public concerns.
In the past the global media has not hesitated calling Michael Jackson names, but they marvel at spreading lies about him. Such as; Michael bleaching his skin because, according to them, he wanted to be white. Issuing an article in which they claim he had cocaine in his underwear. Or saying that Michael was gay, to name just a few.
I will print this off and send it to all possible media outlets once enough signatures have been gathered.
The media loves nothing more than to make fun of Michael for money. They will make the public believe anything they say. Even if it's not true. They brainwash the public with their slander. Their continues lies have contributed to some of the worst monents in his life. Please sign this petition.
The photo that televised global media news networks used on the announcement of Osama Bin Laden's death yesterday has been confirmed fake, originally reported by the Guardian news paper Monday 2 May 2011 12.03 BST.
This finding prompts the need for news media reform geared toward responsible journalistic principles.
Quoting from the Museum of Broadcast Communications:
“The policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission that became known as the “Fairness Doctrine” is an attempt to ensure that all coverage of controversial issues by a broadcast station be balanced and fair. The FCC took the view, in 1949, that station licensees were “public trustees”, and as such had an obligation to afford reasonable opportunity for discussion of contrasting points of view on controversial issues of public importance. The Commission later held that stations were also obligated to actively seek out issues of importance to their community and air programming that addressed those issues. With the deregulation sweep of the Reagan Administration during the 1980s, the Commission dissolved the fairness doctrine. 1”
“The fairness doctrine ran parallel to Section 315 of the Communications Act of 1937 which required stations to offer “equal opportunity” to all legally qualified political candidates for any office if they had allowed any person running in that office to use the station. The attempt was to balance–to force an even handedness. Section 315 exempted news programs, interviews and documentaries. But the doctrine would include such efforts. Another major difference should be noted here: Section 315 was federal law, passed by Congress. The fairness doctrine was simply FCC policy. 1”
“By 1985, the FCC issued its Fairness Report, asserting that the doctrine was no longer having its intended effect, might actually have a “chilling effect” and might be in violation of the First Amendment. In a 1987 case, Meredith Corp. v. FCC, the courts declared that the doctrine was not mandated by Congress and the FCC did not have to continue to enforce it. The FCC dissolved the doctrine in August of that year. 1”
The Congress voted to enact the Fairness Doctrine into law; however, it was vetoed by President Regan. The second attempt ran out of support with a threatened veto by President Bush the First. Today, we find, “there is no required balance of controversial issues as mandated by the fairness doctrine. The public relies instead on the judgment of broadcast journalists and its own reasoning ability to sort out one-sided or distorted coverage of an issue. 1”
A license permits broadcasting, but the licensee has no constitutional right to be the one who holds the license or to monopolize a...frequency to the exclusion of his fellow citizens. There is nothing in the First Amendment which prevents the Government from requiring a licensee to share his frequency with others.... It is the right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount.
— U.S. Supreme Court, upholding the constitutionality of the Fairness Doctrine in Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 1969.
The fairness doctrine would bring back serious discourse, lengthier soundbites and deeper debates; it will not stifle dissent or free speech it will invite and embrace all voices.
Blockshoppers.com is a website that poses themselves as a part of the media giving them an opportunity to post your name and home address to anyone visiting their website.
All one has to do is put your name in the search engine and pops up your personal residence. Although they are supposing to say they are providing information about real estate property for selling purposes, your property does not even have to be up for sale to be listed on their website.
Blockshoppers.com uses the fact that these are public records are accessible to anyone. The fact is that when someone is in search about a piece of real estate, they do not look it up by the person's name, but by the address.
A serious real estate agent will be willing to go to the courts and find the information they need, but not some crazed person who may want to harm you.
39. Defund NPR now
NPR has proven that it is a bigoted organization whose “news” coverage is slanted far to the left. NPR and its member stations collect around $500 million in taxpayer funds and they have admitted that they could survive without those public funds.
Fundraising President Ron Shiller said: “It is very clear that we would be better off in the long run without federal funding”. It’s about time we called their bluff. Programs like Sesame Street and others which are beneficial to kids and in demand in society would certainly connect with investors and major donors, so why should the public continue to subsidize NPR while they support a single agenda? Who can forget the way they fired Juan Williams for the way he displayed his personal opinion on a different network?
Now, Ron Shiller, said "The current Republican Party is not really the Republican Party. It's been hijacked by this group that is ... not just Islamophobic but, really, xenophobic," in comments that were made about the TEA Party, he continued "They believe in sort of white, middle America, gun-toting — it's scary. They're seriously racist, racist people". The people, millions of people, who are speaking out against the growth of government, the cost of government and the overreaching of government are considered racists. The following is a list of stories where the liberal bias of the organization is pointed out:
- NPR: If You're Just Joining Us, The Republicans Are Dangerously Extremist
- Totenberg's 'Very Afraid' of These  Elections; Thomas Thinks They're 'A Joke...Political System's a Mess'
- FNC’s Liasson: Send off Pelosi ‘In a Blaze of Glory’ Like Churchill After ‘Historic’ Accomplishments
- NPR Reports On U.S. Liberal Bias -- Tilted to Theorist Who Laments Reporters Aren't Openly Liberal Enough
- NPR Cries Factual Foul on Paul Ryan for Saying 'Failed Stimulus' in SOTU Response
Newsbuster’s includes the above as a few in a long history of NPR’s liberal bias in this story (link at the top). They also point out that NPR gave airtime to a magazine editor who said, "It was only after I saw the shooter's gringo surname, that I was able to go on and read the rest of the news about those who lost their lives on Saturday and those who, like Rep. Giffords, were severely wounded.".
Newsbuster’s also points out that “For instance, it is official NPR policy to refer to pro-life Americans as ‘abortion rights opponents.’” yet “‘Opponents of the rights of the unborn’ would certainly not fly in an NPR newsroom”.
WaheGuru Ji Ka Khalsa
WaheGuru Ji Ki Fateh
Dear Saadh Sangat,
With the grace of the True Guru and under the guidance of the eternal Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, we are delighted to announce the launch of a brand new digital television station – The Sikh TV.
We feel that many of the issues Sikhs face today around the world are not being actively resolved and will continue to spiral out of control unless steps are taken now to resolve them. The Sikh TV will aim to encourage unity and positivity amongst Sikhs so that we can tackle these issues together as one nation.
Despite being one of the newest world religions, Sikhs have a very rich and proud heritage spanning back over five centuries. However, over the past few generations, this has been lost amongst youth and elders alike. The Sikh TV will provide historical and factual programming and dig up the very roots that Sikhism has grown from.
As todays modern and western society continues to increase pressure on our youth, more and more Sikhs are giving up their identity and taking up consumption of alcohol, tobacco and other intoxicants. The Sikh TV will aim to educate and help our young generation to understand their faith in their language and offer soultions and guidance to the issues that affect them.
The Sikh TV will broadcast 24 hours, 7 days a week to audiences around the world from its base in the United Kingdom. Our aim is to provide spiritual and religious programmes that appeal to young and mature Sikh men and women, and inspire a Sikh way of life as inspired by the Ten Gurus. We will also be producing educational content for non-Sikhs and educational institutions.
The Sikh TV will give generations of Sikhs a platform to reach out and speak out on matters they feel strongly about. This will be a community television channel and we invite all Sikhs to get involved regardless of their age or gender.
We hereby humbly invite all Sikhs to offer their support and blessings for this project and participate by offering their ideas, opinion, comments and suggestions to make this endeavour a resounding success for the present and the future.
WaheGuru Ji Ka Khalsa
WaheGuru Ji Ki Fateh
The Sikh TV
In a fragile yet technologically driven society where severe independence and emotions rule the "nation" of our youth's culture; it becomes clear and evident that unconditional love, responsibility and accountability must be the heartbeat of the adult world.
The influence of media with our youth is increasing by the day luring them into a fallible world where the abnormal becomes normal. Sex, drugs, alcohol, and bullying have become the order of the day. From the National Institute on Media & Family to the A.C. Nielson Company, a global marketing research firm, statistics have repeatedly shown us that our youth are being affected and infected by what they see and hear.
I am petitioning for the removal of "Skins" a premiering TV series on the MTV network. The show glorifies wreckless behavior through the repeated display of teens enjoying sex, drugs, alcohol and other activities. MTV's own summary admits, "Skins is a wild ride through the lives of a group of high school friends stumbling through the mine field of adolescence... and stepping on most of the mines as they go".
TV shows have the right to address social issues but not without proper scales and balances. The compass of life truths through family and community values are necessary to help this generation cautiously navigate through life.
How much farther can media contribute to the self-destruction of our future America?
An accolade from a youth in the success of such a show is not a true sign of success. Must we forget that they can only speak from the level of maturity and perception of the world according to where they are?
They are in need of us; our discipline, our love and identification and we are failing them.
Thousands of PCS members who work in galleries, museums and historic sites are launching a campaign to defend the country’s cultural assets.
To coincide with the European Trade Union Confederation’s day of action for jobs and growth, the union is publishing a statement for supporters of the campaign to sign up to oppose cuts in culture, media and sport.
The statement aims to show the level of support against short sighted government cuts which will mean massive job losses and seriously harm the UK economy.
PCS General Secretary Mark Serwotka said: “As the coalition government forges ahead with massive cuts in DCMS and the entire arts and heritage sector, more voices are raised in pointing out the lack of sense in their approach.
There is widespread concern that cuts of between 25% and 40% will have a devastating impact on our heritage, our culture and our ability to be competitive in sport. It’s now time to show the strength of feeling against these cuts and let the government know that we are not prepared to let them ruin our valuable cultural heritage.”
Sign the petition below and join the campaign to save our cultural assets. In addition to the e-petition, we have received over 260 hand-written signatures in support. Please join the campaign today.
This petition is dedicated to the memory of every adult or child who lost their life to Congenital Heart Defects (CHD).
1 out of 85 babies in the United States of America are born with CHD. **Correction by Dr. Diana Bernshausen of Euless, TX**
Every 15 minutes one of those children pass away from CHD.
1/2 of all CHD babies do not make it to their 1st birthday!!
Congenital Heart Defects are present at birth, and can involve malformations of the heart, valves, arteries, and any other part of the heart/lung area. Congential Heart Defects are not usually discovered until the child shows physical signs or it's too late.
Most pregnant woman are not even told about CHD by their doctors.
This petition was started so that someone in the United States Media would take note and help some of these families and survivors start telling their stories.
Whether it be in television interviews, pubishing or book deals, movies about CHD, or newspaper articles the people of the United States of America have a right to know about the most deadly defect in their country!!
OFCOM is an important part of ensuring that news media broadcasts are fair and impartial. Under Conservative plans it would be scrapped which would allow further biasing of the UK media according to the whim of Rupert Murdoch.
To quote David Cameron:
"with a Conservative Government, OFCOM as we know it will cease to exist. Its remit will be restricted to its narrow technical and enforcement roles. It will no longer play a role in making policy. And the policy-making functions it has today will be transferred back fully to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport."
This will allow politicians to control the media as they see fit and remove any hope of ever having an impartial media.
The Palestinian Return Centre (PRC) expresses its deep apprehension and anger over the BBC coverage regarding freedom Flotilla.
The Freedom Flotilla which is a mere humanitarian mission has been covered by a wide range of western media outlets in the last few days. The BBC started to speak about the Boats of the flotilla only in the last 2 days.
In most of its coverage BBC depended on Israeli sources whilst the Palestinian side has been ignored. PRC suggests that such coverage harm the image of BBC and could classify it as an alternative for some Israeli media outlets.
PRC and part of its day-to-day monitoring for BBC observed the following:
On one of its today’s article BBC gave a space for the Israeli side while it has ignored the Palestinian side. The official account of Israel though, Danny Ayalon, Israeli deputy foreign minister was presented, which stated that organizers’ intent was violent. The article mentioned that 'Guns and knives' were used by the civilian passengers.
The great exposure of Israeli account continued on the BBC breakfast and its running news casts.
Spokespersons and Israeli officials were given a chance to justify the Israeli attack. BBC reporters in Israel also contribute to this dilemma as they only speak out what they get from the official Israeli sources.
PRC call on BBC to stand neutral and give up its routine policies of quickly admitting and giving a space for the Israeli narrative.
BBC spokesperson, told PRC that, 'We are unable to respond as we have not been given the courtesy of detailed evidence of any accusation.'
However, PRC told the spokesperson of the above mentioned coverage and the time of the news casts.
2RRR, one of Australia's oldest community radio stations and breeding ground for dozens of professional radio announcers and home of creative and innovative radio content for decades is in serious trouble.
In March the board was notified that the land our transmitter and tower is housed on is to be sold by the leaseholder, Sydney Water. This means the station will have to cease broadcasting if an alternative cannot be found quickly. It took until late April for the board to communicate this to the members and that was only after the information was leaked onto the 2RRR members yahoogroup, a site that since has been routinely ignored by the board despite there being over 50 members on the list including a wealth of former and current board members.
Since that time the board through either inaction or otherwise have engaged in a PR war with the leaseholder in the local papers and have trumped receiving a letter from Sydney Water that appreciates our situation but offers no solution as a triumph in the battle.
We cannot allow our station to vanish from the spectrum without a real fight. We stand for better governance and a board that is competent when negotiating 2RRRs future.
We believe in open communication and support debate and discussion. We are committed to saving the station we love and not letting it go down on basis of the ego or myopia of one or more board members.
As Students Understanding Rights For Online Neutrality (SURFON) we are concerned about the future of our internet.
Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and large corporations in Canada are threatening to alter the internet from its current state to a hierarchical, “gatekeeper network” whereby information will be filtered to the user based on its source, ownership, and destination.
Consuming alcohol is a national past-time (so it seems.) In the media, alcohol is promoted so casually that it is a cause for concern for our children. Everyday, you can turn on your television and see an advertisement for some kind of beer or wine while tv presenters talk about it as casually as they please.
While at the same time there are news reports of people with alcohol related health problems, yet the government maintains its unsatisfactory alcohol laws.
In excess of 85% of South Australians aged over 14  consume alcohol and over 85% of South Australian school students (aged 12-17) have tried alcohol.  Research has consistently shown that harmful alcohol consumption results in significant economic and social costs to South Australian communities. These costs impact everyone in some way.
•alcohol misuse costs the Australian community 15.3 billion dollars each year when factors such as crime and violence, treatment costs, loss of productivity and premature death were taken into account 
•51% of alcohol consumed is drunk at levels that pose a risk of short-term harm 
•over 3 000 Australians die each year as a result of harmful drinking 
•over 450 000 children (13.2%) live in households where they are at risk of exposure to binge drinking by at least one adult 
The Australian Bureau of Statistics Alcohol Consumption in Australia: A Snapshot, 2004-05 reports that:
•One in eight adults (approximately 2 million people) drink at risky/high risk levels.
•The proportion of people drinking at risky/high risk levels has increased from 8.2% in 1995 to 13.4% in 2004-05.
•15% of adult males and 12% of adult females drink at risky/high risk levels.
•The increase in those drinking at risky/high risk levels since 1995 has been greater for women than men. From the three National Health Surveys since 1995, the proportion of females who drank at risky/high risk levels increased from 6.2% to 11.7%, while for males the increase was from 10.3% to 15.2%, after adjusting for age differences.
•25% of those aged 14-19 years drank alcohol on a daily or weekly basis in the last 12 months.
The 2007 National Drug Strategy Household Survey - First Results, April 2008 reports that:
•Nine out of every ten Australians aged 14 years or older (89.9%) had tried alcohol at some time in their lives and 82.9% had consumed alcohol in the 12 months preceding the 2007 survey.
•The proportion of the population drinking daily fell significantly (from 8.9% to 8.1%) between 2004 and 2007 whereas the average age at which people had their first full serve of alcohol (17 years of age) remained stable.
•The proportion of teenagers drinking at least weekly was around 22%.
•One in 17 (5.7%) admitted to verbally abusing someone while under the influence of alcohol.
•One-quarter (25.4%) of Australians aged 14 years or older had been verbally abused and 4.5% had been physically abused by someone under the influence of alcohol.
•Alcohol was thought to be associated with a drug 'problem' by one in ten Australians (10.5%) aged 14 years or older, whereas 45.2% approved (and a further 33.8% did not oppose) the regular use of alcohol by adults.
•High-risk and risky drinkers were more likely than low-risk drinkers or abstainers to experience high or very high levels of psychological distress.
•At all ages, greater proportions of the population drank at risky or high-risk levels for short-term harm compared with risk for long-term harm.
•Overall, about one third (34.6%) of persons aged 14 years or older put themselves at risk or high risk of alcohol-related harm in the short term on at least one drinking occasion during the previous 12 months.
•Males aged 20-29 years (17.2%) were the most likely group to consume alcohol at risky or high-risk levels for short-term harm at least weekly.
•More than a quarter (26.3%) of 14-19-year-olds put themselves at risk of alcohol-related harm in the short term at least once a month during the previous 12 months; higher among females of this age (28.3%) than males (24.5%).
The following statistics present a picture of the harms related to harmful alcohol consumption experienced in South Australia in 2007:
•More than 466 000 South Australians aged over 14 years drank at harmful levels in the past 12 months.
•Over 192 000 South Australians drink at harmful levels at least once a month.
•Each week over 92,000 South Australians drink at harmful levels.
•Approximately one-quarter of school students aged 12-17 consumed alcohol in the last week.
•Over a quarter of students (27%) engaged in potentially harmful drinking behaviour in the last two weeks.
•Each year 153 000 South Australians are threatened by people who have drunk too much.
•Over 43 000 South Australians state that they have been physically abused by someone affected by alcohol in the past year.
•More than 324 000 South Australians report that they have been verbally abused by someone affected by alcohol in the past year.
•Over 33% of households with children in South Australia think it is acceptable for people to get drunk in public on certain occasions.
•In 2004/05, over 6 750 hospitalisations in South Australia were attributable to alcohol.
•In 2005, 280 deaths in South Australia were attributable to alcohol.
•Almost 65% of all alcohol consumed in South Australia is consumed during risky or high risk drinking sessions.
We find these results deeply concerning.
SAVE THE LAKES / FORESTS / NATURAL RESORTS AND STOP ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION IN KASHMIR.
The National Media Museum has decided to cut costs and close it's TV studio, effecting students and professionals alike.
Anyone who uses this studio currently has no where else to go, with the only option being to buy an inferior place to make programmes with inferior equipment.
Since Bradford has recently been awarded City of Film, why would the National Media Museum do this to everyone?
These facilities currently draw students to Bradford University which will no doubt mean a decline in interest in Bradford media production courses.
The world has watched as South Korea has moved from dictatorship toward democracy, over the last half a century at great cost. However, democracy, including incredible advances made in the culture and media sectors, has suffered serious damage in South Korea under the Lee Myung-bak regime. This damage has been inflected by way of unilateral passage of new media and news laws, the Grand National Party's (GNP) and conservative newspapers' attempt to take-over of public broadcasting and the evening news in particular, and the replacement of major broadcasting networks' executives with pro-government figure. Furthermore, a principle of checks-and-balances among the executive, the legislative, and the judicial branches of the government has been repeatedly violated and weakened the legitimacy of democratic governance.
South Korea in the past two years has been witness to the use of the Public Prosecutor's Office to detain and question journalists critical of the government, infringing on the professional autonomy of rank-and-file reporters and threatening the development of a free and independent press. In addition, the National Tax Service has been used to mobilize politically-motivated institutional audits, while various ministries have been involved in the revocation of NGO licenses and contracts, forced personnel changes, budget cuts, imposition of a real name registration system, pressing of charges of national security violations, and investigations into family members of media movement activists and cultural sector leaders that have been classified as "Born in the Time of DJ (Kim Dae-jung), and Raised by Roh Moo-hyun."
During the past year there have been several forced resignations and/or illegal firings, many of which the Seoul Administrative Court has determined have been illegal but not reversible. While the list is extensive and include the massive personnel and budget cuts at both South Korea's Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the NHRCK that violates the latter's autonomy outlined and protected under Article 10 of the Constitution, notable incidents include:
* Arts Council Korea (ARKO) Chief Executive Officer and Chairman Kim Jung-heun
* National Museum of Contemporary Art Director Kim Yoon-soo
* Korean National University of Arts President Hwang Ji-woo
* KBS President Jung Yun-joo
* KBS Director Shin Tae-seop
* National Human Rights Commission of Korea (NHRCK) Chairperson Ahn Kyung-whan
There have also been:
* many resignations made under political protest of four MBC Board of Directors members and media personality Kim Je-dong
* the parachute appointment of the YTN president
* the defunding of Migrant Worker TV
* the defunding of the Seoul Human Rights Film Festival hosted by Sarangbang
* defunding of RTV (national public access satellite cable channel/ a must-carry channel that launched in 2007)
* an attack on Article 38 of the Broadcast Law stipulating that funds are to be used for supporting viewer-produced programs and providing broadcast access to those otherwise excluded from the mainstream
* shut-down of Indie-Space
These and numerous other instances that suggest consequences of a democracy that is taking backward steps in South Korea have been drawing international attention, including from:
* Experts serving on the United Nations (UN) Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR)
* Reporters without Borders (Reporters sans frontieres, RSF) (According to its 2009 World Press Freedom index, South Korea has dropped 30 places in the past year under President Lee)
* Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ)
* Amnesty International
* International Coordinating Committee (ICC) of National Institutions for the Promotion and Protection Human Rights
* Asia Pacific Forum of National Human Rights Institutions
* Asia Human Rights Commission & a Statement From Professors In North America Concerned About Korean Democracy.
In addition to calls being made to KOFIC at (02)958-7521 or 02-9587-526 and emails being sent to firstname.lastname@example.org ...
Update: Jan 13, 10 *Everyone Thank you so much for your support! I received an email from them this morning that they are going to change the name of the show and take out JACKO! We did it!*
All for LOVE!
There is a Tribute concert being held with the title "JACKO – The Ultimate Thriller -A Tribute To Michael Jackson. Please check out their web site
and more important than signing this petition, please send them an email telling them why they shouldn't be using the name "Jacko" in their tribute show. The email is:
In Australia, there’s a morning show called Sunrise. It’s a pop vox piece with news, current affairs, and very hack journalism. Normally it’s harmless, but today they had a special on ’school bullying’, I listened with interest, having suffered at the hands of bullies, and even at times become one myself, it’s an interesting aspect of growing up that people tend to overlook as far as an emotional and psychological developmental factor in life.
I thought their piece was cute, and as always they ran their usual implementing social justice using their huge fan list and a petition, up until I heard the advert they’re running to promote their campaign. This time they’ve gone too far.
They wish to urge the Australian government to appoint an independent regulator for social media sites. No. Sunrise, no. You will get signatures and support from idiots who don’t realise the danger of what you are suggesting. I am sure that Facebook, Myspace, or Twitter as corporations will lose all respect for our molly coddled nation, with our notorious breach of civil liberties as far as Stephen Conroy’s conjob of the ‘great firewall of australia’ as the government intends to censor our net, or the fact our government do not feel our citizens are old or mature enough to decide on their own entertainment with video games and a lack of R18+ (therefore if a game isn’t suitable for 15 year olds it’s banned) but having our government go to these corporations and say “Sup guise, we want this net nanny to sit on your boards or we’re packing up our toys and going home.” is just ridiculous.
Sunrise needs to google “net neutrality” and get in touch with the people it’s attempting to represent in an ad hoc fashion and appreciate that whilst they will always get a ground swell of bleeding heart viewers, they can, and in this instance have, overstepped the mark. We are not a dictatorship, and our Government interferes with the average citizens life far more than it should in any democratic culture in this nation as it is.
The University of Gloucestershire is proposing to make a number of compulsory redundancies as part of its response to its current financial situation.
The City of Dieppe, New Brunswick has proposed a “Quebec Style” Commercial Signage Bylaw that all commercial signage must be in “ FRENCH ONLY “ or Bilingual while banning English only signage with fines for non compliance.
English and French are both the Official languages in Canada and both Language have Equal Rights and Privileges.
This is clearly DISCRIMINATION against the English language and against our Canadian Constitutional Rights to freedom of expression.
LGBT people are continually mis- or under-represented in the media. As found in GLAAD's 2008 study (see link 1) only 1.1% of all regular characters in the 2007-08 broadcast television schedule were LGBT.
Advertising (especially in the prime time 'advert breaks') reaches a massive audience (an average of about 9 million viewers) and can help to present a very positive message to those who need/would benefit from it.
IKEA have had lots of adverts featuring LGB&T people, both on TV and in print. Their catalogues also feature gay couples and families. In 2007, IKEA ran an ad campaign titled 'Living Room,' which aired across Europe and America. The ad featured a series of families in different living rooms, ending with a bi-racial gay male couple and their daughter, and the voiceover: 'Why shouldn't sofas come in flavours, just like families?' The ad won an award in America from the Commercial Closet Association, a charity which campaigns for positive LGB recognition in advertising. (Link 2)
DFS adverts famously centre around a 'living area' with a family, couple or person in them (Link 3). None of these have ever featured an LGBT family or couple and could quite easily do so.
The 'Pink Pound' (the LGBT market) is worth an estimated £70 million per year in the UK (Link 4).
Link 1: http://tinyurl.com/ya2mpoo
Link 2: http://www.commercialcloset.org/common/adlibrary/video_large.cfm?AdDetail.video=1004-IKEA-Living%20Room.flv&clientID=11064
Link 3: http://www.dfs.co.uk/tv-advertisements
Link 4: http://www.clearchannel.co.uk/content.aspx?ID=276&ParentID=93&MicrositeID=0&Page=1
Beginning in January 2007 and published in April 2009 The Department of Homeland Security issued a report stating that trends in political extremism will increase the frequency of domestic terrorist acts in United States of America.
Preexisting mental instability and/or discriminatory beliefs are fueled by the instability of the socio-economic level, but they are consistently resonated and justified by irresponsible media. Misleading messages and falsified claims display confusing cue such as logo, set design, and pundit labeling, making it difficult for high risk viewers to differentiate between political opinions and facts.
Please sign this petition if you believe that the government has no right to impede on 1st Amendment rights, but you accept the responsibility to reject all medias that inflames violent extremism and the organizations that support these dangerously irresponsible messages.
In the prosecution of Kevin G. Wiggins, on conspiracy and wire fraud charges, it is alleged that United States Attorneys for the Northern District of Georgia conspired with Mr. Wiggins's co-defendant and his co-defendant's attorney to falsify evidence. Such false evidence was presented to the court, along with documents prosecutors submitted to the court containing materially false evidence, and a variety of false statements made by one of the persecutors, which resulted in the sentencing of Mr. Wiggins.
In addition, the prosecutors violated Mr. Wiggins's and his sister's constitutional rights to due process, by deceiving the court into believing that other key participants in the fraud, a loan officer and underwriter, were innocent of the same crimes, and they also misled the court into believing the two closing attorneys in the conspiracy would be charged soon after Mr. Wiggins's sentencing, and to recommend a reduced sentence for his cooperation against the attorneys. It's been over a year and no charges have been filed.
It is also alleged that prosecutors, along with the F.B.I. case agent, prepared a report of Mr. Wiggins's testimony he provided in a debriefing with the government, in which he provided evidence to refute the false claims the appraiser in the case made about Mr. Wiggins's sister. The report was never presented to Mr. Wiggins or his defense attorney, nor the court. Moreover, the evidence disproving the false claims by the appraiser, were deleted from the report, and thereafter the report was provided to Mr. Wiggins's sister and her attorney, which led her to plead guilty under false pretenses, because prosecutors never mentioned the positive testimony her brother provided.
Mr. Wiggins has had a website set up to help bring the outrageous corruption of justice in his and his sister's case to the public's attention, to help prevent it from happening to other citizens of our country.
Whitehaven in Cumbria, UK, was the first town to go digital. But it only receives half the channels that much of Britain receives. And Freeview have now dropped the popular ITV3 and ITV4 channels.
We demand digital equality.
On November 4, 2008, we the American people elected Barack Obama as president based on his campaign theme of “Change We Can Believe In.” His campaign was targeted at common people who wanted a real voice in the governing of our nation, which was supported by the national media via outlets such as CNN’s “Impact Your World” among others.
However, more than eight months since President Obama’s inauguration, many of us have still not had an opportunity to be heard despite our numerous attempts. We have used outlets such as Facebook, Twitter, and have contacted the media in efforts to make our voices heard and to make a difference in our lives and our nation. Yet the media has been selective in who is heard and who is not: their unwritten policy is that if you are not rich or famous, you have no right to be heard, to make a difference, or to exist.
When someone who is rich and famous, such as a politician, a celebrity, or a corporate executive, has something to say, that person is heard immediately by a wide audience. When we have something to say, we are ignored because we do not have the looks, social status, or connections to be heard.
We have been demoralized by the media’s conscious efforts to suppress our voices and to provide us with hypocritical means for us to make our voices heard, when in fact the media has no desire to enact real change other than blindly supporting the agenda of President Obama.
Current events don’t affect only the rich and famous. Current events affect us. Yet the media continues to promote elitist opinions while ignoring what we have to say. We suffer as the Silenced Majority while the rich and famous elite are given untrammelled influence and power to maintain their status while we are bound in anonymity.
Enough is enough. It’s time for action. I am appealing to you, my fellow Americans, to support me in this cause. I ask that everyone, regardless of political affiliation, join me in making ourselves heard. Tell one, tell all, about this petition, and make the media aware that we will not accept the status quo any longer.
Please sign this petition. The stakes are too high for us to remain silent.