Bye, Blogspot

It is sad that I will not be able to update my blog any more, since I am going back to China tomorrow where any blog on the Blogspot is blocked.


I have benefited a lot from publishing the blog, and it is certain that my great interest in media regulation will be always there.

Bye, Blogspot!

Ads on BBC website and fair trading

BBC Trust has given go-ahead to the launch of BBC.com, which means that international users of BBC website will see adverts on selected pages in the near future. The rationale behind this move is that adverts is the obvious way to ask international users, who don't pay license fee, to contribute to the cost of running the website.

Yeah, it could be unfair that international users enjoy BBC content without contrbuting one penny. But I think the rationale behind putting adverts on the BBC website is not really solid, and to some extent, could incur the issue of fair trading.

Basically, BBC is not a commercial organisation. Domestically, it "educates, entertains and informs" the British, but internationally, it promotes the values of UK around the world. One of its public service remits is to "bring the UK to the world". So the BBC international website is not just serving free lunch to international users. It is in the interest of UK, and therefore in the interest of the license fee payers at large. This is more important to those debates on whether it is fair for international users to access the BBC content without paying license fee.

On the other hand, putting adverts on the BBC website would damage the clean image of the BBC, which has been acclaimed as the flagship of public service broadcasting. When studying journalism at school, my British lecturer Morgan appeared very proud when talking about BBC, saying that it has no adverts at all, while expressing his contempt when talking about the comemrcial network CNN. Now, the adverts could increase the revenue for BBC, but the reputation has been hurt. Doing cost-benefit analysis, is BBC really money-wise?

My third point is that the adverts on BBC could lead to another issue: fair trading. Especiall in Europe, other commercial websites, also hungry for online advertisments, will complain that the BBC website will use public money to compete with them. This is in conflict with fair trading, a principle widely adopted in Europe. I remembered Royal Mail had been accused of recieved public funding to compete with other market players. This issue could be brought to the fore in the future.

Should Dow Jones pull CNBC ads? I doubt it

Today I read a report on Dow Jones pulling CNBC ads for Fox Business Network debut. CNBC somehow got Dow Jones to sign a contract allowing the cable business news network to buy all the advertising on Marketwatch.com on Monday, October 15th -- the day that News Corp., the soon to be parent company of Marketwatch, was set to launch its new business network. But Dow Jones pulled the CNBC ads in an apparent attempt to suck-up to Mr. Murdoch.

However, I think Dow Jones really doesnot need worry too much about the CNBC. The Fox Business Network is actually targetting those non-business customers, who just want to understand the basic things of financial market instead of the sophisciated ones. so the two networkws are not really in the same market. Another similar example is Bloomberg and Reuters. People tend to say that Bloomberg poses threat to Reuters, but now the two leading players have gradually developed into different segments of the financial market. I think Murdoch has enough business acumen to understand that it makes no sense to launch another financial channel to compete with CNBC or Bloomberg, which could only result in loss-loss situation. What he is looking at is a niche segment in the financial market.

Convergence and new revenue stream

FT reported on Tuesday that mobile handset-maker Nokia has moved into content service following a string of purchases. The latest one is the $8.1 billion (£4 billion) takeover of Navteq, an American digital map supplier. Analysts said that it is quite expensive, but why was Nokia willing to dig deep into pocket for the new catch?

Nokia has been the leading handset maker in the world for long, but newcomers like google and Apple(newscomers in sense of mobile handset making), boosted by recent fast-paced technology development, start to challenge its dominance. The Gphone or Iphone is starting to eat away the market shares of Nokia.

To survive in the cut-throat competition, Nokia can't just keep to its core business, and there is need for strategic adjustment. That is what Nokia is doing now. It is converging from handsetmaker to service provider, like providing mobile music through its purchase of Loudeye, the US online music company that Nokia bought for $60m last year, or embed video link with content providers like Fox network, CNN and Sony Pictures. Its Mosh section, a social networking website which supports uploading and downloading of content to mobile handset, is also taking off. So the Nokia has already embarked on its convergence campaign.

Nokia may not be the only handset maker to shift into services. Sony Ericsson, which sold 60m music phones last year, has also dabbled in music services, with the launch last year of M-Buzz, which features artists from the Sony BMG label. Miles Flint, chief executive of Sony Ericsson, has hinted there could be more to come.

Put such things into perspective, we see that there is mutual convergence in the telecom industry. Hardware manufacturers are converging into content services, while content service providers are converging into hardware productions. The convergence will bring more added value to each market player. For example in the case of Nokia, it can do more mobile advertisement and targeted marketing, which will be a great source of revenue.

It no longer makes sense to categorise the market players. Nokia is no longer handset maker, but also service provider. BT is no longer operator, but also broadcaster. We have entered an age of convergence. It is a result of economic competition, but also technical development. We will see more convergence coming up....

Without pay wall, will NYT rely more on ads

It is great news that New York Times has freed its online content. There is no doubt that the move would definitely drive far more traffic to NYT website, and would greatly boost the ad revenue of the newspaper, which could make up for the loss of subscription revenue.

The NYT move has earned lots of positive comments from various quarters, given that this is in line with a cliche: information likes to be free. Some went further by arguing that some other papers like Wall Stree Journal and FT could follow suit.

However, I have to put in some critical words here. The Times said that it decided to free the online content because the online ad growth will outpace the growth of the subscription revenue. But one of the dangers for this move is that the NYT will become much more reliant on advertisements. In consequence, one of the possibilities is that NYT could be more influenced by business, and become more obedient to the will of market.

My argument is that a hybrid business model would always emulate a single business model. So far, NYT could get revenue from both subscription and adverstisment, among others. That could enhance NYT's ability for independence and put itself in a stronger position to respond to change of circumstances like the economic recession.

So it is like two sides of a coin. There is both pro and con here for NYT abandoning the pay wall. I don't oppose to its latest move, since I would be one of the beneficiaries as well, but thinking from their stand of point, I argue that NYT could have gone too far at one go. I would prefer that it frees the content in a selective way, otherwise it will have to face another challenge: overreliance on advertisment.

Media law conference kicks off in London

The 2007 Media Law Conference run by MLRC opened on Monday at Stationers' Hall in London. Winningmedia was lucky to be selected to be "official" photographer for the gathering of media lawers from across the world.

It is also lucky to rub shoulders with those media lawyers who have been involved in many high-profile and far-reaching cases of defamtion and privacy. It is a great chance for the just-graduating winningmedia to learn from them.

In the next few days, winningmedia will publish a series of articles on media law.

Google is a paradox

Recent readings have resulted in the title: google is a paradox!

It is paradox in many ways. firstly, they lead the campaign for defending privacy, and call on the United Nations to set a universal privacy standard. However, Google's privacy policies have been under scrutiny recently, after Privacy International accused Google of being "hostile to privacy".

Secondly, Google has a widely known corporate slogan "don't be evil", but some accuse the search engine of being submissive to the Chinese government and being "doing evil".

Thirdly, Google has got a brand enforcement team, which is responsible for any other party use the brand or logo of Google without "express written permission". A London-based blogger, Frank Fuchs, said Google had ordered him to stop using its trademarked logo on his Web site. But Google itself has been the target of many copyright and trademark lawsuits, such as the Google library project, and the lawsuit filed by Viacom, AFP, and AmericanAirlines.

Google is really self-contradictory. Perhaps that is what Google is about.

Can Grade make the grade

There were a lot of media reports(Guardian, FT) on Michael Grade's ambitious plan to "double the ITV income by 2012". As reported, Grade wants to cut regional programming from 17 to nine, and wants to increase in-house production, among others.

Can Grade make the grade?

The regional programming cut would be very controversial and very uncertain. There is a danger of union strike in protest, since hundreds of jobs would be lost as a result of the cut. More importantly, it is still uncertain whether Ofcom would give go-ahead to the cut.
It looks like a paradox for ITV, a commercial public service broadcaster (PSB). They enjoye great benefits of being PSB, like very cheap spectrum and visibility at the EPG, among others. But on the other hand, the commercial broadcasters feel the PSB remit is restraining its ability to generate more advertising revenue.

However, the paradox is not an issue. ITV unnecessarily will need to cut back on its regional programming to revigorate its business. It reminds me of the book "Doing what matters", written by James Kilts et al. When Kilts took over at the Gillette, the business got many problems, like decline of market share, flat sales and earning, acquisitions not deliversing, among others. Kilts could easily go for the divesting of some acquired business, instead he chose not to divest but focus on three strategies: ZOG, FE and TI.
ZOG means zero overhead growth,aiming to control costs and invest the savings in research and marketing.
FE is functional excellence, meaning achieving best-in-class capability and performance at the best possible cost.
TI stands for Total Innovation, meaning that continous innovation to come up with game-changing products.
The strategy revived Gillette, without making any divestment, and it is quite instructive for the ITV. Could ITV control the cost through other ways except the cut on regional programming? Has it achieved the best quality programming with the least cost? Has it been continously working to deliver new game-changing products?

These are what really matters. It makes no sense to focus on the psb remit, which the ITV has really benefited a lot from.

Olympic Logo, epileptic and doping

The BBC was in hot water again as the Coporation was yesterday censured for showing footage of the 2012 Olympic logo which could have triggered epileptic seizures.

While defending itself, BBC said that a major public body (hereof LOCOG) launching a promotion such as this to the public would already have taken steps to ensure compliance and that the graphics would have been tested for photosensitivity and be safe for it to broadcast. The BBC said it would not normally expect to test such images before broadcast."

But Ofcom ruled that "...it is the responsibility of the broadcaster to ensure that flashing images..... This responsibility is particularly important where there is the potential for harm to viewers. The broadcast of this material was therefore in breach of Rule 2.13."

The ruling of Ofcom reminds me of doping in sports. An athlete who failed doping test often claimed to be innocent, arguing that they did not take the forbidden substance intentionally, or somebody have spiked their food, and among others. But
whether intentional or innocent, the responsibility lies with the athletes themselves to ensure that no performance-enhancing drugs in their body.

The rules and regulations on doping serves as very good explanation of what is the responsibility. it is the same case on the issue of epileptic. BBC could shift the reponsibility to the Locog, which had the logo designed, but as a broadcaster, BBC has to ensure its content broadcast is free of those "banned substance" .

By the way, today's reading also led me to think of another question on the relationship between Ofcom and BBC. Recently BBC have been either fined or being censured by Ofcom, but BBC is actually a very special broadcaster as it has its own regulator in the form of BBC Trust. However, recent cases show that Ofcom has played a very active role in the regulation of BBC. I got full answers from the MOU between BBC Trust and Ofcom reached in March.

Noddys, media trust and media literacy

Winningmedia comes back after a half-a-month-long "dissertation leave".

Having gone through the recent media reports, what has interested me is the unabated discussion(see Newstatesman, MediaGuardian) on trust in media, in particular television. All this fuss about media trust has reminded me of the dissertation which I have just submitted.

The dissertation is about how media frame our our perception of the reality by emphasizing or selecting some aspects of an event while excluding others. What reporters are writing is actually not report but story. The media frame is acting like a window, through which we look at the world. How big is the window and which direction it is opening towards shape our perception of the world.

Compared with the media framing, the debate on the use of "noddys" pales in significance. The "noddys" is more about technique, but media framing goes to the heart of the issue, namely, the content and its orientation. Unfortunately, nobody seem to care about media framing, with all jumping to the bandwagon of "noddys".
it is nothing but a blinder which keeps us from seeing the broader picture.

We may have too high expectations for media, so that we tend to feel "decieved" by such things as noddys. But what I want to remind everyone of is that the news world is anything but perfect. Framing is something inherent in it, and noddys is simply a result of current media culture.

So we don't need to make a big fuss of the "noddys", instead we need to improve our media literacy, and always keep critical eye on the media world. That is the only realistic way or solution to the current issue of media trust.

busy with dissertation

hi, this notice serves to prove that I am still in London but work really hard on my dissertation. so can't find enough time to read and write. but will make up for this when submitting the paper on Sept.2.
See you soon

Vote for Google bid for open wireless spectrum

I will stand for Google's campaign for open wireless spectrum!
Guardian reported today that the dotcom group has looked likely to enter the US wireless market after the US regulator agreed to change the way it plans to sell off part of the airwaves in November.
There has been growing speculation on whether Google will launch its own mobile phone, like Gphone, or Google simply wants to use the wireless spectrum for his WiFi project which will enable more people to be online at any time and at any place.
But whatever direction Google will go in, I am most interested in the implications for its entry into the wireless market.
In the United States, the wireless spectrum has long been dominated or monoponized by the telecom operators, like AT&T or Verizon. Consequentially, when Iphone is launched, it has to be tied to the operator AT&T, as anybody who buys Iphone must sign up for the network provided by AT&T for at least two years. Such exclusive contract is nothing but anti-competitive. Unfortunately AT&T can't provide the best service, which has affected the sales of Iphone, and lead to the drop of Apple's shares.
So Google bid for an open wireless spectrum will challenge the current monopoly. Though the wireless operators will resist, the wind appears not to blow in their way.
I will stand for Google's wireless bid, and hope to see it does that not just in the United States, but in other markets as well.

Murdoch need PR

In China there is a saying: a person is so poor that he has only money left. It suggests that wealthy as they are, people are very poor in other respects, like knowledge, good image, or happiness.
This could be applied to Mr. Rupert Murdoch, who is undoutedly rich, given his expanisve media empire. But he is so poor in other areas like reputation.
The recent reports could underline my argument. The first is Murdoch's takeover of Dow Jones. People, whether politicians or journalists, had voiced their concern over Murdoch's hands-on approach to editorial policy. Though the takeover went ahead eventually, Murdoch had to fend off criticism which normally reserved for "genocidal tyrants", which he himself had confessed.
The second example is the decision by a green group to drop an attempt to becoming charity partner with BskyB, a media property owned by Murdoch. The environmental group, Friends of the Earth, had thought of using the proposed close tie with BskyB to access its great number of customers as well as donations from the broadcaster, however, the staff of the organisation warned that this could damage its reputation as indepedence, and the deal therefore was scraped.
The third example is that the Office of Fair Trading is considering referring BSkyB's purchase of Sir Alan Sugar's Amstrad electronics company to the Competition Commission. Currently, BskyB is also subject to competition investigation for his purchase of the ITV shares late last year.
So the priority for Murdoch, in my view, is no longer the continued expansion of his media empire, but some reflection on people's responses to his business development, and turn to PR guru to burnish its image.
In a sense, Murdoch is so rich that he has only money to burn.

Less regulation is not better regulation

following the phone-in scandal which beset some public service broadcasters, another scandal broke out, this time involving the broadband companies. Which? tested 300 consumer internet connections, which were promised speeds of up to 8Mb/sec. It found the average speed to be just 2.7Mb/sec, with the slowest connection crawling along at less than 0.09Mb/sec.
So it seems that consumers have been misled by the advertisment of the broadband companies, however, media regulator Ofcom appeared not to be in a hurry to address the situation, saying that they may look at the issue if there is increasing complaints.
I doubt this would be the right attitude for Ofcom on this issue, and I suspect Ofcom might have been aware of this issue long before the issue was raised by media reports. Actually when Virgin Media and Sky were locked in a bitter fight, they had attacked each other regarding broadband. The infighting between media companies provided some information which would otherwise be concealed between themsleves. If you take the Tube, you will not miss those advertisments by Virgin Media like "broadband, speed, and the truth".
it is hard for Ofcom to miss such revealing advertisement, but the issue seems to be not yet on their agenda.
Ofcom may have adhered to the faith that less regulation is better regulation, and only regulate only when necessary. Under this motto, they may have prefered ex-post approach, waiting for the situation to further develop. But in this case, the slow response to the broadband issue could only catch Ofcom off guard, and put them under fire for slow response. I would suggest them deal with it as seriously and quickly as possible, since broadband has been something very comon in our society and would have relate to many people.
Sometimes less regulation is not better regulation.

More to come after Dow Jones deal

Whether you like it or not, the fact is that Murdoch managed to add Dow Jones to his expansive media empire. Sad? Yes, I can't help feeling that. In the protracted debate on Murdoch's bid, the forces supporting Dow Jones' editorial independence have been locked in a bitter fight with the forces seeking commercial profit. At the end of the day, money speak louder, and Murdoch's smiles are splashed across the frontpages of the world newspapers.

More sadly, the media, the special instrument to democracy, will continue to see concentration through merger or takeover. As Amercian scholar Mchesney pointed out, media concentration begets concentration, Murdoch's takeover of Dow Jones will spark a new wave of concentration. Other rivals like Financial Times or NBC, among others, will have to responde to the takeover to survive in the market dominated by jungle law.

I may have to say that in the age of capitalism, money is the master. You could fight for public interest, but at the end of the day, money will carry the day.

One-way ratchet and music copyright

As MediaGuardian reported, the music industry has reacted with outrage to the government's rejection of pleas to extend the period musicians get royalties from their tracks beyond the current 50 years.

The copyright extension has been one of the most controversial issues in copyright. So far, the copyright protection for performers in the United States is 95 years from release and in Australia it is 70 years. So the British music industry has felt wronged by the protection period of no more than 50 years, claiming that musicians are "second-class citizens" in Britain.

I, however, have less sympathy for them. Many people actually have failed to precisely interpret the copyright law, whose purpose is "not to reward the labor of musicians, but to promote the progress of science and culture". The appropriate reward to the musicians will help promote the progress of science and culture, but over-rewarding, like the overlong protection period, would only hamper its progress.

It is not hard to imagine what would happen if the music copyright is protected for a very long time, say, the whole life of musicians. This "eternal protection" would only disincentivise musicians from creating music and living on the lifetime reward. More importanly, the failure for music works to enter the pulic realm could also restrict the recreation of music works and limit the development of music industry. So the copyright has to be under check and balance.

Another worrying trend is that the copyright for musicians has turned into the copyright for media corporates, who sign up the musicians to secure the right to their works. The protection of artists' works is actually protecting the commercial interests of the conglomeratese like Sony and Disney, among others. As former editor of the Financial Times Andrew Gowers said, "For quite a number of years, probably for decades, intellectual property protection has been regarded as, in a way, a one-way ratchet. The people demanding more intellectual property protection have tended to be larger, better financed, more articulate than the fragmented number of consumers who pay the price for it,"

People who are criticising the British government's stand on the musical right claimed that the British creative industry will be hurt by their rejection of the copyright extension, and Britain's status as the center of world creative industry will be under threat. However, I think, thanks to the check and balance given to the copyright protection, Britain could retain its status as the cretive industry center.

Facebook lawsuit smacks of sour grape

The darling of global youngsters, Facebook, is facing a copyright-infringment law suit from the former three classmates of its founder Zuckerberg.

The case will be heard soon, so I will not make comments on the rights or wrongs of the interested parties. However, the case does nothing but remind me of another already finished case where author of best-seller Davinci Code, Brown, was sued for "stealing ideas" from another book titled Holy Blood Holy Grail.

In my point of view, both cases reminds me of the term "sour grape".

lets look at the first case first. The plaintiff was the Zuckerber's former classmates and founders of the ConnectU site.

ConnectU now has 70,000 users, while Facebook has become a worldwide success with 52 million users, 6 million of whom are based in the UK. Already the subject of a $1bn approach from Yahoo!, the company said this week it would only consider selling out for more than $10bn

There is great similarity in the case of Davinci Code. Both books, the Davinci Code and Holy Blood, Holy Grail, explore theories that Jesus married Mary Magdalene, the couple had a child and the bloodline survives, but it was Brown’s book which has won millions of fans across the world.

If the Facebook or Davinci Code were not becoming a smashing success in the market, I don't think people would bother to sue them. But when Davinci Code becomes a global blockbuster, and when Facebook is billed as the next big thing after the Youtube, there is a lot of jealousy arising from the plaintiffs in question.

I am not talking from a legal perspective, but I want to say that if you really think others steal your ideas, why could the so-called "thief", instead of the allegedly "true owners", win the day? The "thief" must have done something different or special on the basis of the original idea, and make the difference between a ordinary product and a highly popular one. That difference could do enough to justify the "thief".

Sky is the example

Public service broadcasters are expected to serve the public wholeheartedly, but they could manipulate the phone-in programmings and squander people's trust. The commercial broadcasters like Sky are not expected to be good example in this, but they have been singled out for praised by the regulator Ofcom. As Sky chief excecutive James Murdoch posited, we may not be liked by the establishment, but we earned people's trust.
We seem to live in an age of confusion. How could this happen? Sky, often teased or debased by people for their commercial greed, indeed have been free of the recent phone-in scandle hitting public service broadcasters like BBC. Some people may accuse Sky of offering the lowest common denominator regarding commercial programming, but they also offer many high-brow programs, like arts channel. Sky News also enjoy great reputation for its timeliness and reliablity. Really good stuff!
James said that is because they, genuinely, care about customers. He is right in saying so. But I think there is more reason than that.
UK is blessed with public service tradition, compared with the overcommercialised United States, and UK also benefits from its mixed media system. You got dedicated PSB, commercial PSB, and pay satellite tv like Sky and pay cable tv like Virgin media. In this mix, the overcommercialisation of sky and virgin could be checked and balanced. On the other hand, psb also can't keep paternalistic as what they had done before, trying to educate people about what is good and what is bad. They are under pressure to improve programming, making good popular and making popular good. The mixed media system could most easily lead to healthy competition.
This is the bottom reason why Sky doesnot join the ranks of those US commercial broadcasters, and continue to provide some high quality programs to serve the public interest.
Unfortunately, when trying to attract consumers' attention, the public service broadcaster went too far, and took an audacious gamble on their reputation. It is a disgrace to them, in particular given the good example by Sky.
But in a mixed media system, the PSB is under pressure to correct mistakes, and get better. not only because they are using public money, but also because they don't want Sky to set example for them, which would be a shame to their psb status.

BBC:it never rains but pours

The last week was nothing but nightmare for BBC, whose credibility appeared to be put into question. first it was fined 50,000 pounds for faking a winner on Blue Peter Phone-in competition, then was hit by the Crowngate affair, before the Treasury complained about a BBC Newsnight program on new PM Gordon Brown.

It seems that it never rains but pours, and the public service broadcaste is facing its biggest crisis of confidence since a slip of the tongue by Andrew Gilligan on the Today programme led to a bitter battle with the government and brought down the BBC's director-general and chairman. But there is still difference between them. BBC won much sympathy and support from both media and society in general in the Gilligan affair, however, on this occassion, BBC could only have themselves to blame.

what is wrong with the editing control of the BBC? The two films on Gordon and Queen
respectively are commissioned to the indepedent producers, like RDF or an indepedent document-maker. They may not be the in-house staff, but for the outsiders, they all represent BBC. Of course, when commissioning the programs from the indepedent producers, BBC has editorial control, which is also stipulated in the Code of Practice of BBC Commissioning. However, the Code of Practice is full of the rules and regulations on programming rights and revenue participation, with only three or four lines devoted to the section of Editorial Control. It could show that what people mainly concern is not the editorial control but the way of dividing commercial benefits between them.

Besides, what I can'tunderstand or accept is the way they, whether BBC or indepedent producers, edit the programs. They could change the sequence of events for dramatic effects, to drive up the viewer ratings. Unfortuantely such kind of mediation is linked with BBC, which could undermine the reputation of the dedicated public service broadcaster. That would be the last thing on the mind of BBC management, since BBC has tried to distinguish itself from other commercial broadcasters or new media by describing it as a reliable and credible source of information in the digital age.

BBC could reduce the pressure by shifting blame to the indepedent producers, but it would be fragile excuse, since they are expected to have editorial control on it. In this case they should focus on themselves and doing some "serious" heartsearching. instead of finding scapegoats. Alastair Campbell's diary revealed that both Blair and him tended to use the term "not serious" to describe those who they disagree with or dislike. In this case, Campbell, who has had a checkered history with BBC, would say that BBC is "not serious" enough.

Damage have been done, although BBC could adopt some damaging-limiting measures. But the most important is to be serious enough, but not panicky, to find out the bottom cause. Does BBC have given too much attention to ratings and commercial rights, instead of editorial content? Does BBC have, inadvertently, been driven by the market and confuse them with other commercial broadcasters? Such questions are really serious questions BBC need to think seriously about.

Internet challenge to contempt of court law

Today read a report carried by the New York Times on how British media might commit the contempt of court in their coverage of the terrorist attack at Glasgow airport.
According to the report, the British police said that the photos of those arrested over the botched attack at a Glasgow airport should not be published. however, what confuses me is that the names of those arrested have been published, so what is the difference it make by prohibiting the publication of the photos.
It reminds me of the trial on the alleged raping of a 17-year-old girl by seven English Premiership footballers in 2003. The judge had asked media not to name any of the suspect footballers to ruin the future trial. Even the broadcasters like BskyB had to take care not to carry any football chants that name those alledgedly involved. But the NY report only stressed that no photo of the suspect terrorist should be published. In my view, if the name has been published, it has posed the risk that the future trial could be ruined by the premature media trial.
But I agreed with the NY report in questioning whether the contempt of court law on media is out of step with the new media era. Old media are still subject to those restrictions, but those information on the subjects of the crime investigation could be easily found at the internet. So the new media is challenging the law, which probably should be put under review to make it more relevant to the current times.