To pay for online news?

Have you ever imagined that one day we can never search and read general interest news stories online for free? Will you stick on reading them regardless how much it will charge, or will you seek for some other alternatives to acquire the information?

News International, the British division of Rupert Murdoch's News Corp., announced on Friday that two of its newspapers, The Times and The Sunday Times of London, are set to begin charging readers using its sites in June. The two papers have been offering their content in a combined news Web site called Times Online. The sites will reportedly be offered for 1 pound (S$2.1) for a day's access, or 2 pounds (S$4.2) for a week's subscription. Those fees will cover access to both sites, which will be available for free during a trial period.

Internet is a great facilitator in the sense that it enables people to access to a large amount of information at finger tips. Computer-mediated-communication helps communicators to be heard throughout the world, as well as to hear the voice from many others from every corners of the world. We are becoming more and more used to the way we get information and feel kind of handicapped if we cannot access to the internet. Charging readers of certain internet content serves as a barrier to some extent. Although the charging is not expensive, it will still keep some regular readers from subscribing.

"At a defining moment for journalism, this is a crucial step towards making the business of news an economically exciting proposition," News International CEO Rebekah Brooks said in a broadly reported statement. She added that "This is just the start" but did not offer up details on plans for the company's two other U.K. publications. Meanwhile, in another move to save his business, Murdoch continues to point fingers at Google for depriving the industry of revenue by making news articles searchable for free. He plans to press legal action against the search giant if talks fail over its indexing of news content.

By adding extra charge, they are obviously maximizing their profit margin in the competitive market. While the two news websites are for general interest information, but not for academic or professional works, is it still necessary to charge public readers? CMC has already made it possible to access to world wide web which provides all kinds of information that updates people with the latest situations in the world. Do they have any advantage in charging the internet content? Will people be willing to pay for it for just turn to other websites? It is still to be seen after the trial period. Consumers are always the leaders in the market.

Chinese minister insists Google obey the law

To leave or not to leave. That is a question. Whether or not Google Inc. will leave China market has become a hot topic these days.

In the January announcement on Google's official blog made by David Drummond, SVP, Corporate Development and Chief Legal Officer, it reads that"...These attacks and the surveillance they have uncovered--combined with the attempts over the past year to further limit free speech on the web--have led us to conclude that we should review the feasibility of our business operations in China. We have decided we are no longer willing to continue censoring our results on Google.cn, and so over the next few weeks we will be discussing with the Chinese government the basis on which we could operate an unfiltered search engine within the law, if at all. We recognize that this may well mean having to shut down Google.cn, and potentially our offices in China."

In response to the announcement made above, Chinese government replied without hesitation. "If you want to do something that disobeys Chinese law and regulations, you are unfriendly, you are irresponsible and you will have to pay consequences", Li Yizhong, the minister of Industry and Information Technology, said on the sidelines of China's annual legislature. Li insisted that Beijing needs to censor Internet content to protect the rights of the country and its people. "If there is information that harms stability or the people, of course we have to block it." he said.

There is no consensus on China's censorship of Internet content, with each party sticks on their own stand. We don't know whether Google will leave the country of great profit opportunities, but one thing can be sure of is that China government does not want any form of harm to be placed on the nation's stability. Among the four functions of the media defined by Charles Wright, correlation and cultural transmission have more to do with influencing the way people evaluate issues, no matter big or small the issue is. Media is influential enough that it can sometimes manipulate people's perceptions on certain issues. Marshall McLuhan also argues that the medium has the power to change the way we live and experience the world. In such way of thinking, we can understand why China government insists on filtering the messages on the websites. China is a Sovereign nation that may not come to agreement with some western countries on some affairs, but western countries cannot instill their opinions to the people in China, in a way of cultural imperialism. So China has the right to formulate its own laws, to formulate its own system for punishing violators, and those companies that do not wish to abide by those laws are quite free to choose not to continue their business there.

Besides, China is not the only country that has such disagreement with Google, similar cases also exist in countries such as Germany, England, France, Korea, and America. Each country has its own regulations, whether to stay and accept the rules or to leave the country, its Google's choice.

Cheryl Cole to meet husband

Broken-hearted Cheryl has reportedly agreed to meet with estranged husband Ashley Cole to discuss the future of their marriage. It is believed Cheryl, 26, intends to see 29-year-old Ashley next week to talk through their problems. However, the Girls Aloud star's closest friends are worried the sportsman will convince her to give him another chance, despite his infidelities. The source added to the Daily Mirror newspaper:' Her friends are worried he could still win her back. Even though she's furious about the way he's behaved, no one's convinced her she's totally over him. She's hurt and confused.'

As we know, people in the west are more open towards their interpersonal relationships than we are; it is easier for them to form a relationship than to maintain it for a long period of time. Famous artists and sportsman are just amongst many of those whose marriage is not for lifetime. I strongly feel that relationship formation is not that difficult for many, the key factor in determining whether or not a relationship can last long is how the two parties make efforts in the process of maintenance. Conflicts are unavoidable in any relationship; what is more, some degree of conflicts is generally considered healthy for a relationship.

In Knapp's Model of Relational Development, after initiating, experimenting, intensifying, integrating and bonding, the relationship then comes to the stages of coming apart. Having been engaged in marriage, Ashley didn't work hard on their marriage; instead, his behavior is really hurting and is harmful on the relationship. This can be traced back solely to his personality, or it can be the result of their differentiating after their bonding. Differentiating can benefit, even strengthen a relationship; differentiation can be a harbinger of relational decay and eventually dissolution. In this individual case, differentiation is obviously placing negative influence on the relationship. The most delighting thing in this relationship is that the girl is willing to give her husband a second chance and ignore his flaw history. This is really a brave move. As an old saying goes:" old habits die hard." Personally, I really find it hard to trust a man like this a second time. While maybe she just enjoys his company and loves him so much that cannot let go of him. Anyway, they should give it a try before blindly terminate the relationship.

Although appearance attractiveness has a big impact in the early stages of a relationship, it cannot be the only reason for any marriage. To develop a healthy and long-lasting relationship, they must have many other things in common to share with, to appreciate, and to love more of each other.

Talks between powers

Relationships between world powers are changing all the time-that could be due to their pursuit of self-interest, profit maximization, and disagreement on some political policies. This brings up the necessity of strategic talks between powers for both parties to negotiate.

Recently, the talks between Chinese officials and representatives of Dalai Lama were arranged. Few expect the talks make much progress, nor tensions in Tibet to subside.

For such sensitive issue which will affect a country's national integrity, spokesmen of both sides must choose their words cautiously and intentionally. The language we use always expresses our ideas or opinions; as for relationships between countries, what kind of words are used as well as how the spokesmen deliver the messages, all represent their own stance. International relationship, as well as that of different parties within one country, is really a sensitive issue that if miscommunication occurs, it could trigger cold wars, trade barriers and whatsoever unfavored things to happen. In the case of China and Tibet(of course I'm not saying Tibet is independent from China), both parties expect to realize their own interest during talks, in another word, language reflect its users. So for the effective talks between the two parties, some critical principle are extensionally-centred strategy, direct and specific use of language, flexible in language use, as well as engaging in perceptive checking.

Obama meeting Dalai Lama just makes this issue much more complicated. China government strongly oppose U.S president's meeting with the head of Tibet area. Such "internal affair" should be settled by the internal powers, so the third party's intervention will make the issue harder to handle, and probably at the risk of a coming up rigid relationship between U.S and China. As China and U.S are two of the most influential powers in the world, any miscommunication will be detrimental to both political and economic aspects.

The issue of Tibet has been argued since long time ago, but little progress has seen. Anyway, just wish that peace will finally achieved in the west part of China!!

Reunion between Jay Chou and Jolin Tsai?

Five years after their romance ended, singers Jay Chou and Jolin Tsai were caught on what the media said was a date at a Taipei bowling alley.

First of all, I would like to make it clear that I'm not a fan of either Jay or Jolin; I'm also not to gossip about their relationship here. But the fact is that relationships between famous singers or movie stars are always the hot issues of some entertainment websites and magazines. It seems headlines of famous people's affairs will always attract attentions from the public. The only way through which people get to know about famous stars is the mass media. People always judge a star not only by what they observe by their own eyes, but more often by how stars are reported in a piece of daily news.

Nowadays, people seem to care less about the reports on popular stars. Of course there are exceptional cases, for instance, Edison Chen's scandal. However, one prerequisite for it to draw public attention and to spur wide discussion is to make sure the news sources are credible. Thinking of few years ago when I was extremely passionate in collecting stars' news, especially my favorite ones, I feel it is so childish and stupid of me to fully convince what reporters had written were the facts.

Years have passed, maybe it's improper for such a big girl to be that gossip, especially when the issues seem to have no interception with my life. What is more, years of experience have taught me that sometimes news itself is just for the sake of making news, so I'd better be neutral towards whatever I am informed with. However, I think it is high time for mass media as a whole, as an important tool to deliver messages to the public, to provide more reliable information. Effective communications emphasize taking responsibility for the things we talk about and the way we talk about them. Our constructions of reality, according to the Social Constructionist Model, often distort our communication. In this sense, I strongly feel it is of great importance how the reporters interpret the situations; they are in the control of whether the public is "informed" or "fooled".

So images can be made so that famous people can be modeled to be either graceful or graceless. To some extent, this could also be labeled as "communication creates individuals". For the case whether Jay and Jolin are in relationship again, it is for both parties of communication to take their responsibilities-- how one side's gonna deliver the message and how the other side's gonna interpret the message received.