شركت‌كنندگان در كنفرانس سالانه مجمع راهبري اينترنت در شرم‌الشيخ مصر عنوان كردند كه با وجود اقدام آمريكا در كاهش كنترل خود برروي سازمان خصوصي اداره كننده اينترنت - آيكان -، اينترنت همچنان تحت كنترل اين كشور باقي مانده است. به گزارش سرويس فن‌آوري اطلاعات خبرگزاري دانشجويان ايران (ايسنا)، طبق توافق ماه سپتامبر ميان وزارت بازرگاني آمريكا و آيكان - سازمان نظارت بر نامها و ارقام اينترنتي - در اقدامي به‌منظور پاسخگويي بيش‌تر از سوي آيكان، هيات‌هايي براي بازبيني كار اين سازمان در بخش‌هاي كليدي ايجاد شدند كه در پاسخ به درخواست‌ها براي جهاني كردن بيش‌تر آيكان شامل نمايندگان دولت‌هاي ديگر خواهند بود. اما نمايندگان شركت‌كننده در كنفرانس مجمع راهبري اينترنت (IGF) كه روز چهارشنبه به كارش پايان داد، با سود بردن از اين نشست خاطرنشان كردند اين سازمان همچنان تحت كنترل بسياري است و برخي از آن‌ها خواستار جايگزين شدن يك سازمان بين‌المللي به جاي آيكان شدند؛ حتي گروهي به نام جامعه اينترنت چين خواستار برچيده شدن اين سازمان شد. آيكان كه در كاليفرنياي آمريكا واقع است، بر سيستم نام دامنه (DNS) كه زيرساخت فني وب است و امكان مي‌دهد آدرس‌هاي وب سايت‌ها به‌جاي مجموعه‌اي از ارقام به حروف نوشته شوند، مديريت مي‌كند. اين سازمان از سال 1998 تحت توافق با اداره اطلاعات و مخابرات ملي وزارت بازرگاني آمريكا فعاليت كرده است. در نشست امسال مجمع راهبري اينترنت كه به مدت چهار روز برگزار شد، بيش از 1500 نماينده از دولت‌ها، گروه‌هاي مدافع، سازمان‌هاي غيردولتي و بخش خصوصي براي بحث در مورد آينده اينترنت گردهم آمدند.

روزنامه niiu كه نخستين روزنامه شخصي شده اروپا به شمار مي‌رود و طبق تمايل خوانندگان تهيه و قبل از ساعت هشت صبح به درب خانه آن‌ها تحويل داده مي‌شود، براي اولين بار در برلين منتشر شد. به گزارش ايسنا، مشتريان اين نشريه موضوع مورد علاقه در سياست، مد يا هر موضوع ديگري را انتخاب كرده و برمبناي موضوعات مورد علاقه‌شان، مانند هر نشريه ديگري آن را دريافت مي‌كنند. مقالات اين روزنامه از نشريات بزرگ آلماني مانند هاندلزبلات، بيلد، تگ اشپيگل و نشريات بين‌المللي مانند اينترنشنال هرالد تريبون يا نيويورك تايمز و همچنين وبلاگ‌هاي بزرگ و منابع خبري اينترنتي تهيه مي‌شوند. براي حق چاپ اين خبرها niiu حق مجوز به اين روزنامه‌ها پرداخت مي‌كند و در مقابل به مخاطبان جوان‌تري دست مي‌يابد كه بيشتر دانشجو بوده و 1.20 يورو (1.79 دلار) براي دريافت اخبار خود پرداخت مي‌كنند كه ارزان‌تر از قيمت اغلب روزنامه هاي آلماني است. دو كارآفرين جواني كه ايده انتشار اين نشريه را به اجرا گذاشتند، از كسب و كار خود اظهار رضايت و عنوان كرده‌اند: بيش از هزار نفر براي دريافت niiu از طريق اينترنت ثبت نام كرده و تقاضا داده‌اند. اين دو اميدوارند بتوانند در شش ماه آينده و بيش از عرضه اين نشريه به‌صورت ملي، پنج هزار نسخه در روز چاپ كنند. اين روزنامه در ابتدا 16 صفحه خواهد بود اما احتمالا خوانندگان مي‌توانند طول نشريه‌اي را كه تحويل داده شده، انتخاب كنند. به‌عنوان مثال در روزهاي پرمشغله اين روزنامه را در هشت صفحه و در روزهايي كه فرصت بيش‌تري براي خواندن دارند در 60 صفحه دريافت كنند.

تلفن مرکز پخش ۰۹۳۵۴۶۹۳۱۷۲

 Normative Media Theories

The first attempt at a comparative statement of major theories of the press dates from 1956 and it remains the major source and point of reference for work of this kind. The four- fold division made by Siebert et al. has been retained, although supplemented by two further types, in recognition of more recent developments in thinking, if not in practice. It may be that the original `four theories' are still adequate for classifying national media systems, but as the original authors were aware, it can often be that actual media systems exhibit alternative, even inconsistent, philosophical principles.

It is thus appropriate to add further theories to the original set, even if they may not correspond to complete media systems, since they have now become part of the discussion of press theory and provide some of the principles for current media policy and practice.

The paragraphs below are not summaries but attempts to express the enduring core of truth that they contain. Changes in media have widened the scope of reference from printed press alone, but the word `press' is still conventionally used to refer to other media, especially in their journalistic functions.

Authoritarian Theory

The term was given by Siebert and remains an appropriate one, since the theory identifies, first of all, the arrangements for the press which held in societies when and where the press first began, for the most part monarchies in which the press was subordinated to state power and the interests of a ruling class. The name can also refer to a much larger set of contemporary press arrangements, ranging from those in which support or neutrality is expected from the press in respect of government and state, to those in which the press is deliberately and directly used as a vehicle for repressive state power. Uniting all cases where the theory holds is the lack of any true independence for journalists and their subordination (ultimately by force) to state authority.

Authoritarian theory justifies advance censorship and punishment for deviation from externally set guidelines which are especially likely to apply to political matters or any with clear ideological implications.

The variety of forms in which authoritarian theory can be expressed or enforced is wide, including: legislation; direct state control of production; enforceable codes of conduct; use of taxation and other kinds of economic sanction; controlled import of foreign media; government right of appointment of editorial staff; suspension of publication.

It is easy to identify authoritarian theory in pre-democratic societies and in societies that are openly dictatorial or repressive, for instance under conditions of military rule, occupation or martial law.  It is unlikely that under such conditions the media can operate under any other principle.

However, it would be a mistake to ignore the existence of authoritarian tendencies in relation to the media in societies that are not generally or openly totalitarian.

There are cases and occasions when authoritarianism expresses the popular will and, in all societies, there are situations where media freedom may conflict with some interests of the state or society in general, for instance under conditions of terrorist insurgency or threat of war.

It is also the case that elements of authoritarianism linger on in relation to some media rather than to others. Thus in many countries there are more controls on theater, film, and broadcasting. In particular, the way is often kept open in the licensing arrangements for direct access or control under conditions of national need. We should not, in consequence, regard the theory as merely a historical survival or a relatively rare deviation from established norms. It still offers a justification for submitting the media to those who hold power in society, whether legitimately or not. The main principles of the theory can be briefly summarized:

- Media should do nothing which could `undermine established authority-or disturb order.

- Media should always (or ultimately) be subordinate to established authority.

- Media should avoid offense to majority, or dominant, moral and political values.

- Censorship can be justified to enforce these principles.

- Unacceptable attacks on authority, deviations from official policy or offenses against moral codes should be criminal offenses.

- Journalists or other media professionals have no independence within their media organization.

Free Press Theory

This relabeled version of Siebert et al's libertarian theory` has its origin in the emergence of the printed press from official control in the seventeenth century and is now widely regarded as the main legitimating principle for print media in liberal democracies. Perhaps, because of its long history, great potency and high symbolic value free press theory has attracted a very large literature (useful sources are: Smith, 1973; Curran and Seaton, 1985; Rivers et al., 1980). It is both a simple theory and one that contains or leads to some fundamental inconsistencies.

In its most basic form it merely prescribes that an individual should be free to publish what he or she likes and is thus an extension of other rights - to hold opinions freely, to express them, to assemble and organize with others. The underlying principles and values are thus identical with those of the liberal democratic state, a belief in the supremacy of the individual, in reason, truth and progress, and ultimately the sovereignty of the popular will. Complications and potential inconsistencies have arisen only when attempts have been made to account for press freedom as a fundamental right, to set limits to its application and to specify the institutional forms in which it can best find expression and protection in particular societies. As a statement of opposition to authoritarianism and as a pure expression of libertarianism, as from the pen of John Stuart Mill, few such problems arise.

Even so, the motives for advancing it have always been somewhat mixed. It has been seen as an expression of opposition to colonialism (first in the American colonies); as a useful safety valve for dissent; as an argument for religious freedom; as a defense against misrule; as an end in itself; as a means of arriving at truth; as a concomitant and component of commercial freedom; as a practical inevitability.

A central and recurring element has been the claim that free and public expression is the best way to arrive at truth and expose error, hence the wide currency of Milton's eloquent  denunciation of censorship in Areopagitica and of John Stuart Mill's more liberal restatement two centuries later: the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race, posterity as well as the existing generation, those who dissent from the opinion, even more than those who hold it, if the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth;

If wrong, they lose what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. A free press has thus been seen as an essential component of a free and rational society. The nearest approximation to truth will emerge from the competitive exposure of alternative viewpoints and progress for society will depend on the choice of 'right' over 'wrong' solutions.

Political theories of the enlightenment posited, in any case, a convergence between the good of society, the general welfare and the good of the individuals composing it, which only they could perceive ind express.

The advantage of a free press is that it allows this expression and enables 'society' to know what its members aspire to. Truth, welfare and freedom must go together and control of the press can only lead ultimately to irrationality or repression, even if it may seem justifiable in the short term.Aside from its various justifications, free press theory would seem to need no elaboration beyond such a simple statement as is contained in the First Amendment to the American Constitution which states that 'Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech or of the press'.

It is thus simply an absolute right of the citizen. In practice the application of press freedom has been far from straightforward. The question of whether it is an end in itself, a means to an end, or an absolute right has never been settled and there are those, from the time of Milton to the present, who have argued that if freedom is abused to the extent of threatening good morals and the authority of the state, it must be restrained.

According to Pool (1973) 'No nation will indefinitely tolerate a freedom of the press that serves to divide the country and to open the floodgates of criticism against the freely chosen government that leads it'.For the most part, in societies which have recognized press freedom, the solution has been to free the press from advance censorship but to leave it answerable to the law for any consequences of its activities that infringe other individual rights or the legitimate claims of society.

The protection (of their reputation, property, privacy and moral development) of individuals, of groups and minorities and the security or even dignity of the state have often taken precedence over the absolute value of freedom to publish. Much difficulty has also arisen over the institutional forms in which press freedom has become embodied. In many contexts, press freedom has become identified with property rights and has been taken to mean the right to own and use means of publication without restraint or interference from government.

The chief justification for this view aside from the assumption that freedom in general means freedom from the government, has been through the transfer of the analogy of the 'free market of ideas' expressed above to the real free market in which communication is a good to be manufactured and sold. Freedom to publish is, accordingly seen as a property right that will safeguard as much diversity as exist and is expressed by free consumers bringing their demands to the marketplace. Press freedom thus becomes identified with private ownership of the media and freedom from interference in the market. Not only have monopoly tendencies in press and other media made this a very doubtful proposition, but the extent of external financial interests in the press seems to many as potent a source of constraint on liberty of expression as does any governmental action.

Moreover, under modern conditions, the notion that private ownership guarantees to the individual a realistic possibility as well as the right to publish looks absurd.

The pure theory of press freedom presupposes that some tangible benefits of liberty will actually be delivered. Certain other problems and inconsistencies can also be noted.

First, it is very unclear to what extent the theory can be held to apply to public broadcasting, which now accounts for a large part of media activity in many societies which also remain attached to ideals of individual liberty.It is also unclear how far it applies to other important spheres of communication activity where freedom may be equally important-as in education, culture and the arts. Secondly, the theory seems designed to protect opinion and belief and has much less to say on 'information', especially in matters to do with access, privacy and publication, where personal or property interests are involved. Thirdly, the theory has been most frequently formulated to protect the owners of media and cannot give equal expression to the arguable rights of editors and journalists within the press, or the audiences, or other possible beneficiaries, or victims, of free expression.

Fourthly, the theory proscribes compulsory control but provides, no obvious way of handling the many pressures to which media are subject, especially, but not only, arising from market circumstances (Wintour, 1973). Having said all this, the notion of a free press is unsuppressable and can be expressed in the following principles: Publication should be free from any prior censorship by any third party.

- The act of publication and distribution should be open to a person or group without permit or license.

- Attack on any government, official or political party (as distinct from attacks on private individuals or treason and breaches of security) should not be punishable, even after the event.

- There should be no compulsion to publish, anything.

- Publication of 'error' is protected equally' with that of truth, in matters of opinion and belief.

- No. restriction should be placed on the collection, by legal means of information for publication.

- There should be no restriction on export or import or sending or receiving, 'messages' across national frontiers:

- Journalists should be able to claim a considerable degree of professional autonomy within their organization.

Social Responsibility Theory

Social responsibility theory owes its origin to an American initiative - the Commission on Freedom of the Press. Its main impetus was a growing awareness that in some important respects the free market had failed to fulfill the promise of press freedom and to deliver expected benefits to society. In particular, the technological and commercial development of the press was said to have led to lower chances of access for individuals and diverse groups, and lower standards of performance in meeting the informational, social and moral needs of society.

It was also thought to have increased the power of a single class. At the same time, the rise of the new and seemingly powerful media of radio and film had demonstrated the need for some kinds of public control and means of accountability additional to those appropriate to the long-established and professionally organized print media. Social responsibility theory has a wide range of application, since it covers several kinds of private print media and public institutions of broadcasting, which are answerable through various kinds of democratic procedure to the society.

The theory has thus to reconcile independence with obligation to society. Its main foundations are: an assumption that the media do serve essential functions in society, especially in relation to democratic politics; a view that the media should accept an obligation to fulfill these functions - mainly in the sphere of information, and the provision of a platform for diverse views, but also in matters of culture; an emphasis on maximum independence of media, consistent with their obligations to society; an acceptance of the view that there are certain standards of performance in media work that can be stated and should be followed.

In short, media ownership and control is to be viewed as a kind of public stewardship, not a private franchise, and there is a pronounced shift away from the relativism about ends characteristic of free press theory and from optimism that the 'free marketplace of ideas' will really deliver the individual and social benefits claimed on its behalf. Under conditions of private ownership, the media professional is not only responsible to consumer and shareholder, but also to society at large.

It can be seen that social responsibility theory has to try to reconcile three somewhat divergent principles: of individual freedom and choice; of media freedom; and of media obligation to society. There can be no single way of resolving the potential inconsistencies but the theory has favored two main kinds of solution.

One is the development of public, but independent, institutions for the management of broadcasting, a development which has in turn powerfully advanced the scope and political strength of the social responsibility concept. The second is the further development of professionalism as a means of achieving higher standards of performance, while maintaining self-regulation by the media themselves. The feature of public institutions for broadcasting that contributes most to reconciling the principles identified above is the emphasis on neutrality and objectivity in relation to government and matters of societal controversy and the incorporate of mechanisms for making the relevant media responsive to the demands of their audiences and accountable to society for their activities.

It happens also that the professionalism encouraged by social responsibility theory involves an emphasis not only on high standards of performance but also on some of the virtues of 'balance' and  impartiality which have been most developed in broadcast media. The influence of broadcasting as a practical expression of social responsibility theory on the privately-owned press has been shown by the increasing willingness of governments to contemplate or carry out measures which do formally contravene free press principles.

These include various forges of legal and fiscal intervention designed to achieve positive social aims or to limit the effects of market pressures and trends.

They have made their appearance in several forms: codes or statutes to protect editorial and journalistic freedom; codes of journalistic practice; regulation of advertising; anti-monopoly legislation; establishment of press councils; periodic reviews by commissions of inquiry; parliamentary scrutiny; systems of press subsidy.The main principles of social responsibility theory can now be stated as follows:

- Media should accept and fulfill certain obligations to society.

These obligations are mainly to be met by setting high or professional standards of informativeness, truth, accuracy, objectivity and balance.

- In accepting and applying these obligations, media should be self-regulating within the framework of law and established institutions.

- The media should avoid whatever might lead to crime, violence or civil disorder or give offense to minority groups.

- The media as a whole should be pluralist and reflect the diversity of their society, giving access to various points of view and to rights of reply.

- Society and the public, following the first named principle, have a right to expect high standards of performance and intervention can be justified to secure the, or a, public good.

- Journalists and media professionals should be accountable to society as well as to employers and the market.

Soviet Media Theory

The Russian press and other media were completely reorganized after the Revolution of 1917 and furnished with a theory deriving from basic postulates of Marx and Engels and rules of application of Lenin.

The theory so constituted and gradually furnished with institutional means has continued to provide the main framework for media practice, training and research, and has provided the model for most media forms within the Soviet sphere of influence.

The most important ideas are as follows.

First, the working class by definition holds power in a socialist society and, to keep power, has to control the means of 'mental production'.

Thus all media should be subject to control by agencies of the working class - primarily the Communist Party.

Secondly, socialist societies are, or aspire to be, classless societies and thus lacking in class conflict.

The press should consequently not be structured along lines of political conflict.

The range of legitimate diversity and debate does not extend to elements believed to be anachronistic, regressive or dangerous to the basic constitution of society along socialist lines.Thirdly, the press has a positive role to play in the formation of society and the movement towards communism and this suggests a number of important functions for the media in socialization, informal social control and mobilization towards planned social and economic goals. In particular, these `functions relate to the furtherance of social and economic change. Fourthly, Marxism-presupposes objective laws of history and thus an objective reality that the press should reflect.

This reduces the scope for personal interpretation and provides a set of consistent news values which are divergent from those holding in liberal press systems.

Finally, the general theory of the Soviet State requires the media to submit to ultimate control by organs of the state and to be, in varying degrees; integrated with other instruments of political life. Within these limits, the media are expected to be self-regulatory, to exercise a certain degree of responsibility, to develop and follow norms of professional conduct, and to be responsible to the needs and wishes of their audiences.

Accountability to the public is achieved by research, by institutionalized forms of audience participation, by responding to letters and by taking some note of public demand.

It is clear that, according; to this body of theory, censorship and punishment for offenses by the media against the state are justified, as they could not be under free press or social responsibility theory.

There is an overlap between authoritarian theory and Soviet theory, especially in the strong emphasis in both on support for the existing social order.

There are also differences.

Under Soviet theory, the media are not subject to arbitrary or unpredictable interference, but work within familiar self-imposed limits; they are supposed to serve and be responsible to their publics; they are not usually monolithic (even if the forms of diversity are limited and not allowed to emerge freely); and they express a diversity of interests.

The postulates of the theory can be summed as follows:

- Media should serve the interests of, and be in control of, the working class.

- Media should not be privately owned.

- Media should serve positive functions for society by: socialization to desired norms; education; information; motivation; mobilization.

- Within their overall task for society, the media should respond to wishes and needs of their audiences.

- Society has a right to use censorship and other legal measures to prevent, or punish after the event, anti-societal publication.

- Media should provide a complete and objective view of society and the world, according to Marxist-Leninist principles.

- Journalists are responsible professionals whose aims and ideals should coincide with the best interests of the society.

- Media should support progressive movements at home and abroad.

Development Media Theory

It is not easy to give a short, general statement of an emerging body of opinion and prescription appropriate to the media situation of developing countries, because of the great variety of economic and political -conditions and the changing nature of situations.

Nevertheless, it is necessary to make an attempt because of the (varying) inapplicability of the four theories already discussed and the great attention now focused on matters to do with Third World communication. No one source for what follows can be cited, but perhaps the best single most recent source of ideas can be found in the report of the UNESCO International Commission for the Study of Communication Problems (McBride et al., 1980).

The starting point for a separate 'development theory' of mass media is the fact of some common circumstances of developing countries that limit the application of other theories or that reduce their potential benefits. One circumstance is the absence of some of the conditions necessary for a developed mass communication system: the communication infrastructure; the professional skills; the production and cultural resources; the available audience.

Another related factor is the dependence on the developed world for what is missing in the way of technology, skills and cultural products. Thirdly, there is (variable) devotion of these societies to economic, political and social development as a primary national task, to which other institutions should submit.

Fourthly, it is increasingly the case that developing countries are aware of their similar identity and interests in international politics. Out of these conditions have come a set of expectations and normative principles about mass media which deviate from those that seem to apply in either the capitalist or communist world.

It is, of course, true that in many countries accounted as 'developing', media are operated according to principles deriving from the theories already mentioned - authoritarian, libertarian and less often social responsibility or Soviet. Even so, there is enough coherence in an alternative to deserve provisional statement, especially in view of the fact that the communication needs of developing countries have tended in the past to be stated in terms of existing institutional arrangements, with an especial emphasis on the positive role of commercial media to stimulate development (e.g. Lerner, 1958) or on media campaigns to stimulate economic change in the direction of the model of the industrial society.

The normative elements of emerging development theory are shaped by the circumstances described above and have both negative and positive aspects. They are, especially, opposed to dependency and foreign domination and to arbitrary authoritarianism. They are for positive uses of the media in national development, for the autonomy and cultural identity of the particular national society. To a certain extent they favor democratic, grass - roots involvement, thus participative communication models. This is partly an extension of other principles of autonomy and opposition to authoritarianism and partly a recognition of the need to achieve development objectives by co-operative means.

The one thing which gives most unity to a development theory of the media is the acceptance of economic development itself (thus social change), and often the correlated 'nation-building', as an overriding objective.

To this end, certain freedoms of the media and of journalists are subordinated to their responsibility for helping in this purpose. At the same time, collective ends, rather than individual freedoms, are emphasized. One relatively novel element in development media theory has been the emphasis on a 'right to communicate', based on Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: 'Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media regardless of frontiers'. The main principles can be stated as follows:

- Media should accept and carry out positive development tasks in line with nationally established policy.

- Freedom of the media should be open to restriction according to (1) economic priorities and (2) development needs of society.

- Media should give priority in their content to the national culture and language.

- Media should give priority in news and information to links with other developing countries which are close geographically, culturally or politically.

- Journalists and other media workers have responsibilities as well as freedoms in their information - gathering and dissemination tasks.

In the interest of development ends, the state has a right to intervene in, or restrict, media operations, and devices of censorship, subsidy and direct control can be justified.

Democratic- Participant Media Theory

The last entry here and the most recent addition to the body of normative theory of the media is the most difficult to formulate, partly because it lacks full legitimation and incorporation into media institutions and partly because some of its tenets are already to be found in some of the other theories mentioned.

Although the case for its independence as a theory may be questioned, it merits separate identification, however provisional, and it represents something of a challenge to reigning theories.

Like many theories, it has arisen both as a reaction against other theory and actual experience and as a positive move towards new forms of media institution. Its location is mainly in developed liberal societies but it joins with some elements present in development media theory, especially its emphasis on the 'basis' of society, on the value of horizontal rather than vertical (top-down) communication.

A primary stimulus has been the reaction against the commercialization and monopolization of privately-owned media and against the centralism and bureaucraticization of public broadcasting institutions, established according to the norm of social responsibility. Thus, public broadcasting raised high expectations of media systems that could assist in the long process of social improvement and democratic change begun with the economic and political revolutions of the nineteenth century.

These expectations have been disappointed by the tendency for some public broadcasting organizations to be at times too paternalists, too elitist, too close to the 'establishment' of society, too responsive to political and economic pressures, too monolithic, too professionalized.

The term 'democratic-participant' also expresses a sense of disillusionment with established political parties and with a system of parliamentary democracy which has seemed to become detached from its grass-roots origins, to impede rather than facilitate involvement in political and social life. There is some element here of a continued reaction to a 'mass society' which is over-organized, over - centralized and fails to offer realistic opportunities for individual and minority expression. Free press theory is seen to fail because of its subversion by the market and social responsibility theory to be inadequate because of its complicity in the bureaucratic state and in the self-serving of media organizations and professions. Self-regulation by the press and accountability of large broadcasting organizations have not prevented the growth of media institutions which dominate from the power centers of society or which fail in their task of meeting the needs that arise from the daily experience of citizens.

Thus the central point of a democratic-participant theory lies with the needs, interests and aspirations of the active 'receiver in a political society.

It has to do with the right to relevant information, the right to answer back, the right to use the mean of communication for interaction in small-scale settings of community, interest group, sub-culture. The theory rejects the necessity of uniform, centralized, high-cost, highly professionalized, neutralized, state-controlled media. It favors multiplicity, smallness of scale, locality, deinstitutionalization, interchange of sender- receiver roles, horizontality of communication links at all levels of society, interaction, commitment.

There is a mixture of theoretical elements, including libertarianism, utopianism, socialism, egalitarianism, environmentalism, localism.Media institutions constructed according to the theory would be involved more closely with social life than they are at present and more directly in control of their audiences, offering opportunities for access and participation on terms set by their users rather than by controllers.

The practical expressions of the theory are many and varied, including: the underground press; pirate radio; community cable TV; 'samizdat' publication; micro-media in rural settings; street or neighborhood sheets; political posters.

The new communications technology opens more opportunities, via cheaper reproduction and access to electronic media channels, although the impact on established media dominance remains marginal. A summary statement of principles might appear as follows:- Individual citizens and minority groups have rights of access to media (rights to communicate) and rights to be served by media according to their own determination of need.

- The organization and content of media should not be subject to centralized political or state bureaucratic control

.- Media should exist primarily, for their audiences and not for media organizations, professionals or the clients of media.

- Groups, organizations and local communities should have their own media.

- Small scale, interactive and participation media forms are better than large-scale, one-way, professionalized media.

- Certain social needs relating to mass media are not adequately expressed through individual consumer demands, nor through the state and its major institutions.

- Communication is too important to be left to professionals.

می‌تراود مهتاب

می‌درخشد شبتاب،

نیست یك دم شكند خواب به چشم كس و لیك

غم این خفته چند

خواب در چشم ترم می‌شكند.

نگران با من استاده سحر

صبح می‌خواهد از من

كز مبارك دم او آورم این قوم بجان باخته را بلكه خبر

در جگر لیكن خاری

از ره این سفرم می‌شكند .

نازك آرای تن ساق گلی

كه به جانش كشتم

و به جان دادمش آب

ای دریغا! به برم می‌شكند

دستها می‌سایم

تا دری بگشایم

بر عبث می‌پایم

كه به در كس آید

در و دیوار بهم ریخته‌شان

بر سرم می‌شكند.

نرم‌افزار رايگاني از سوي آمازون منتشر شد كه كاربران را قادر مي‌سازد كتاب‌هاي الكترونيكي كايندل را در رايانه‌هاي شخصي بخوانند. به گزارش ايسنا، نرم‌افزار «كايندل براي رايانه» با كتابخوان الكترونيكي محبوب اين شركت همگام‌سازي مي‌شود، از اين رو كاربران مي‌توانند از هر دو طريق رايانه و دستگاه كايندل براي خواندن كتاب‌هاي الكترونيكي استفاده كنند. به گفته معاون آمازون، اين برنامه همراه كامل براي مشتريان دارنده كايندل است و به افرادي كه هنوز كايندل ندارند، امكان مي‌دهد به كتاب‌هاي فروشگاه كايندل دسترسي يابند. كتاب‌هاي الكترونيكي آمازون در آيفون و آي پاد تاچ اپل نيز قابل خواندن هستند. فروشگاه‌ آنلاين كايندل به نشاني amazon.com/kindlestore داراي كتابخانه‌اي متشكل از 360 هزار كتاب ديجيتالي شده براي فروش است. برنامه جديد از نشاني www.amazon.com/KindleforPC در بيش از صد كشور به‌صورت رايگان قابل دانلود است و داراي امكاناتي از جمله خواندن كتاب‌ها به شكل رنگي است كه نشان مي‌دهد دستگاه كايندل مي‌تواند قابليت‌هاي گرافيكي بيش‌تري نسبت به سياه و سفيد داشته باشد.

آی آدم ها که بر ساحل نشسته شاد و خندانید!
یک نفر در آب دارد می سپارد جان.
یک نفر دارد که دست و پای دایم می زند
روی این دریای تند و تیره و سنگین که می دانید.
آن زمان که مست هستید از خیال دست یاییدن به دشمن
آن زمان که پیش خود بی هوده پندارید
که گرفتید دست ناتوانی را
تا توانایی بهتر را پدید آرید.
آن زمانی که تنگ می بندید
بر کمر هاتان کمر بند
در چه هنگامی بگویم من؟
یک نفر در آب دارد می کند بیهوده جان، قربان!

آی آدم ها که بر ساحل بساط دلگشا دارید!
نان به سفره، جامه تان بر تن؛
یک نفر در آب می خواند شما را.
موج سنگین را به دست خسته می کوبد
باز می دارد دهان با چشم از وحشت دریده
سایه هاتان را ز راه دور دیده.
آب را بلعیده در گود کبود و هر زمان بی تابی اش افزون
می کند زین آب، بیرون
گاه سر، گه پا
آی آدم ها!

او ز راه دور این کهنه جهان را باز می پاید
می زند فریاد و امید کمک دارد.
آی آدم ها که روی ساحل آرام در کار تماشایید!
موج می کوبد به روی ساحل خاموش
پخش می گردد چنان مستی به جای افتاده بس مدهوش.
می رود نعره زنان، وین بانگ باز از دور می آید:
«آی آدم ها».
و صدای باد هر دم دل گزاتر
و در صدای باد بانگ او رهاتر
از میان آب های دور و نزدیک
باز در گوش این ندا ها:
«آی آدم ها»... 

بر اساس اطلاعات جديد، سيستم عامل جديد مايكروسافت در مقايسه با نسخه‌هاي قبلي رشد زيادي در ابتداي عرضه داشته است. به گزارش ايسنا، طبق گزارش تحليلگران Net Applications، كمتر از دو هفته پس از عرضه رسمي ويندوز 7، حدود 3.6 درصد از رايانه‌هاي متصل به اينترنت از اين سيستم عامل استفاده مي‌كنند. با توجه به گذشت 10 روز از عرضه رسمي ويندوز جديد مايكروسافت، 3.6 درصد رقم زيادي نيست اما ويستا بيش از يك ماه پس از عرضه شدن تنها 2.4 درصد از سهم بازار را به دست آورده بود و تا ماه مي 2007 يعني چهار ماه پس از عرضه به 3.7 درصد نرسيد. آمار مربوط به ويندوز 7 برمبناي رايانه‌هايي است كه به اينترنت دسترسي دارند و ممكن است در هفته‌هاي آتي اين رقم پايين و بالا شود با اين همه اين نخستين بار است كه اين نرم‌افزار به اين ميزان از استفاده رسيده كه موفقيت درخور توجهي محسوب مي‌شود. مايكروسافت در عرضه سيستم عامل جديد از تجربه ويستا درس گرفته و به هنگام طراحي ويندوز 7 با سازندگان رايانه و طراحان نرم‌افزار همكاري نزديكي داشته است. به گفته يكي از مديران مايكروسافت، بيش از هشت ميليون نفر از زمان عرضه نسخه آزمايشي ويندوز 7، كاربر اين نرم‌افزار شده‌اند. در ميان امكانات جديد ويندوز 7 مي‌توان به تسك بار با طراحي نو براي اجراي برنامه‌ها و سوئيچ ويندوز، قابليت بهبوديافته براي اشتراك‌گذاري فايل‌ها با رايانه‌هاي ديگر، بهبود امكان ويرايش عكس و ويديو و قابليت پخش مستمر آهنگ يا ويديو به دستگاه‌هاي ديگر اشاره كرد؛ ويندوز 7 همچنين داراي مرورگر جديد اينترنت اكسپلورر 8 است.

بر اساس يافته‌هاي بررسي كميسيون اروپا، شركت‌هاي معدودي براي تغيير از پروتكل فعلي آدرس‌دهي IPv4 به فورمت جديد IPv6 آماده شده‌اند در حالي كه ممكن است ظرفيت آدرس‌هاي اينترنتي تا دو سال آينده به پايان برسد. به گزارش ايسنا، كارشناسان وب هشدار داده‌اند ممكن است ظرفيت آدرس‌هاي اينترنتي ظرف دو سال آينده به پايان برسد مگر اين كه شركت‌ها به پلت‌فرم جديد مهاجرت كنند. پروتكل‌هاي IPv4 و IPv6 مربوط به روش و اختصاص آدرس‌هاي اينترنتي هستند و از آنجا كه تمامي كاربران جديدي كه به اينترنت متصل مي‌شوند به يك آدرس IP (پروتكل اينترنت) نياز دارند، آدرس‌هاي موجود براي اين رشد مداوم بسيار حياتي است. پروتكل IPv4 از آدرس‌هاي 32 بيتي استفاده مي‌كند كه پشتيباني وب از حدود 4.3 ميليارد آدرس منحصر را امكان‌پذير مي‌كند در حالي كه IPv6 از آدرس وب 128 بيتي استفاده مي‌كند كه ظرفيت ميلياردها آدرس جديد را دارد. بر اساس يافته‌هاي اين بررسي، از 610 سازمان دولتي، آموزشي و صنعتي ديگر در سراسر اروپا، خاورميانه و آسيا تنها 17 درصد به IPv6 ارتقاء يافته‌اند. اين كميسيون هشدار داده است به‌كارگيري به موقع اين پروتكل براي رشد و ثبات اينترنت ضروري است.