World news and comment from the Guardian | guardian.co.uk

---

• Nobel Peace Prize 2013 winner announced - live updates
• Royal Mail shares soar 35% as trading begins - live
• Channel 4 plans some mutt-watch TV | Media Monkey
• Editors on the NSA files: 'What the Guardian is doing is important for democracy'
• Guardian was 'entirely correct' to publish NSA stories, says Vince Cable
• Talks between White House and Republicans fail to end US shutdown
• Floods could have catastrophic impact on Australia’s east coast, study warns
• Japanese hospital fire leaves many dead and injured
• Into battle with the Knights of Jerusalem – in pictures
• Tony Abbott keeps options open on same-sex marriage conscience vote
• West Papuan asylum seekers to be sent to camp on PNG-Indonesian border
• About time: Nine 'lost' Doctor Who episodes discovered in Nigeria
• Ravi Shankar on the 'introvert' music of India: From the archive, 11 October 1958
• Coalition to toughen mandatory sentencing for people smugglers
• Viral Video Chart: Miley Cyrus and Ron Burgundy's dancers on the run
• Fresh Air Podcast; Today – radio review
• What information can retailers see when they track customer movements?
• Asylum claimants wait for years in unacceptable conditions, MPs say
• 200kg of methamphetamine seized in Melbourne – video
• Australian PlantBank opens with mission to protect and preserve
• Scott Morrison imposes information blackout on self-harm in detention
• Syrian rebels accused of killing hundreds of civilians
• There's absolutely no excuse for Twitter not to have a woman on its board | Bronwen Clune
• General Sisi and his followers are condemning Egypt to greater turmoil | Jonathan Steele
• Briton who died in US hospital stairwell not a victim of foul play

Nobel Peace Prize 2013 winner announced - live updates Posted: 11 Oct 2013 01:27 AM PDT Norwegian TV says the 2013 prize has gone to the Hague-based Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. We will find out from Oslo at 10am UK time. Peter Walker

Royal Mail shares soar 35% as trading begins - live Posted: 11 Oct 2013 01:27 AM PDT Royal Mail shares hit 450p in opening trading, meaning instant profits for those who were allocated shares, and fuelling fears that it was sold too cheaply Graeme Wearden

Channel 4 plans some mutt-watch TV | Media Monkey Posted: 11 Oct 2013 01:20 AM PDT For dog owners who can't bear the thought of having to one day see little Fido go to the giant kennel in the sky, it will be must-watch TV. The Sun reports that Channel 4 is giving one dog lover the chance to clone their hound. The show, called The £60,000 Puppy, will trawl the nation to find "the UK's most-loved dog" and then let the owner clone it for free using South Korean firm Sooam Biotech, but the morality of cloning a dog is sure to be a bone of contention. Channel 4 Television industry Dogs Animals Pets Cloning Monkey theguardian.com © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Editors on the NSA files: 'What the Guardian is doing is important for democracy' Posted: 11 Oct 2013 01:20 AM PDT On Thursday the Daily Mail described the Guardian as 'The paper that helps Britain's enemies'. We showed that article to many of the world's leading editors. This is what they said In a democracy, the press plays a vital role in informing the public and holding those in power accountable. The NSA has vast intelligence-gathering powers and capabilities and its role in society is an important subject for responsible newsgathering organisations such as the New York Times and the Guardian. A public debate about the proper perimeters for eavesdropping by intelligence agencies is healthy for the public and necessary. The accurate and in-depth news articles published by the New York Times and the Guardian help inform the public in framing its thinking about these issues and deciding how to balance the need to protect against terrorism and to protect individual privacy. Vigorous news coverage and spirited public debate are both in the public interest. The journalists at the New York Times and the Guardian care deeply about the wellbeing and safety of their fellow citizens in carrying out their role in keeping the public informed. Jill Abramson, executive editor, the New York Times   The utmost duty of a journalist is to expose abuses and the abuse of power. The global surveillance of digital communication by the NSA and GCHQ is no less than an abuse on a massive scale with consequences that at this point seem completely unpredictable. It is understandable that the governments of the US and Britain aren't pleased that journalists, with the assistance of informants within government ranks, are exposing this abuse of power. It is a classic approach for governments to attack media that have the courage to publish such stories with arguments that they threaten national security or that they are supporting an enemy of the state. And it is a tragedy that media outlets aligned with governments are now accusing the journalists uncovering these abuses of "lethal irresponsibility". In terms of DER SPIEGEL's position on this affair: With each story we have published, we have given both the NSA and GCHQ the opportunity to comment prior to publication and to alert us to aspects that could be highly sensitive. The NSA took advantage of this opportunity, GCHQ did not. The material contains myriad evidence of terrorist investigations. However, for good reason, we have refrained from reporting on these specific operations. It is the indiscriminate mass surveillance of communications that DER SPIEGEL considers to be a scandal -- not the search for terrorists. As we stated, it is the media's duty in a free society to report on these abuses. Exposing the intensity with which intelligence agencies conduct surveillance on the Internet does not provide proof that such reporting in any way assists terrorists. It is common knowledge that security agencies monitor telephones, and yet, terrorists still use them. What is clear is that the surveillance conducted by the NSA and GCHQ goes far beyond anti-terror measures. It is for this reason that SPIEGEL and numerous other media outlets around the world will continue to take their duty seriously and report when a security apparatus spins out of control and acts beyond its remit. During our reporting on the Wikileaks-files I worked very closely with Guardian's excellent staff. And today, I am even more proud of the cooperation with colleagues who have such a high professional and ethical standard. They stand for freedom of information. And freedom of information is what we need more than ever. Wolfgang Buechner, Der Spiegel   Journalists have only one responsibility: to keep their readers informed and educated about whatever their government is doing on their behalf – and first and foremost on security and intelligence organisations, which by their nature infringe on civil liberties. The Snowden revelations, and their publication by the Guardian, have been a prime example of fearlessly exercising this journalistic responsibility. In Israel, the media are subject to pre-publication review by a military censor of any news related to security and intelligence. Israeli editors are therefore relieved from the dilemmas faced by our British or American counterparts, who should judge what might harm national security. Nevertheless, we struggle endlessly to push back the walls of government secrecy and concealment and expand the scope of public debate. Aluf Benn, editor-in-chief, Haaretz   The decision by Edward Snowden to leak to the media an important amount of top-secret documents showing the unprecedented reach of electronic surveillance was a historic event. It has raised major questions on the control of the internet, on the balance between counter-terrorism and civil liberties, on the oversight of intelligence activities by democratic institutions. The debate is open, and all actors of public life are legitimate participants in it. The heads of intelligence services are entitled to voice their concern at the extent of the leaks, as ordinary citizens are entitled to ask what use is made, by whom and to what purpose, of private data collected from their daily life activities. Editors of media organisations are central to this debate. The Guardian, with whom, among others, Le Monde collaborated in the publication of the WikiLeaks cables, made the right decision to publish the documents released by Snowden. It did so responsibly, acting in the public interest, as we had done with the WikiLeaks documents, and more recently with the "OffshoreLeaks" documents. Sylvie Kauffmann, editorial director, Le Monde, France   When a newspaper prints a story, or a series of stories, such as the Snowden case, the first attacks are always aimed at its editors and publishers. State or homeland security reasons are always claimed. It happened when The New York Times and The Washington Post printed the Pentagon Papers about the Vietnam War in 1973, and it happened with WikiLeaks. Now, the object of criticism is the Guardian for having printed Edward Snowden's revelations. What is sad, baffling and dangerous is that the attacks now come not only from governments but from other newspapers too. In doing so, they are ignoring their first and utmost obligation. The press must serve the citizens and comply with their right to have access to truthful and relevant informations when it comes to public affairs. Newspapers have many duties. Having to protect governments and the powerful from embarrasing situations is not among them. The Guardian's work in the Snowden case is an example of great journalism, the kind that changes history and the kind that citizens need more every day, in a world where the powerful are increasingly trying to hide information from their societies. The real danger is not in the so-called "aid to the enemy" denounced by the hypocrites, but in the actions of governments and state agencies that citizens cannot control. To fight it we need newspapers willing to do their job, rather than those ready to cheer on the self-interested deceptions of the powerful. Javier Moreno, director, El País, Spain   I have just been reading Tim Weiner's history of the CIA, Legacy of Ashes, which is heavily based on leaked and declassified government documents. Over and again, one is struck by how poorly Americans' interests have been served by secrecy – and by the folly, misjudgment, and abuse of power that might have been prevented by public knowledge. One does not have to admire Julian Assange or Edward Snowden to recognise that their revelations, filtered by scrupulous journalists, have served the fundamental democratic interest of knowing what our governments are up to and how they may be abridging our rights. The authorities seldom rate the public's right to know very highly. Editors, by contrast, have an excellent record in handling the security concerns related to classified material. The New York Times withheld revelations about the NSA's wireless wiretapping programme for a full year. Both the Guardian and the New York Times redacted or held back WikiLeaks documents that could have placed lives in danger. The Washington Post has been cautious and selective in publishing the Snowden material. Contra the Daily Mail, our best journalists very much are security experts, often with a better ability to make balanced judgments about disclosure than their security-cleared counterparts. Editors must weigh the potential security harm of public revelation again the certain damage to democratic accountability that comes from a public kept in the dark. It bears noting that in historical terms, the downside of disclosure has been very small, while the cost of secrecy has been enormous. Jacob Weisberg, chairman the Slate Group   As an editor I am confronted every day with difficult questions about what to publish and what not to. A newspaper comes across documents from all kinds of sources but authenticity is only a necessary but not sufficient condition for disseminating the information these contain. Sensitive information must pass a twofold test: is publication in the public interest; and will it put lives at risk. Governments and intelligence agencies may have access to more information than the average editor but they do not have a monopoly over the ability to correctly answer these questions. Well before Edward Snowden came along, the editors of the Hindu have handled classified or sensitive information on a range of sensitive issues. Never has our newspaper behaved irresponsibly with that information. Those attacking the media on the NSA issue wilfully ignore the fact that what the Guardian, the New York Times, the Hindu and other newspapers around the world have published so far are details of snooping that is not even remotely related to fighting terrorism. Osama bin Laden did not need Edward Snowden's revelations about Prism to realise the US was listening in to every bit of electronic communication: he had already seceded from the world of telephony and reverted to couriers. But millions of people in the US, the UK, Brazil, India and elsewhere, including national leaders, energy companies and others who are being spied upon for base reasons, were unaware of the fact that their privacy was being compromised. In the hands of an irresponsible newspaper, the kind of care the Guardian and others who are working from this material are taking may not always prevail. But as Glenn Greenwald said on the BBC, the only people who have been reckless with this material are those who acted irresponsibly in collecting it in the first place: the NSA and GCHQ. Siddharth Varadarajan, editor the Hindu   It is really striking and bold to accuse journalists of being allies of terrorism simply for performing their professional responsibilities. And it is even more dangerous when, in the name of a "national interest", censorship and concealing information is sponsored on the ground that journalists are not "security experts" to judge what can and should be published. Limits are only determined by the editors' responsibility in a political and legal system that might protect the right to freedom of expression on a democratic basis. The Guardian has already been subjected to procedures that claim to infringe its independence and to intimidate its editors and journalists. This pressure must cease immediately. Ricardo Kirschbaum, executive editor, Clarin, Argentina   The Snowden affair, one day, will be understood as a historic milestone at which democratic societies began to realize that the political cost of new technologies still needed to be negotiated. Hans-Magnus Enzensberger, one of Germany's last great intellectuals and certainly not a leftist, sees it as a transition to a post-democratic society. And had the Snowden files not opened our eyes to this transition already, the way how the current debate about these documents unfolds, certainly did.These revelations are not only about secret services, but just as much about all the new social touchpoints of every citizen who is equipped with a smartphone and online access: Who controls and analyses these touchpoints and why? Is it so difficult to understand that in a world in which – according to Eric Schmidt's concise formulation – the digital self not only mirrors but substitutes our true selves, all these issues become questions of human rights? President Obama's Berlin declaration that he would welcome a debate about the right balance between security and freedom gave room for hope. And different from the distant military threats of the Cold War, are we now exposed to threatening systems which seem to function only as long as they are deeply interwoven and are interfering with a civil society's private communication. Before Snowden, we knew about this interference only theoretically. Since Snowden, we know about empirically as well.There is no indication whatsoever that those media organisations who reported about the NSA and GCHQ files have endangered our national security. None of the newspapers involved did create artificial drama as would have been customary in the 1980s, just to increase copy sales. None of the newspapers involved has questioned the duty and legitimate need of governments to prevent terrorism. No one has defended the ideology of terrorists or has even hinted at the idea that terrorism suspects should not be screened. What the newspapers involved did discuss is the integrity of the very democracies that terrorists are trying to destroy. We all can feel and witness each other's tangible shock and dismay about the complete loss of democratic control over systems and secret services which seemingly feel entitled to decide on their own who is a friend and who is an enemy of our civil societies. We saw Jimmy Carter's deep concern. We saw how even an influential and staunchly conservative security expert such as Germany's Hans-Peter Uhl of the Bavarian CSU party defined the NSA files as a "wake-up call" that was hinting at a dangerous merger of private industries and secret services. If a conservative security expert like Germany's Hans-Peter Uhl ventures into such territory, we should realize that this affair is about much more than only a few powerpoint presentations. Publishing the Snowden files has by no means been an attack on our freedom and security, but a crucial prerequisite for freedom to exist in the future. Frank Schirrmacher, publisher, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Germany   There is a superficial appeal in the argument that intelligence "professionals" know better than editors what information must be suppressed, even if it has already escaped their control. Particularly in this time of terror, much of the public is impressed by that argument and so are American attorneys and judges, causing David Rudenstine of Cardozo Law School to name this the "age of deference." Such deference was evident also when the Pentagon Papers case reached our Supreme Court. The Chief Justice compared the papers to the "White House silver," which, had it come into our possession we would have surely returned. Other justices felt that even if the Constitution prevented our being censored, we deserved to be prosecuted under Espionage statutes for aiding the enemy. Arrogant though it sounds, the fact is that experienced editors and correspondents who deal daily in the subject matter of "national security" know better than most judges and prosecutors whether a given piece of information could seriously threaten lives or damage national defence. Moreover, if in doubt, we have usually asked officials to demonstrate the danger of publication and in a minority of cases accepted their argument. But we have demanded persuasive argument that distinguishes between a genuine threat and mere bureaucratic embarrassment or inconvenience. Why, ultimately, does experience argue almost always in favour of publication? Because a secret once lost by government, even if important, cannot be "returned". It can fly across the globe in an instant and even if momentarily suppressed, it must inform all those who have learned it as they in turn inform others. Even more persuasive is the reality that neither officials nor journalists can ever be sure of the consequences of publication: facts once distributed, like seeds in a garden, acquire a life of their own with consequences that can be salutary, malignant, both, or neither. So while intelligence agents perceive a professional duty to cloak all their deeds and knowledge, it is a newspaper's duty to publish what it learns without presuming to predict a good or ill result. The tension thus created is probably the only tolerable way to proceed. Max Frankel, former executive editor, The New York Times   Journalists have not only the right but a responsibility to challenge government – its behaviour, its reasoning and its assertion of fact. There will always be times when an editor has to rely on his own judgment in making decisions about what to publish and weighing the implications. Editors know these can be profoundly important decisions and they should listen with care to arguments from all sides, including government. Experience has taught scepticism. Official secrecy doesn't just cloak the national-security state; it hides everything from bureaucratic bungling and politicians' peccadillos to catastrophically bad policy. Officials can be just as aggressive in discouraging journalists from ferreting out mismanagement and waste as they often are in trying to block sensitive national security stories. That shouldn't keep editors from thoughtfully considering officials' arguments and at times being persuaded to hold something back. But there is inherent, inevitable and – in the US, anyway – by-design tension between government and a free press that reflects the institutions' different functions. A responsible editor's bias must be towards publication and an informed public debate. Without sight of the facts, how can a democracy chart its course? Marcus Brauchli, vice-president, Washington Post Company   It is journalism's most noble duty to write about and to describe what exists in our world. Our second duty is to add context to and to comment and to evaluate that which exists in our world. If it is a journalist's duty, however, to describe what exists, then this inherently implies the duty to write about those things and events about which certain humans and institutions do not want us to write about. This tends to be case whenever journalists write about the activities of secret services and it was the case during these last weeks when The Guardian, the New York Times or Süddeutsche Zeitung have written about the British secret services, most especially about GCHQ. No secret service likes it when its methods are being discussed openly, which is understandable as long as a secret service focuses on its core duties, such as the surveillance of terror suspects. Once a secret service starts behaving like an octopus, though, with its tentacles reaching all across everyone's life and putting whole societies under collective suspicion with everyone falling victim to total surveillance, then the societal contract has been broken. There is no justification for such violation. Yet it is fully justifies that journalists reveal such unlawful state action. This is what the Guardian has done. Nothing else. To claim that the Guardian had shown "deadly irresponsibility" or that it was "helping the enemies" of the UK has no foundation and is appalling. To publish such claims means to slander those who consistently and carefully fulfill their journalistic duty to society. Wolfgang Krach, deputy editor in chief, Sueddeutsche Zeitung, Germany   The accusations of "irresponsibility" that The Daily Mail addressed to the Guardian sound familiar to my ears. La Repubblica repeatedly received this kind of allegations too, after the numerous investigative reportings that we published to reveal Silvio Berlusconi's network of corruption, abuse of power and manipulations during the many years in which he was at the head of the Italian government. We have been accused too of publishing documents, official wiretappings and revelations that – according to Silvio Berlusconi and his supporters – should have been kept secret, confidential, hidden. But the role of a free press in a democratic country is to be the guardians – not the spokesmen – of power. Media is part of the check and balances system of an healthy democracy and they would betray their duty if they only reported what the power considers legitimate to reveal to the public opinion. A responsible press knows the difference between to always publish everything, and to choose, select and verify the news before publishing them. This is what we did at La Repubblica and what the Guardian does. From the Washington Post with the Watergate case to the New York Times with the Pentagon Papers, the history of journalism is full of revelations that, according to the people in power, should have been kept secret, but later it has become clear that to publish them was a service to democracy, not a "lethally irresponsible" act. After all our newspaper, as the media of many other countries, reported the Guardian's revelations. The Guardian is certainly not alone in this battle for the freedom of the press. A newspaper answers to public opinion, not to the government. Ezio Mauro, editor-in-chief, La Repubblica, Italy   Intelligence agencies in the United States and elsewhere have acquired enormous capacity to monitor the communications of their countries' citizens, residents, and those who live elsewhere. While the purpose is counterterrorism and other foreign intelligence, surveillance of such massive scale has sharply eroded the privacy that many citizens feel they are entitled to enjoy in a democracy that respects individual liberties. Citizens in a democracy are given the right to decide for themselves how to strike the proper balance between privacy and national security. They cannot do so, however, unless they know what their government is doing. A highly intrusive surveillance apparatus has been built without public knowledge and public debate. President Obama has said the current debate over the tradeoff between security and civil liberties is "healthy for our democracy". There would have been no public debate had there been no disclosure. Media organisations like ours consult closely with intelligence agencies in an effort to safeguard sources, methods, and lives, even as we seek to fulfill a central journalistic mission: bringing transparency to a government that wields enormous power. Martin Baron, executive editor, the Washington Post, US   In its reporting on the NSA stories, the Guardian has played a vital role in the global debate on how society in practice weighs freedom of speech and thought versus our common need for security. Truths are at times inconvenient, but inconvenient truths are at times of the highest importance. This is such a case, and we strongly support The Guardians decision to publish these stories. Hilde Haugsgjerd, editor-in-chief, Aftenposten, Norway   Back in 2006, Dean Baquet (who was then the editor of the Los Angeles Times and is now managing editor of The New York Times) and I (who was then executive editor of the New York Times) published a joint statement in our two newspapers addressing what was by then already a very old controversy: when is it acceptable for news organizations to publish secrets? We explained that these are excruciating choices made with great care, that as particular beneficiaries of democratic freedoms we take dangers to national security very seriously indeed, that responsible editors often (though for obvious reasons without fanfare) withhold information when we are convinced it could put lives at risk. The text is here. In that piece, we quoted Robert G. Kaiser of The Washington Post, as follows: "You may have been shocked by these revelations, or not at all disturbed by them, but would you have preferred not to know them at all? If a war is being waged in America's name, shouldn't Americans understand how it is being waged?" And that's the question I would pose to citizens of free societies, and in particular to editors who join governments in denouncing the careful publication of secrets: which of the recent stories would you prefer not to know? Would you prefer not to be told how questionable intelligence led the United States and its allies into a misbegotten war in Iraq? Would you prefer to be ignorant of the existence of secret prisons, and the practice of torture? Would you really rather not know the extent of eavesdropping by governments or private contractors, and the safeguards or lack of safeguards against abuses of these powers? Democracy rests on the informed consent of the governed. Editors' highest responsibility is to assure that it is as informed as possible. Bill Keller, former executive editor, the New York Times   The attacks against the Guardian by both the government and representatives of the British press are unacceptable. What the Guardian is doing is both brave and important for our democracies. We fully support the paper. Peter Wolodarski, editor-in-chief, Dagens Nyheter, Sweden   The freedom of the press is so precious that it cannot be restricted or compromised by the accusation of complicity with 'the enemies'. This does not, of course, mean that newspapers can say whatever they want without any kind of control or any kind of responsibility. But from what I understand, the Guardian has carefully scrutinised the documents they received. This is important. In Italy we were very impressed with the time the Guardian took to publish these documents. It meant that you checked and scrutinised them. You cannot be accused of acting simply as a kind of post box. You received a lot of material and then you decided what was fit to print and what wasn't. In short, a judgement was made, and this cannot be underestimated. I believe that this is the role of journalism in our society- to decide what is important- what is valid- for the public interest. Now, I can disagree perhaps with some documents you have published or some opinions that you have expressed but I cannot disagree with your freedom to do journalism. And journalism means taking on the responsibility of deciding what is important for the public interest. This is what newspaper editors have to decide. This role cannot be given to the government or the secret services. Mario Calabresi, editor, La Stampa, Italy   The position of Neue Zürcher Zeitung on publishing sensitive material is always based on journalistic, ethical and legal considerations. We do not accept intervention by third parties – neither private nor by the government. We consider public interest higher than state interest as a principle, however, and respect our responsibility to safeguard professionalism in investigation, analysis and judgment – based on our core values as a quality brand. It is clear that MI5 has by logic another agenda than the Guardian. In a functioning democracy, however, both sides are entitled to do their jobs within the framework of legality and their professional duties. Markus Spillmann, editor-in-chief, Neue Zürcher Zeitung, Switzerland   As journalists, we are responsible towards society, not towards state institutions. This differentiation is essential for the work of an independent press. A diverse media landscape and freedom of speech are constitutive elements of democracy. Edward Snowden's revelations serve to educate society about transgressions by the government and potential abuse of power. To withhold such information would be a betrayal of a free press and would destroy its credibility. The protection of privacy is an element of human dignity and has been defined as such in the universal declaration of human rights in 1948. Since only a few decades, the policies of human rights are beginning to bear fruit. To a good extent, this positive development has been made possible also through our work, the work of a free press. Stephan-Andreas Casdorff and Lorenz Maroldt, editors- in-chief, Tagesspiegel, Germany   It is with abhorrence that we have read today's editorial in the Daily Mail attacking the Guardian's coverage of Edward Snowden's revelations and accusing its competitor of "aiding Britain's enemies". It effectively amounts to the accusation of treason. We fully support the Guardian's relentless disclosures of secret services' abuses of power and widespread spying on citizens, domestically as well as abroad. For many months now, the Guardian has been subject to unprecedented pressure by the British government, in order to discourage its reporters and editors from pursuing such stories. We are convinced that, in this case, the national security argument is largely overused; since the revealed massive surveillance of people cannot be justified by the war on terror. Piotr Stasinski, deputy editor-in-chief, Gazeta Wyborcza   In October 1962 German authorities arrested journalists from the newsmagazine Der Spiegel, including its founder and publisher Rudolf Augstein. After having published a cover story on the sorry state of the German armed forces - "Partially ready to defend" - they were accused of treason. Spiegel offices were closed. Augstein remained in custody for 103 days. The so called "Spiegel Affair" became a cornerstone in recent German history. It changed the country. The public - and the courts - defended the principle of freedom of information and its importance for a democratic society. And as of today fortunately German authorities have learned their lesson. Nobody would try to force German journalists to destroy computers in the basement. I follow the events in Great Britain with great concern. I was engaged in dealing with intelligence issues, secret documents for more than 20 years. I know how difficult it can be to make decisions about the publication of relevant information - and sometimes, in a very few cases, to take the decision to withhold information from publication. To uncover the (dirty) secrets of governments is an essential part of good journalism. Do journalists have to publish all and every secret? No. Journalists and editors need to weigh arguments. Journalists and editors have responsibility of their own. I am confident that journalists take this responsibility seriously. Should we tell the names of sources, if their life might be endangered by being made public? No. Should we warn suspects, if we know, that authorities are after them? No. Should we report about the threat for our freedom being caused by he worldwide surveillance by intelligence services, the GCHQ or the NSA? We absolutely must. Georg Mascolo, former editor-in-chief, Der Spiegel, Germany   In an era of big data and big surveillance, we need a public and global debate on the borderlines between national security concern and democratic transparency. By publishing stories about the Snowden revelations, the Guardian has made a significant contribution to this important debate. Citizens all over the world must ask themselves if democracies risk being harmed more than defended by a surveillance that is not only secret to the broader public but also seems to be out of democratic control. It is essential that the press engage in this debate and provides documentation to inform it. Bo Lidegaard, executive editor-in-chief, Politiken, Denmark   Governments lie and keep secrets for all kinds of reasons. Sometimes it is to protect the public. Sometimes it is to protect the politicians and the officials who do their bidding, even when what's being covered up is morally bankrupt or outright criminal. It happens again and again and again. Yes, governments need to keep some secrets. But secrecy takes hold as a value in itself, with corrosive effects. In western democracies, transparency is essential to secure the consent of the governed. The Daily Mail apparently has absolute faith in the integrity and competence of its government on national security matters, despite the ample lessons of history. The Mail has a right to be the government's toady. We'll look elsewhere for actual journalism, which we still need. Dan Gillmor, director, Knight centre for digital media   Edward Snowden's release of an unprecedented mass of classified material on the NSA's and GCHQ's mass surveillance programmes and technologies, and their publication by the Guardian, have triggered a lively and important debate round the world, including in India – a country that is directly affected by this surveillance. The debate is essentially about the limits of surveillance carried out amid whole populations, domestic and external, by intelligence agencies in the name of the global war against terrorism. It raises urgent questions about accountability, and the absence of adequate lawful oversight over the mass surveillance programmes. As a former editor with some experience in investigating and exposing corruption and misconduct that the Indian state was determined to keep secret in the name of national security, I have the greatest admiration for the way the Guardian has handled the Snowden leaks. The moral courage, professional diligence, social responsibility, and editorial excellence that has gone into making this challenging mass of material, including technical information, accessible to general readers are in the finest traditions of public-spirited and impactful investigative journalism. I am not surprised by the attacks, considering the level of importance, the magnitude, and the ongoing nature of the leaks. But for journalists to suggest that editors of newspapers, not being experts on security matters, are unfit to make decisions on publishing confidential material and must leave the whole field of surveillance and security to the state to handle as it thinks fit, under an impenetrable veil of secrecy, sounds to me like the worst kind of intellectual philistinism. N. Ram, former editor-in-chief, the Hindu   The best way for government officials to avoid answering in public to embarrassing or illegal conduct is not to engage in it. Indeed, the free press has been the most reliable check on government officials lying to their constituents and violating their rights in the modern political era, at least since the Pentagon Papers revealed the deep deceit in American conduct in the war in Vietnam. The free and responsible American and English press also have an appropriate tradition of taking seriously their governments' concerns over physical safety and national security, which in some cases have themselves turned out to be overstated and deceptive. Editors, government officials and citizens share an interest in ensuring that this important democratic tradition continues into a new media era shaped on one side by new access to undigested information and on the other by encroaching government controls. Readers and sources should expect that when a reporter learns of government misconduct, the default should be to inform the public, not to protect the government. Ben Smith, editor-in-chief, Buzzfeed   Everybody is entitled to his or her own opinions, even if they are utterly absurd. A journalist calling the well documented and carefully researched exposure of serious governmental wrong-doing a "lethal irresponsibility", of course, is such an absurdity: a professional forgetting the very purpose of his profession. The Guardian did what newspapers were invented to do: to make well-reasoned editorial judgements – in this case to reveal an abuse of power by American and British intelligence agencies on a scale which most people would have regarded unthinkable. In my 28 years as a journalist, I cannot think of a single topic that would have been more justified being debated publicly in a democratic society than Edward Snowden's, Glenn Greenwald's and the Guardian's revelations of these last few months. The former editor of the New York Times once said, it's not their primary task to deliver news but to provide judgement. The Guardian provided both and did it brilliantly. Armin Wolf, deputy editor-in-chief, ORF-TV, Austria Surveillance NSA Privacy The Guardian The NSA files GCHQ theguardian.com © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Guardian was 'entirely correct' to publish NSA stories, says Vince Cable Posted: 11 Oct 2013 01:07 AM PDT Business secretary confirms Nick Clegg is to launch review of oversight of intelligence agencies The Guardian performed a considerable public service after making the "entirely correct and right" decision to publish details from secret NSA files leaked by the US whistleblower Edward Snowden, Vince Cable has said. The business secretary, who reserved judgment on Snowden's decision to leak the files, confirmed that Nick Clegg was setting in train a review of the oversight of Britain's intelligence agencies. In an interview on the Today programme on BBC Radio 4, Cable said that "arguably" Britain did not have proper oversight of the domestic intelligence service MI5, overseas agency MI6 and eavesdropping centre GCHQ. Cable confirmed a report in the Guardian that the deputy prime minister's aides are to start conversations in Whitehall about improving the legal oversight of the intelligence agencies in light of Snowden's revelations. These suggest that powerful new technologies appear to have outstripped the current system of legislative and political oversight. The business sectary said: "I think the Guardian has done a very considerable public service … The conclusion which Nick Clegg came to, and set out this morning, is that we do need to have proper political oversight of the intelligence services and arguably we haven't until now. What they [the Guardian] did was, as journalists, entirely correct and right. Mr Snowden is a different kettle of fish." Clegg's aides said on Thursday that he would be calling in experts from inside and outside Whitehall to discuss the implications of the new surveillance technologies for public accountability and trust. It is the first time such a senior figure in government has conceded that the revelations published in the Guardian have highlighted concerns about the accountability of the security services. Clegg hinted at his plans in his weekly phone-in on London's LBC radio, saying: "I think it is right to ask whether there is anything more we can do to make sure the public feel accountability is working in this area properly. There is a totally legitimate debate about the power of these technologies, about how you get the balance right, how you do make sure these technologies are used in an accountable and proportionate way." But Clegg also joined the prime minister, David Cameron, and the head of MI5, Andrew Parker, in declaring that the Guardian had published information, passed to the paper Snowden, that was not in the public interest. He said: "I don't think just giving technical secrets to those who wish to do us harm serves any purpose." Clegg's aides did not give specific examples of details published by the Guardian that would give this help to terrorists. Cameron said: "When you get newspapers who get hold of vast amounts of data and information that is effectively stolen information and they think it's OK to reveal this, I think they have to think about their responsibilities and are they helping to keep our country safe." The prime minister acknowledged that the paper had destroyed some information at his request. He also hinted at movement on the issue, saying: "I am satisfied that the work these agencies do is not only vital but it is properly overseen. That is what this debate needs to be about. If people want to suggest improvements about how they are governed and looked after, I am happy to listen to those." In the wake of Parker's speech this week attacking the Guardian's disclosures, some British newspapers, notably the Daily Mail, accused the Guardian of being a newspaper that helps Britain's enemies. The Mail said the paper had "crossed a line with lethal irresponsibility". But more than 20 leading newspaper editors from a dozen countries rallied to defend the Guardian's handling of the Snowden files. Many insisted that journalists were quite capable of deciding which information is too dangerous to publish – and which information the public has a right to knew. "Journalists have only one responsibility: to keep their readers informed and educated about whatever their government is doing on their behalf," said Aluf Benn, editor-in-chief of Israel's Haaretz. Several editors expressed disappointment that the Guardian had come under attack from other journalists. Javier Moreno, director of El País in Spain, said: "What's sad, baffling and dangerous is that the attacks now come not only from governments but from other newspapers too. We need newspapers wiling to do their job, rather than those ready to cheer on the self-interested deceptions of the powerful." Wolfgang Büchner, editor-in-chief of Der Spiegel in Germany, said: "It is a tragedy that media outlets aligned with governments are now accusing the journalists uncovering these abuses of 'lethal irresponsibility'. "It had not been known that Clegg was to take active steps to review the issue, a route apparently closed off by the parliamentary watchdog, the intelligence and security committee (ISC). The ISC had declared, following a short investigation in private, that the security services were bypassing the current systems of ministerial oversight. But the deputy prime minister's aides said: "We are completely supportive of you lifting the lid on a lot of this, and starting a debate to which he is trying to contribute." Clegg himself said: "There is a totally legitimate debate to be had, and in my experience from speaking to people in the security services they recognise this, about the use of these incredibly powerful technologies. We have legislation – regulations – that were designed for an age that is quite different now. Both terrorist states and security services conduct this battle online in a way that was quite unimaginable just a few years ago. "What that means for privacy and proportionality is a totally legitimate area for debate. How you hold the secret parts of any state to account is an incredibly important issue. "We have to defend the principle of secrecy but you can only really make secrecy legitimate in the eyes of the public if there is a proper form of accountability." The first public indications of government disquiet in the UK came as a new drive started in the US to bring the National Security Agency to account. The conservative Republican who authored the US Patriot Act is preparing to unveil bipartisan legislation that would dramatically curtail the domestic surveillance powers it gives to intelligence agencies. Congressmen Jim Sensenbrenner, who worked with president George W Bush to give more power to US spies after the 11 September terrorist attack, said they had misused it by collecting telephone records on all Americans and claimed it was time "to put their metadata programme out of business". Many lawmakers have agreed that new legislation is required owing to the collapse in public trust following Snowden's disclosures that the NSA was collecting bulk records of all US phone calls in order to sift out potential terrorist targets. The Guardian The NSA files GCHQ MI5 MI6 Vince Cable NSA Newspapers & magazines National newspapers Newspapers Data protection UK security and counter-terrorism Nick Clegg Nicholas Watt Patrick Wintour Rowena Mason Dan Roberts theguardian.com © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Talks between White House and Republicans fail to end US shutdown Posted: 11 Oct 2013 12:54 AM PDT No deal emerges but observers note warmer language after Barack Obama and House speaker John Boehner meet White House talks with Republicans failed to reach an agreement to end the budget crisis on Thursday evening despite earlier hopes that a deal might be in sight. Discussions between Barack Obama and House speaker John Boehner broke up after 90 minutes with little apparent progress, although there was a marked change in tone on both sides that suggests a deal could still be close. Earlier, Boehner sent stock markets soaring by offering to pass a temporary extension to the US debt limit, potentially ending a standoff that could lead to a default when the current limit is reached on 17 October. But the Republicans refused to lift a separate threat to spending authorisation, which has led to a partial shutdown of the government since 1 October. Obama had insisted on at least a temporary reprieve from both threats before he would agree to negotiate over Republican demands to repeal his healthcare reforms and cut spending. On Thursday night, it appeared the president had chosen to stand his ground and may have initially refused to accept the partial climbdown from Boehner. In a statement, the White House said: "After a discussion about potential paths forward, no specific determination was made. "The president's goal remains to ensure we pay the bills we've incurred, reopen the government and get back to the business of growing the economy, creating jobs and strengthening the middle class." Some initial reports claimed the president had rejected Boehner's debt ceiling offer outright, but the White House statement left open the possibility that a deal was near. "The president had a good meeting with members of the House Republican leadership this evening," added the statement. "The president looks forward to making continued progress with members on both sides of the aisle." Republican leaders told CNN they had "a good honest discussion" that did not lead to a "yes or no" from the president. Nevertheless Senate Democrats were sceptical about accepting the Republican offer of talks until the threat of continuing government shutdown was also removed. "Not going to happen," declared majority leader Harry Reid, standing outside the White House after he and fellow Democrats met with Obama before the Republican meeting. Earlier White House officials had given a cautious welcome to the Republican offer, but stressed they would need to see the exact wording before deciding if it was enough to proceed with formal talks. The president is "happy that cooler heads seem to be prevailing," said spokesman Jay Carney, adding: "We would prefer to see a longer term resolution." Republicans have been under intense pressure from business leaders and party donors to avoid a possible US default by removing the debt ceiling threat from their arsenal. But there is no guarantee that the more conservative Republicans in Boehner's caucus will support it. US stock markets soared on the initial Republican debt ceiling offer. The Dow Jones Industrial Average had risen over 230 points (1.56%) shortly after Boehner's Thursday morning press conference ended. The S&P 500 rose more than 27 points (1.67%). PNC Bank senior economist Gus Faucher said: "This is an indication at least that we will get a deal on the debt ceiling. That's what has been worrying investors more than the government shutdown." Faucher added, however, that the uncertainty was already a drag on the economy, and failure to reach a deal on the debt limit would have a "significant negative and long-lasting impact". Bruce Bittles, chief investment strategist at RW Baird & Co, said investors had become more concerned about the possibility of a debt default in recent days, but that in general they were "complacent" and had discounted the possibility of a default despite the war of words in Washington. During the last row over the debt ceiling in 2011, the S&P dropped close to 20%. "So far we have seen modest sell-offs. My fear is that if we are just kicking the can down the road, that's not a solution," Bittles said. Earlier on Thursday the Treasury secretary Jack Lew warned there were unpredictable consequences of the continued brinksmanship, including the possibility that the US could run out of cash within days. Lew accused Republicans of underestimating the danger of inadvertently triggering a stampede among investors that could rapidly drain remaining reserves. More than $100bn (£63bn) of the US debt, known as Treasury bonds, is typically reissued every week as investors roll over their loans to the government. This process is usually routine and does not add to the $17tn US debt pile, but simply refinances a portion of it. But markets have already been spooked by Republican threats to refuse to extend the debt limit if they do not extract concessions on healthcare reform. Short-term borrowing costs nearly tripled in a bond auction on Tuesday as investors feared there was a risk that interest and capital repayments could be missed. A similar wariness to roll over bonds expiring next week could exhaust a $50bn cash reserve at any point, warned Lew. "Trying to time a debt limit increase to the last minute could be very dangerous," he said in written congressional testimony. "If US bondholders decided they wanted to be repaid rather than continuing to roll over their Treasury investments, we could unexpectedly dissipate our entire cash balance." Answering written questions by members of the Senate finance committee, he added: "I very much fear that miscalculation is something that could have devastating consequences. "It is impossible to predict with any degree of accuracy when we will run out of money." US government shutdown 2013 United States US politics Barack Obama John Boehner US healthcare Republicans Democrats Dan Roberts theguardian.com © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Floods could have catastrophic impact on Australia’s east coast, study warns Posted: 11 Oct 2013 12:44 AM PDT Mega-storms exacerbated by climate change would spell disaster for populated coastal communities Oliver Milman

Japanese hospital fire leaves many dead and injured Posted: 11 Oct 2013 12:33 AM PDT Patients and hospital staff killed after blaze at four-storey orthopedic hospital in Fukuoka, southern Japan A fire has broken out at a hospital in southern Japan, killing 10 people. Another eight people were injured in the fire, which started on the ground floor of the four-storey orthopedic hospital while patients were sleeping. Fukuoka police said eight of the dead were patients, and the remaining two were hospital staff. Several of those injured were in serious condition. Akiharu Otsu, a Fukuoka city fire department official, told journalists the fire had been extinguished only after burning down most of the building. There was no sign of an initial fire extinguishing effort at the hospital and fire-proof doors on the second and third floors were not properly used, an unidentified fire department official said in a televised news conference on NHK public television. The cause of the blaze is under investigation. Japan Asia Pacific theguardian.com © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Into battle with the Knights of Jerusalem – in pictures Posted: 11 Oct 2013 12:23 AM PDT The Knights of Jerusalem historical festival is now in its fifth year and is the only known Israeli tournament accredited by the Historical Medieval Вattle International Association

Tony Abbott keeps options open on same-sex marriage conscience vote Posted: 11 Oct 2013 12:20 AM PDT High court challenge to ACT legislation aimed to maintain 'uniform approach' to marriage across Australia, PM says Katharine Murphy

West Papuan asylum seekers to be sent to camp on PNG-Indonesian border Posted: 10 Oct 2013 11:45 PM PDT Group of seven who were deported from Australia fear kidnapping if sent to remote border camp Marni Cordell

About time: Nine 'lost' Doctor Who episodes discovered in Nigeria Posted: 10 Oct 2013 11:40 PM PDT BBC says nine episodes not seen on TV for 40 years – including The Web of Fear – were found in Nigerian TV studio Doctor Who fans will be able to buy nine early episodes of the series not seen since they were screened in the 1960s, after tapes of the lost adventures were discovered in Nigeria. Regarded as the most significant haul of missing Doctor Who episodes for three decades, they feature Patrick Troughton, the second actor to play the itinerant Time Lord in the long running sci-fi show. The recovered material includes four episodes of six-parter The Web of Fear, a "quintessential" Doctor Who story in which the Time Lord battles robot Yetis spreading a poisonous fungus on the London Underground. Only episode three is still missing. It also features the first appearance of Nicholas Courtney as Brigadier Alistair Lethbridge-Stewart, a popular recurring character on the series and its spin-off The Sarah Jane Adventures for the next 40 years. Nine of the 11 episodes found at a small TV facility in Jos, Nigeria, were among the 106 "lost" 1960s episodes of Doctor Who that feature Troughton and the first Time Lord, William Hartnell - the other two were copies of episodes already in the BBC archive. The discovery was made by Philip Morris, executive director at Television International Enterprise Archive, who specialises in tracking down missing TV and cinema archive material and is referred to in the industry as the "Indiana Jones of the film world". Morris said he found the tapes, which also included five episodes that complete the six-part 1967 Doctor Who story The Enemy of the World , at a TV relay station "sitting on a shelf with a piece of masking tape that said 'Doctor Who'". "People thought they were gone forever," he said. "They're not, they're back." The BBC's commercial arm, BBC Worldwide, made the episodes available on Apple's iTunes store from midnight on Thursday with the two series also available for pre-order on DVD. Mark Gatiss, who has written episodes and acted in BBC1's Doctor Who revival in recent years and co-created Sherlock with the show's executive producer Steven Moffat, singled out The Web of Fear episodes as a particularly important find. "As long as I have been a Doctor Who fan there has been one story I hoped and prayed and begged I would one day see again," he said at a BBC press launch unveiling the recovered episodes on Thursday. "The Web of Fear is the quintessential Doctor Who story, it is the most British thing you could imagine. I never thought I'd see the day, I can't really believe it. To think it was just gathering dust on a shelf." Gatiss added that six-parter's London Underground setting had such a profound effect on him when he saw it as a child that the first episode of the next series of Sherlock will be set there. "The first epsiode of Sherlock, because I am obsessed with the tube and I think it all comes from that story when I was a kid, is explicitly about the London Undeground for exactly that reason," he said. The recovered episodes feature Frazer Hines, who went on to appear in Emmerdale, and Deborah Watling as Troughton's time travelling companions. "When I heard I couldn't quite believe it," Watling said. "There had been hoaxes before [about lost episodes being discovered]." Watling, after watching two of the episodes at Thursday's BBC screening in London, said that she picked right up where she left off and immediately started remembering the lines of the actors. "It is extraordinary after all these years," she said. "My God, I'm back on the screen again all these years later and I can see some of the work I did as a young 19-year-old." Doctor Who will celebrate its 50th anniversary next month with an extended 75-minute episode, The Day of the Doctor, featuring the current Time Lord Matt Smith and predecessor David Tennant. "This is such a gift in this anniversary year," said Gatiss. "It is amazing timing, exciting. Anything is a bonus and the rest is gravy." Doctor Who Television Fantasy Nigeria Africa BBC Science fiction Mark Sweney theguardian.com © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Ravi Shankar on the 'introvert' music of India: From the archive, 11 October 1958 Posted: 10 Oct 2013 11:30 PM PDT The great Indian classical musician encourages audience to follow him with their feelings during a sitar recital in Manchester One of India's greatest musicians, Mr Ravi Shankar, gave a recital on the sitar, the most popular Indian stringed instrument, at the Manchester University Union last night. On the stage a grand piano was pushed into the wings with only one leg showing, like a symbol of how far we were from what Indians call 'western music.' Indian music depends largely on the spontaneity of improvisation, and there can be some dull patches with the inspiration of the players flags. Or at least so it had seemed in previous sitar recitals by less talented players than Mr Shankar. But, as he said himself last night, 'contact with the listener' is all important; and with a largely Indian audience, responding readily to a recital so evocative and nostalgic, he had perhaps the perfect incentive for an outstanding performance. Mr Shankar was the first to introduce Yehudi Menuhin to what the famous violinist called 'the fascinating, highly evolved and refined music of India,' and Menuhin has paid a tribute to him for 'some of the most inspiring moments I have ever lived in music.' Mr Shankar stressed last night the 'introvert' quality of Indian music; he did not add it, but many other Indians have, that much of western music strikes an Indian as too organised, hearty, and slap-on-the-back – or too 'extrovert,' as Mr Shankar might have put it. He asked last night's audience to follow him with their feelings; they could think later. Many western audiences, he added, had been surprised how appreciative he and his tabla player were of each other's performance during the recital; 'when I play and the tabla shakes his head, they sometimes think it means he doesn't like what I am playing.' There was a loud laugh about that from the audience. It is the relationship between player and audience - the 'contact' Mr Shankar mentioned - that is hardest for an English audience to understand. An Indian audience does not bow to Mr Shankar's great classical reputation and keep its applause until the end. They interrupted last night, talked, laughed, and almost at one exchange between tabla and sitar seemed to become part of the recital. One refers to 'exchange' between the instruments because this is part of the tradition; last night sitar and tabla, imitating each other, seemed almost to be fighting a musical duel, much to the audience's enjoyment. Mr Shankar compared the audience's participation to a Spanish crowd crying 'Olé.' It emphasised again that for comparisons with western music, one must go to jazz with its intense response from an audience and its emphasis on the importance of mood and feelings. The most moving moments in last night's recital came with the long solo raga, with the tabla quiet for once, and Mr Shankar and his large sighing instruments on their own, probing what seemed to be, by the reactions, the accumulated memories of an audience far from home. More reviews from the archive Ravi Shankar India World music Classical music theguardian.com © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Coalition to toughen mandatory sentencing for people smugglers Posted: 10 Oct 2013 11:23 PM PDT Attorney general George Brandis targeting exemptions 'to ensure those convicted face the full force of Australian law' Oliver Milman

Viral Video Chart: Miley Cyrus and Ron Burgundy's dancers on the run Posted: 10 Oct 2013 11:19 PM PDT Ron runs into trouble, Carrie horror movie makes a mocha of drinkers and football fans strip a coach of his pride This week is all about being in the right place at the wrong time – or the wrong place altogether! We start with a marketing video for the new Carrie movie which turns a coffee shop into a house of horrors. Unbeknown to the latte lovers, their favourite drop in has been wired for sound – and action. They can't get out expresso enough when "Carrie" starts to scream. Miley Cyrus charms us with a little ditty called Can't Stop – with The Roots and chatshow host Jimmy Fallon. Maybe she wishes she was back on the dancefloor – but she does sing that she can do what she wants. Sci-fi TV series in the 80s often sold the idea that the impossible was possible and we've got an out-of-this-world parody from Camera Obscura – check out those pained expressions and weird costumes. Someone who must have wished he was on another planet was football coach Ivaylo Petev who turned up for his first press conference as manager of Levski Sofia and was stripped of his tracksuit top and kicked out by angry fans. We've also got a couple of dancers who found themselves in the right place at the wrong time when they appeared on an advert for a Dodge Durango and encountered Ron Burgundy. Enjoy! Guardian Viral Video Chart. Compiled by Unruly Media and twisted into shape by Janette 1. Telekinetic Coffee Shop Surprise Coffee to drink in – or Carrie out? 2. Jimmy Fallon, Miley Cyrus & The Roots Sing "We Can't Stop" (A Cappella) Miley gets back to her Roots 3. Camera Obscura 'Troublemaker' Great 80s sci-fi parody 4. Levski New Coach Ivaylo Petev Gets Stripped Off Kicked Out By The Angry Fans First Press Conference Sent off 5. Malala Yousafzai amazing answer on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart Brave schoolgirl 6. James Arthur hits himself in face while trying to chat up reporter during interview The Ex factor 7. Dodge Durango, Ron Burgundy, "Ballroom Dancers" Taking the wrong step 8. Typewriter, computer Old but still funny 9. Cut Hand Prank The bleedin' obvious 10. Sesame Street: Mi Amiguita Rosita Mexican roots celebrated Source: Viral Video Chart. Compiled from data gathered at 14:00 on 10 October 2013. The Viral Video Chart is currently based on a count of the embedded videos and links on approximately 2m blogs, as well as Facebook and Twitter. Digital media Miley Cyrus Jimmy Fallon Malala Yousafzai Janette Owen theguardian.com © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Fresh Air Podcast; Today – radio review Posted: 10 Oct 2013 11:00 PM PDT These interviews with Elizabeth Smart and Malala Yousafzai were probing but empathetic explorations of two girls' traumatic experiences • Fresh Air Podcast • Today Survivors of extreme trauma telling their stories on the radio is – for me – one of the more anxiety-inducing staples of the medium. Yes, without it, the World Service would have to report news without any of the human detail listeners routinely expect and Woman's Hour might have to have a massive rethink. But doesn't anyone else agonise over those awkward pauses? The bit between the interviewee – let's call her Elizabeth Smart – and the interviewer – say, Terry Gross on the Fresh Air Podcast – when some awful detail needs to be sensitively extracted for listeners to understand the full story and there's that remote chance it could all go pear-shaped. Smart was kidnapped at 14, from her bedroom, and kept hostage for nine months by deranged cult leader Brian David Mitchell. "[Someone] would bathe me and wash me so Mitchell could come into the tent," recalled Smart. "Where he would rape you?" asked Gross, matter-of-fact. It was a grim interview, but delivered with a bizarrely sunny sheen that seemed to distort Smart's experience from the reality. "The best thing you can do is move forward," she said, upbeat. Following her mum's advice, Smart insisted she never felt sorry for herself because "that's only allowing him more power and control over [my] life and he doesn't deserve another second". She seems to have grown into a well-adjusted, confident activist and, now aged 26, has written a memoir about the experience. It's the stuff of movies – which it was (the TV film came out in 2003) – and her retelling of that year on Fresh Air was, as is the tendency in similar cases, emotionally detached. It made Gross's job easier, if no less compelling. Her journalistic instinct was to get the story, mine the subject with few awkward pauses or moments of terrifying cringe. A real masterclass in this format came from Mishal Husain, making her debut on Today (Radio 4) this week. Her interview with Malala Yousafzai hit the right notes – empathetic, thoughtful, probing. On her second day in the job she took on Theresa May, making May stay on point without haranguing her. Refreshing. Mishal Husain Malala Yousafzai Radio 4 BBC Radio NPR Nosheen Iqbal theguardian.com © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

What information can retailers see when they track customer movements? Posted: 10 Oct 2013 11:00 PM PDT Customers have shown concern about businesses using physical tracking - but they might feel differently if they knew the data that was being used. Last week, the Guardian published a number of articles about the marketing value of big data. This column specifically focussed on how high street stores have started to install technology with the aim of better understanding customer behaviour. Briefly, retailers are investing in devices that either count the number of people who enter a store or visit a specific area. They are also using more sophisticated devices that can follow specific individuals' movements around a store via their smartphone. If that last section sounds intrusive, that's because it kind of is. For many, it's a scary thought that a company could be tracking their movements, especially when it's taking place without their knowledge, let alone their consent. When the New York Times highlighted that American retail outfit Nordstrom were using such technology (from Euclid Analytics), the outcry forced the company to stop. But the public first started to show unease after the retailer put up a sign telling customers that they were being tracked around the store. If they wanted to opt-out, they could switch off their wi-fi. Looking back, Nordstrom did a number of things wrong. First, they didn't tell customers about the technology until months after it had already been tracking their movements. Second, customers were not told how they would benefit, crucial when using technology of this kind. Third, they made customers opt out, something that inherently makes people feel frustrated that the onus is on them to take action. Finally – and most importantly – their marketing campaign missed a trick; they didn't tell customers what was happening with their data and, as a result they were unnerved and many expressed their concerns publicly. So, what information do retailers collect and how can they use this data to increase their business? Euclid Analytics gave the Guardian access to a dummy dashboard, identical to what their customers might see. The dashboard After logging in, users are faced with a fairly intuitive dashboard, not too dissimilar to what one might expect should Google enter the physical analytics market. Clicking on any of the options available - outside opportunity, window performance, shopper engagement, store hours optimisation, cross shopping and shopper retention - opens a page with more detailed information. The dashboard also gives basic data, drawing a comparison with the same day a week earlier. Outside opportunity This is possibly the most simple measure, with the basic premise of counting the total footfall outside the store. This allows businesses to quickly check if traffic is as expected. If not, it's a good sign that companies might have to, at the very least, increase their marketing budget. This could be useful for hiring decisions too; if there are normally more people walking around on Thursdays, it's a sign that more staff should be employed. Estate agents might also find this an effective way of showing impressive data to potential commercial tenants. Delving further allows companies to understand the stores that are receiving the highest footfall. Companies can also choose to filter this information by people who have visited (or not visited) the store before. Window performance In this case, "window conversion rate" is just a fancy way of giving the percentage of people who walked into the stores (versus those who just walk past) because understanding the number of people who enter the store is more valuable. If, as mentioned earlier, a marketing campaign is launched, this data would give an indication of whether it's working. Shopper engagement Each element of Euclid's analytics builds more value and the next set of analytics continues the trend. Shopper engagement essentially measures the people who probably bought something once they had entered the store. The basic version of Euclid's tool defines any customer who spent over 20 minutes to have been "engaged". Euclid's advanced offering allows companies to adapt this definition for their needs. For example, a jewellers may want to say that a person is only an 'engaged' customer one after half an hour, (as customers likely spend longer on such decisions) while a quick-service retailer may lower the minimum time. Here, the specific stores are crucial and companies can conduct more detailed investigations as to what is, and what isn't, working. Store hours optimisation This measurement has one crucial aim: are companies missing out on revenue opportunities because their stores are closed or are they losing profit because staff are being paid to work when no-one is around? The detailed analytics are more flexible than the other sections, with companies able to look at information by store, specific day of the week as well as comparing the footfall outside the store to the minimum, maximum and average from the past 8 weeks. Companies can use this information to ensure they have enough staff to cover even the highest demand or, more likely, know how many staff they might need next time that fair is back in town. Cross shopping Ever wondered if people visit multiple stores in the same chain? Euclid measures the number of people who are "cross-shopping" and tells companies whether this is good or bad. They tell their customers: "Good Cross Shopping is when two visits occur at least 2 weeks apart and the stores are far from each other. This is a sign of strong shopper loyalty." Companies are also shown a map of the stores where cross shopping is most effective (and beneficial). Bad cross shopping, meanwhile is "when two visits occur within 2 weeks and the stores are close together. This can signal inventory or customer service problems." Shopping retention How long is it before a shopper comes back to a store? Any more than 6 weeks and companies should figure out what's going wrong, according to Euclid. Euclid's statistics tells companies the percentage of shoppers who have returned within the last six weeks and the more sophisticated analysis can be made through clicking "New" and "Repeat". Repeat customers will tend to hold more brand loyalty and come back more often whereas new customers are not so kind. What's more, if there is a sudden dip in return from repeat customers, that's a sign of dissatisfaction and a cause for concern for businesses. Similarly, though, business can find out if repeat customers are coming back more regularly but new customers are returning less frequently. But it's important to note that this method isn't the most reliable; after all, the only customers that can be tracked are those who are connected to wi-fi. If the wi-fi on their smartphone is switched off, their actions in the store will never be known. On the other hand, the iPhone-yielding customers taking pictures in a bookstore of books they might want to buy on Amazon might count as having been "engaged" but don't provide value to the store. Do you think data collected by physical analytics companies using wi-fi is accurate? Which other tools could they use to monitor customer behaviour that would be more effective? Have your say below or join in the debate on Twitter either with me directly @sirajdatoo or our official account @Guardiandata Big data Amazon.com Privacy Siraj Datoo theguardian.com © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Asylum claimants wait for years in unacceptable conditions, MPs say Posted: 10 Oct 2013 10:34 PM PDT Damning report from Home Affairs select committee finds long delays, poor housing and intrusive questioning of gay applicants

200kg of methamphetamine seized in Melbourne – video Posted: 10 Oct 2013 10:23 PM PDT Three Melbourne men, including two former dock workers, are facing possible life imprisonment

Australian PlantBank opens with mission to protect and preserve Posted: 10 Oct 2013 10:08 PM PDT $20m Sydney facility aims to be the 'ultimate insurance policy' and includes the largest native plant seed bank in the country

Scott Morrison imposes information blackout on self-harm in detention Posted: 10 Oct 2013 10:02 PM PDT 'That is not something you'll hear me discussing,' says immigration minister Katharine Murphy

Syrian rebels accused of killing hundreds of civilians Posted: 10 Oct 2013 09:57 PM PDT Human Rights Watch says militant groups slaughtered villagers and took others hostage in attacks on Latakia in August

There's absolutely no excuse for Twitter not to have a woman on its board | Bronwen Clune Posted: 10 Oct 2013 09:42 PM PDT Bronwen Clune: Excuses? We've heard them all, and none of them sticks. The bottom line remains the same: women are still sorely missing at the top of the young ground-breaking tech company Bronwen Clune

General Sisi and his followers are condemning Egypt to greater turmoil | Jonathan Steele Posted: 10 Oct 2013 09:00 PM PDT The US decision to stop military aid is not enough to stem the escalating violence. Terrorist attacks on civilians could be next The Obama administration's decision to suspend some military aid to Egypt is a clear case of better late than never. Although an announcement was originally planned for August, its timing now is a warning to Cairo's military coup-makers that their repressive treatment of the opposition risks plunging Egypt into uncontrollable violence. Troops again shot scores of peaceful Muslim Brotherhood protesters last weekend, and the next day unknown assailants struck a series of military and government targets in the most serious counterviolence since the coup. No one has taken responsibility for the attacks but it was predictable that General Abdul Fatah al-Sisi's refusal to relax the clampdown on the Brotherhood would provoke violence. In what other country in the world today is an elected president held for three months with no access to his family or lawyers? In what other country are demonstrators routinely shot without warning, not with birdshot or rubber bullets but live ammunition? Egypt has not seen such brutal repression for decades. The last few years of Hosni Mubarak's rule now seem almost benevolent: in spite of tight overall control, demonstrations were more or less tolerated and the Brotherhood was allowed to run candidates for parliament as independents. Egypt's regime-influenced courts have started proceedings not just to ban the political party that the Brotherhood set up after 2011 but to outlaw the organisation and its social welfare network altogether. The Brotherhood's own record on human rights, during the year it had partial power in Egypt, was not good. It made little effort to rein in the police, whose abuses were one of the main complaints that led to the demonstrations in January 2011. Indeed, there were times when the Brotherhood was willing to encourage police thuggery against its opponents. Yet Mohamed Morsi's many failings cannot match, let alone justify, what has happened since the coup of 3 July this year. Equally grim is the virtual absence of public criticism or peaceful protest from other sectors of Egyptian society other than the Brotherhood's supporters. The Twittersphere is still free for dissent and there have not yet been reprisals or arrests for posting anti-army comments there or on Facebook. The regime sees this as a useful safety valve. More significant is its flooding of the official press, the TV stations and the talkshows with grotesque smears of the Brotherhood and all its works, as well as of the few prominent non-Brotherhood figures who have spoken out, such as Mohamed ElBaradei. Primitive though the propaganda is, it has convinced an astonishing number of otherwise sensible Egyptians. As a result, politics have become almost completely polarised. The emotional tone of what passes for debate has never been more shrill, and the chances of eventual reconciliation look daily more flimsy. Some Salafis have joined the Brotherhood's protests but the al-Nour party, which represented them in the last election, still wavers between support for the coup and silence. A few secular liberals mutter behind a comforting intellectual stance of "neither the Brotherhood nor the army", but unless this fence-sitting is abandoned in favour of open condemnation of today's main threat to civil liberties – which comes from the army – it is politically vacuous. The business community hunkers down and hopes for a few crumbs, even though the economy is in tatters and cannot live for ever off loans from Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. Tourism is dead and Monday's attacks near the Red Sea resorts, the first violence there for several years, will further delay its recovery. Yet, far from contributing to stability, what General Sisi and his civilian followers are doing will only condemn Egypt to greater turmoil. As well as hitting the Red Sea area for the first time, this week's attacks also saw the first use of rocket-propelled grenades against government targets in central Cairo. If Iraq is any guide, the next stage will be terrorist violence against civilians through car bombs and suicide vests. General Sisi will probably put himself forward as a candidate for the presidency, exploiting the rise in violence to claim Egypt needs a new strongman. But what it really needs is a gradually recovering economy, social justice, a properly managed, non-abusive police force, a politically engaged citizenry, and the enabling environment of media pluralism, multi-party options and civic tolerance that are the true pillars of stability. Egypt Middle East and North Africa Africa United States Hosni Mubarak Mohamed ElBaradei Muslim Brotherhood Jonathan Steele theguardian.com © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Briton who died in US hospital stairwell not a victim of foul play Posted: 10 Oct 2013 08:58 PM PDT Body of Lynne Spalding, 57, not discovered for 17 days after she went missing from her room at San Francisco general hospital

You are subscribed to email updates from World news and comment from the Guardian | theguardian.com To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now.	Email delivery powered by Google
Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610