There is a certain glee in posting in broad daylight for a single individual. I am intrigued/lazy to know with a key size of 2048 and the RSA algorithm, how much time that would take to crack based on Edward Snowdens suggestion to Laura:

"Assume that your adversary is capable of a trillion guesses per second"

The program suggested a 5 year expiry date...

Which is the answer to the question I was now asking myself, I wrote a link to my public key in my message and then must have sent an earlier attempt which I have no copy of. In other words - to much focus on the process, not enough on the content.

-----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (MingW32)
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=g6Fq
-----END PGP MESSAGE-----

-----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (MingW32)
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==
=vpAb
-----END PGP MESSAGE-----

In regards to convergence of media, a futurist would look at the current situation and probably consider the development of digital "mobs" as a certainty (already a developing reality). In a simplistic sense if it's the news media's task to report the "facts" and "truths" and dispel inaccuracies - then in a time of real time, anywhere information distribution world - gossip and rumors are hugely amplified and it becomes even more important for the news media not to add to the echo chamber but perform their role.

The hopeful chap inside of me argues however that with a much more level playing field - people will get their information from a much wider set of sources. This will be true to a degree BUT sadly I think the counter happens where generally people will drift to listen to those who say what they want to hear. If the news media aren't able to be there to cut through that then things will get very tribal.

My view then is if regulation has been considered important in the past then convergence is no argument to throw it out.
Accuracy ratings would not evolve well at all. Perhaps a redevelopment of actual News Media with strict ethics would prove to be increasingly wildly popular in my view with plenty of the other entertainment and disinformation on offer. The last thing we want is the situation in the States where news media divides the population with disinformation and feeds their respective fears.

Sensationalism combined with brevity is not news - it's advertising.
Classic current example is the current headlines "$220,000 a month living expenses" re the Dotcom story. Tvnz.co.nz right now is running a poll "What do you think about Dotcom's claims for $220,000 a month living expenses?".

This isn't about news or opinion - it's about page views for advertising driven by sensationalism at the expense of an individual (I don't care how wacky or rich - it's certainly not the real story right now in this intriguing and complex situation).
This sort of "news" (abusive profiteering) is not worthy of the name or any form of protection or privilege.

The need for (advertising) revenue to fund reporting is the business issue at the heart of the matter - if our democracy is valued then we need news sources who aren't dependent on advertising and weirdly enough it's the part time blogs who depend on it less right now.

My point is: if healthy democracy was the goal then the'd be a rule that news is only news if the supplier of it is not standing to profit from its presentation and that anything else can't claim to be "news". This would return some nobility to the role of a reporter and be generally healthy all round.

Under such a model the TV One "6 O Clock news would have to rebrand as "6 O'Clock" which they've almost achieved already with their tag line: "It's 6 O'Clock".