Mediaboss Marketing

A dozen Ukrainian journalists stood up and raised anti-censorship banners when President Viktor Yanukovich yesterday hailed his country's march to media freedom at the World Newspaper Congress in Kiev.

"Ukraine has made its way, without exaggeration, from total censorship to an open society," Mr Yanukovich told the conference as his security guards ripped banners saying "stop censorship" from protesters' hands.

Mr Yanukovich did not react to the silent protest.

Ukrainian opposition and Western rights watchdogs have accused Mr Yanukovich of cracking down on media freedom after coming to power in the former Soviet republic in early 2010. In July, three months before the October parliamentary election, tax police raided the office of TVi, a television station often critical of the government.

Although a tax-evasion case against TVi's chief executive has since been dropped, the station says local cable companies are either dropping it or moving it to more expensive packages, cutting the station's viewer base. Mr Yanukovich said the alleged lack of media freedom in his country was due to ignorance and misinformation.

After winning the February 2010 presidential election, Mr Yanukovich quickly consolidated power by forging a majority coalition in parliament and installing allies in key positions.

Last October, a local court sentenced his arch-rival and defeated presidential contender and former Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko to seven years in prison for abuse of office after a trial criticised by the West as an example of selective justice.

Despite calls by the European Union for the release of Ms Tymoshenko, Mr Yanukovich refused to intervene and analysts say this may affect the EU judgement on the fairness of Ukraine's 28 October parliamentary poll.

Reuters.

See the rest here:
Ukrainian journalists stage silent protest against government censorship

There's so much internet censorship in India now that it is surprising that instead of outrage you find the Indian media actually building the case for censorship, writes Shivam Vij

Hundreds of web pages now stand blocked in India, the government has openly been appealing to internet companies to pre- or post-screen content and remove what the government wants it to remove. One Google Transparency Report after another has been revealing how the number one target of the government is criticism of politicians and government. Just imagine what would the Indian media's response to such censorship have been like had it been hundreds of books or articles we were talking about? Instead of asking Facebook to 'pre-screen' our posts, had Kapil Sibal [ Images ] been asking for someone to pre-screen articles in the newspapers, would it not be like the Emergency of 1975?

Okay, point taken. Let us not trivialise the Emergency, which entailed jailing of dissidents and forced sterilisation and so on. But still, there's so much internet censorship in India now that it is surprising that instead of outrage you find the Indian media actually building the case for censorship. What about hate speech, they ask. What about the trolls, why is there so much abuse on the internet?

In the latest round of censorship the victims include mainstream media outlets -- Firstpost.com, Al Jazeera, the Times of India [ Images ], the Telegraph of the UK and ABC of Australia [ Images ]. And yet, all we are asking is: why do the trolls troll so much? I reliably know that the government also tries to have removed from the internet TV news videos, and they have also been pressing mainstream media outlets like the Times of India to do something about their comments section. The exasperated refrain, "Anyone can say anything on the internet!" is heard from politicians and journalists alike. What gives?

The Indian media favours internet censorship because it has been at the receiving end of the internet for a long time, and now that politicians have begun to face the heat, they're only too happy to say, "Yes! Go for them trolls!"

The over-use of the word 'Hate' suggest that there is all that to the issue. But hate can be subjective. Arnab Goswami will say the criticism of his style of news presenting is Hate, and may be there are people out there who Hate him for his style, but is expressing such hatred illegal? Is it violative of the law, of the Constitution of India? Does it cross the limits set out in the "reasonable restrictions" laid out in Article 19 (2) -- which was, ironically, India's First Amendment?

If yes, then why are we not seeing FIRs and police complaints and court cases? If I distribute a pamphlet that incites violence against someone, or tries to provoke a communal riot, the government will take action against me under the law. There will be IPC and CrPC and I will get to hire a lawyer and defend myself. But on the internet the government's response is to deal with ISPs and internet companies, bypassing the safeguards for citizens laid out by the Constitution.

How does the Indian media respond to such grave violation of fundamental rights? By asking why there are no laws to regulate the internet, such as the laws to regulate print and TV news! That is a gross lie the Indian media has been turning into perceived truth by repeating it ad nauseum. In truth, there is more regulation of the internet than of newspapers or news channels. Apart from IPC and CrPC there is the IT Act and the IT Rules. By contrast, how often has the Broadcast Code been implemented? Why is TV news reluctant to allow government regulation, and instead setting up show-piece self-regulation bodies? Why are they so upset about Justice Katju's suggestion that news TV should come under the Press Council of India's ambit? Is there a single editor in favour of giving more teeth to the Press Council of India?

Of course, social media is not a news organisation. Comparing the act of millions of individuals tweeting, well, whatever they like, to professional news work, is comparing apples and oranges. The Delhi [ Images ] editors understand as much. But even if we were to compare apples and oranges the hypocrisy of the Delhi Editorial Elite apparent in their resisting "regulation" for themselves but asking for "regulation" of the internet.

In this us-and-them binary that the Delhi Editorial Elite build, they are being way too generous to themselves. We didn't need Radia tapes to know how Responsible and Honest and Independent the Indian media is. But when two magazines did a story on the Radia tapes -- after months of the entire Delhi Editorial Elite knowing of their existence -- the Delhi media initially chose silence. But the barrage of criticism online forced the media to stop pretending those tapes have no 'news value'.

See the rest here:
Why is the Indian media pro-internet censorship?

Download

Working journalists in Burma fear legal challenges despite Rangoon's lifting of its decades-long censorship policy.

This week, newspapers in Burma will hit newsstands without ministry censorship for the first time since 1962. For the staff at The Myanmar Times, a Rangoon-based weekly, this is the first editorial meeting after the announced end of censorship.

Editor Zaw Myint is elated, because not having to deal with censors will save time and improve the quality of reporting. "This is the same to my wedding day or something like that, but I will be more happy when we are granted as a daily license," he said. "Without censorship rules, with the chance to run our paper with a daily cycle, at that time I will be happier." State-run newspapers are still the only ones allowed to publish daily, but private publishers hope to be granted daily licenses. A released political prisoner and blogger who goes by the pen name Nay Phone Latt says online media in Burma remain unprotected. He says bloggers are still vulnerable to prosecution under electronic laws banning anti-government material on computers. "In the current media law, there is no place for the online media, so we are not safe," he said. "The electronic law still exists, so we are not safe according to this law."

Controversial editor Kyaw Min Swe fears that the newly formed press council will not necessarily protect journalists and censorship will continue, in the form of legal threats.

"They changed the system of PSB [Press Scrutiny Board] pre-censor to post-censor so that we have to submit after publication. So thats not totally free press. We cannot say totally free press," he said.

Kyaw Min Swe has been sued by the government before for exposing a graft scandal. Despite the relaxed censorship laws, he still could face prosecution for reporting on government corruption or sensitive topics that could incite violence.

Originally posted here:
Free Press Eludes Burma Despite End of Censorship

The Irish Times - Tuesday, August 21, 2012

Burma has abolished direct media censorship in the latest dramatic reform by its quasi-civilian regime, but journalists face other formidable restrictions including a ban on private daily newspapers and a pervasive culture of self-censorship.

Under the new rules, journalists no longer have to submit reports to state censors before publication. This ends a practice strictly enforced over nearly half a century of military rule that ended in March last year.

Previously, every song, book, cartoon, news report and planned piece of art required approval by teams of censors rooting out political messages and criticisms of one of Asias most repressive governments.

Changes have gathered momentum since June last year when the ministry of information decided to allow about half of Burmas privately run weekly journals and monthly magazines to publish without submitting page proofs to a censorship board in advance.

Restrictions were lifted yesterday on the remaining 80 political and six religious journals, said Tint Swe, head of the press censorship board at the ministry of information.

Over the past year, Burma has introduced the most sweeping reforms in the former British colony since a 1962 military coup.

A semi-civilian government, stacked with former generals, has allowed elections, eased rules on protests and freed dissidents, among other changes.

Papers have since been testing the boundaries, often putting opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi on front pages and giving coverage to government critics.

2012 Reuters

See the original post here:
Burma abolishes direct censorship of media

The government of Myanmar (also known as Burma) has abolished censorship of the press, in yet another reform measure taken by President Thein Seins nominally civilian government.

"Any publication inside the country will not have to get prior permission from us before they are published," TintSwe, the chief of the government's Press Scrutiny and Registration Department, or PSRD, told theAgenceFrancePresseagency. "From now on, our department will just carry out registering publications for keeping them at the national archives and issuing a license to printers and publishers.

Some Burmese journalists hailed the decision.

Mizzima, an Indian-based news agency run by Burmese exiles, said the removal of press controls was met by jubilation and "a sense of shock and disbelief after decades of harsh censorship."

The exiled news service indicated that censorship was introduced in Burma in 1964 and applied to everything from newspapers to song lyrics, fiction, poems and even fairy tales. An estimated 30,000 Burmese Internet sites will now be relieved of censorship rules.

Follow us

There will be accountability, along with freedom of the press," Ko Ko, the general secretary of the Myanmar Journalists Association, told Mizzima. "Under the freedom of press, if a story is written indiscriminately [not factually], there will be many problems. [If a story harms] people or organizations, they will file lawsuits. In the countries that have freedom of press, that is common. So, [media persons] will have more accountability.

Other Burmese journalists greeted the news with some caution.

"If I speak superficially, I can congratulate the government for lifting censorship," said pro-democracy activist Win Tin, according to the Daily Telegraph newspaper of Britain.

"But on the ground, censorship is still there. There is a danger to the press -- they may be prosecuted after they've published. There's also a danger of self-censorship, because journalists are afraid."

See the rest here:
Myanmar Eliminates Most Forms Of Media Censorship