Mediaboss Marketing

Former BBC producer Patrick Howse explores why the broadcaster is unwilling to speak truth to power over Brexit

A recent exchange on BBC Question Time told us a lot about the current state of the country, and the BBCs reporting of it. Supply chain problems resulting from a lack of lorry drivers was the issue being discussed. As the vast majority of people acknowledge, Brexit has undoubtedly played a role in this crisis.

A man in the audience told presenter Fiona Bruce that there was a bit of an irony in the current situation because, in his opinion, a lot of people voted Brexit because they didnt want foreign workers coming over here and taking their jobs. And now thats exactly what weve got weve got a lack of foreign workers, which is why weve got these shortages.

Bruce snapped back that she wanted to hear from someone who voted for Brexit, only to be told by the man in the audience: actually, I did.

Bruces clear irritation was accompanied by an almost throw-away remark with which she moved on the discussion. A majority of people here voted for Brexit, we select this audience very carefully to be representative.

I found this remarkable even though Ive had serious concerns about Question Time and its sister Radio 4 programme Any Questions for a long time. It raises two big questions: how do these programmes determine whether someone is pro-Brexit, and why do they feel its so important to ensure their audiences are stacked in this way?

The BBCs press office confirmed to me that the evaluation is based on referendum and election results. They did not elaborate on which elections they mean, nor how a Labour vote for example is interpreted: was a vote for Labour in 2019 pro- or anti-Brexit?

All of which suggests that the BBC is basing its calculations on the 2016 referendum. Ergo, the BBC has taken a decision that the people of the UK irrevocably made up their minds in 2016, voted Leave, and ended the debate. More than five years later, theres no room in a Question Time audience for anyone who has come to understand the reality of the project and has thus changed their mind.

Fiona Bruces clear exasperation at the audience member is telling. The BBC is frightened. It fears the wrath of the Government, but it is also terrified of Leave voters, and wants to avoid at any cost appearing to say that they got it wrong.

I have previously written for Byline Times about a feeling among some former colleagues that there was something approaching a BBC policy not to run stories that might undermine public trust in Boris Johnson.

Its likely that key people in the BBC have decided that Brexit must be respected, and that its not the BBCs job to take a view on it particularly if that means portraying the project in a negative way. Both the chairman and the director general are known to have been Conservative supporters, after all, with the former having donated more than 400,000 to the party.

Anyone who has worked at the BBC will confirm that the corporation is not cohesive. It is a diverse, loose coalition of hostile fiefdoms and mini empires. Even within news, there are competing factions: newsgathering against programmes against the World Service; radio against TV against online, and dozens of further, mind-boggling sub-divisions.

Former colleagues of mine tend to blame other departments for the reluctance to tackle Brexit-related issues. For example, one household name told me, its all coming from Millbank, a reference to the BBCs offices in Westminster a view that appears to be quite widely shared in the New Broadcasting House newsroom.

Receive the monthly Byline Times newspaper and support quality, investigative reporting.

Its clear, though, that the 2016 referendum took the BBC into anxious territory. I had left the BBC by this time, but friends tell me that the result shook the corporation. The result was taken to be an unambiguous statement of disillusionment from a large group of voters against the establishment. The BBC didnt understand this group, and feared that it wasnt addressing or serving it.

Since then, the BBC has desperately sought to represent these voices on air and crucially to not offend them. The net result has been fear-driven self-censorship at every level. This is not just a desire to appease the BBCs Government critics, but to placate Leave voters as well.

This has been felt across the BBCs output. Theres a clear reluctance to mention the B-word at all. That is unlikely to change any time soon because the BBC does not feel as though its job involves holding the Government to account over Brexit.

In normal times, with a government presiding over such a mess, you would expect Britains newspapers to be scenting blood. The BBC would be following in their slipstream, always taking care not to find itself at the head of the pack.

But we are not in normal times. The right-wing press is complicit, compliant, and silent on the grave problems looming ahead. Labour has shown that it doesnt really want to talk about Brexit. And at every level within the BBC, theres an institutional reluctance to fill the gap; to inform and educate the nation about the consequences of Brexit.

Aside from harming the country, this poses a danger to the BBC. When this all plays out, and the disastrous impacts of Brexit become clear as they are beginning to will the people of Britain feel they were well served by our public service broadcaster?

At the moment, the answer is an emphatic no.

Byline Times is funded by its subscribers. Receive our monthly print edition and help to support fearless, independent journalism.

New to Byline Times? Find out more about us

A new type of newspaper independent, fearless, outside the system. Fund a better media.

Dont miss a story

Our leading investigations include Brexit, Empire & the culture war, Russian interference, Coronavirus, cronyism and far right radicalisation. We also introduce new voices of colour in Our Lives Matter.

Follow this link:
The BBC Has an Institutional Culture of Brexit Self-Censorship Byline Times - Byline Times

Iran: Women to not eat pizza under new TV censorship rules  |  Photo Credit: iStock Images

We see a lot of commercials featuring women enjoying pizzas and drinks. Have you ever thought that there can be a restriction on women eating pizza in commercials? Or a ban on men serving tea to women?

New Iranian TV censorship rules have banned women from eating pizza and sandwiches on screen, according to opposition sources. Not only this, men should not be shown serving tea to women in workplaces and women must not be shown drinking any red-coloured drinks. Women must also not wear leather gloves on screen.

The new guidelines have been issued by government officials to broadcasters and film-makers following an audit, according to IranWire.

Any scenes or photographs showing men and women in a domestic setting will be cleared by the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB) before broadcast to ensure that the new guidelines are followed, Amir Hossein Shamshadi, head of PR at IRIB said.

The IRIB is also responsible for licensing and overseeing Iranian home theatre and streaming platforms, via a subsidiary called Satra.

Some Iranian streaming sites will self-censor to avoid facing fines from authorities in Tehran.

The newcensorship rules were seen taking effect after Iranian talk show Pishgoo avoided showing actress Elnaz Habibis face on camera. Only her voice was heard during the show.

Veteran actor Amin Tarokh took to Instagram to complain, writing, "I wish the guest's name had been subtitled, at least. Because we didnt see her face at all, had the host not mentioned it [at the beginning], wed have no idea which artist was being talked about! What pleasure is derived from getting a close-up look at the creators of the program, and a far-off one at the guest, just because theyre a woman? Especially a lady like this whos very decent. All you get from the IRIB is a voice and no picture."

View post:
Women banned from eating pizza, men to not serve tea to ladies under bizarre TV censorship rules in Iran - Times Now

"If liberty means anything at all it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear," George Orwell, the celebrated author of dystopian novels, once wrote.

Partisans love to cite Orwell when accusing their opposing political tribe of intolerance.

While these comparisons are often ridiculous we are not "living in 1984" no matter what alarmists say it is true that many on both the left and the right have grown too comfortable with censorship.

In progressive activist circles, certain words and ideas are considered "violence" and thus worthy of prohibition.

The right has made plenty of political hay out of such sentiments sneering that leftists are "snowflakes" hiding in safe spaces and coddled by trigger warnings. But at the same time, conservatives have a long, ignoble history of proudly embracing "Moral Majority"-style censorship and cancellation of the insufficiently "patriotic."

Despite this legacy of "value-based" censorship, the right has recently sought to recast itself as the defender of Western civilization including the principles of free speech and open inquiry.

Don't buy into the branding.

Over the past two years, state governments have been awash in Republican-authored bills that criminalize legitimate protest and lay broad blanket bans on ideas and words associated with "wokeness."

Prominent voices on the right have also cleverly co-opted the language of the left insisting that they're not censoring anything, they're just protecting marginalized voices. Only the names are changed.

It's all a sham.

Republicans are using the force of government to ban books, words, and ideas that offend their sensibilities.

The recent "Banned Books Week" spearheaded by librarians, academics, and writers' advocates helped lay bare just how triggered conservatives can be words and ideas that run counter to their moral codes.

Young adult novels with LGBTQ protagonists and books dealing with antiracist philosophies, once again, represented the lion's share of banned content.

Case in point, a Wyoming pastor is trying to get librarians criminally prosecuted for stocking books dealing with LGBTQ-related themes.

And even after some civil libertarian backlash to the many "anti-Critical Race Theory" laws including from organizations with uber-Republican donor Charles Koch Republicans across the country are running rampant in their efforts to stamp out words and ideas they find offensive.

The Wisconsin Assembly last week overwhelmingly approved a Republican-authored bill that, among other things, prohibits teaching students that any individual "by virtue of the individual's race or sex, is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously."

A lot of parents are not comfortable with their children being taught to essentialize people based on immutable characteristics, which frankly is one of the tenets of social justice activism.

But the bill also bans dozens of words and ideas to the point of grotesque absurdity.

Among the prohibited "terms and concepts" are:

The apparent intention is to stamp out not just "Critical Race Theory," but the mere discussion of any topic that was once known as "politically correct." If that isn't censorship, then the word has no meaning.

The bill hasn't been passed by Wisconsin's Senate, and even if it is, it's likely to be vetoed by the state's Democratic governor. But it's a revealing window into the speech-chilling aspirations of the right.

In Johnston County, N.C., the Board of Commissioners threatened to hold millions of dollars in public school funding unless the school board adopted a policy that essentially deems off-limits any criticism of the Constitution, the founding fathers, and "people who contributed to American Society."

The newly-adopted "Code of Ethics" even bans "fictional accounts or narratives" that can be "used to invalidate actual objective historical events."

Got that? Me, neither.

Would the novel "Uncle Tom's Cabin" be prohibited for depicting the horrors of slavery in the antebellum South? What about Toni Morrison's "Beloved"?

Does any book depicting many of the signers of the Declaration of Independence as owners of human beings violate the Code's edict that they should be "recognized and presented as reformists, innovators and heroes to our culture"?

Rather than stimulate a nuanced discussion of the founders' admirable contributions that also recognizes their moral deficiencies and hypocrisies, the Johnston County Code of Ethics aims to dictate a "positive vibes only" version of America. Instead of opening the discussion to provide historical accuracy and context, it's about forcing an "America, F--- Yeah!" version of history down students' throats.

School districts, rightfully, have a great deal of autonomy in determining curricula including the books that are assigned to students and the framing of historical events.

This won't always yield great results.

San Francisco last year wasted countless hours on removing "problematic" names from school buildings at times getting the historical justifications completely wrong.

Meanwhile, the South still has a smattering of counties which dabble in teaching creationism to public school children.

Like I said, not good.

What's far worse, however, are elected officials using childrens' educations to fight political battles by imposing overbroad bans with vague language on the curriculum of these schools.

It's wrong when woke progressives do it. It's wrong when reactionary conservatives do it.

But it's particularly galling when cynical hacks on the right claim the pro-speech Enlightenment mantle while literally calling for words that upset them to be banned and teachers to be fired.

Don't let conservatives who support these speech bans get away with calling them "anti-woke" or "anti-Critical Race Theory."

Call them what they are, "anti-free speech" and wholly "un-American."

Originally posted here:
Republicans Cancel Words, History, and Ideas in Libraries and Schools - Business Insider

YouTube isnt just the biggest video platform in the world, its actually the second-biggest search engine in the world, after Google. Which, as it so happens, owns YouTube.

Google and YouTube are far more powerful than Facebook or Twitter, which get more press because a lot of journalists are on Twitter, and its a primary battleground for the political class to talk to itself.

But Google and YouTube not only control their own platforms, they control you access to all other platforms. Ill Google that is shorthand for Ill search for that most people dont even think of other search engines. But that in itself is a source of control what Google puts on its first page of results is often quite political. What it boosts versus what it suppresses. And even what it simply refuses to show you at all, even if you type it in precisely. And the same goes for its YouTube search.

For example, if you simply type the words Rebel News into the YouTube search engine, https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=rebel+news you get very political results.

You do get a few actual Rebel videos. But one of the first hits is this one:

Trudeau slams Rebel News: I wont call it a media organization.

Its not the most current; it doesnt have the most views; its not by Rebel News but its an attack on us.

Under that is this old one, from years ago:

Environment minister tells Rebel Media reporter to stop calling her 'Climate Barbie

Four years old but its the CBCs attack on us.

There are two legitimate Rebel News results in the top ten results. The rest are attacks on us including obscure attacks with few views. But YouTube has made it that way.

It bugs me, but luckily millions of people have been able to overcome the built-in bias to find us and get their news from us directly.

So the censorship grows:

Updating our ads and monetization policies on climate changeOctober 7, 2021

...In recent years, we've heard directly from a growing number of our advertising and publisher partners who have expressed concerns about ads that run alongside or promote inaccurate claims about climate change. Advertisers simply dont want their ads to appear next to this content. And publishers and creators dont want ads promoting these claims to appear on their pages or videos.

Thats why today, were announcing a new monetization policy for Google advertisers, publishers and YouTube creators that will prohibit ads for, and monetization of, content that contradicts well-established scientific consensus around the existence and causes of climate change. This includes content referring to climate change as a hoax or a scam, claims denying that long-term trends show the global climate is warming, and claims denying that greenhouse gas emissions or human activity contribute to climate change.

But what is this about? How is disputing astrophysics or the like a danger to the public?

I know the answer because its really about the danger of thinking for yourself. Thats what all of these things are about. And youll notice that, at least for the virus and global warming, the United Nations is taken as the global arbiter of truth. Thats right the place that puts the likes of Cuba and China on the human rights commission, the place that promotes the Taliban but condemns Israel thats the place that can decide what you can and cant say.

This really isnt surprising. And it really wont be surprising when the next subject is banned. The only surprise will be: what subjects are off-limits next? Me, Im guessing its transgenderism in womens sports. What do you think will be next?

GUEST: New Rebel News contributor Kelly Lamb (@LittleGoatCR on Twitter) to talk about her report on the Saskatchewan parents pushing back on school COVID rules.

FINALLY: Your messages to me!

Read more:
YouTube expands its censorship to global warming - Rebel News

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

It sounds like hyperbole, but its true: A progressive education association wants parents attending school board meetings to be treated like terrorists.

It has asked President Joe Biden to criminalize parent opposition to Critical Race Theory and COVID mandates, a burgeoning grassroots movement that has caught radicals by surprise.

The move to suppress First Amendment rights came from the National School Boards Association (NSBA), which organizes school board members. It wants the Biden administration to use "extraordinary measures" initially created to deal with foreign threats to now intimidate parents and "preserve public school infrastructure," according to the groups recent letter to the White House.

The group wants the Biden administration to invoke the PATRIOT Act and create a posse that includes the Federal Bureau of Investigation, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Secret Service, and National Threat Assessment Center to protect them against parentsthe very people school boards are responsible for representing in their local communities.

KAROL MARKOWICZ: WHO DO YOUR CHILDREN BELONG TO -- YOU OR YOUR GOVERNMENT?

And the Biden Justice Department has quickly responded to the NSBAs request to criminalize political opposition and strong-arm Americans. U.S. Attorney Gen. Merrick Garland will meet with federal, state and local officials to "discuss strategies for addressing this disturbing trend."

Parents have a lot to say, however, and they should not be harassed.

Over the last year, parents have been attending school board meetings in large numbers to object to prolonged closures, as well as educators use of Critical Race Theory to promote racial prejudice. To most Americans, even those who may disagree with them, they are family, friends and neighbors advocating on behalf of their children. To the NSBA, theyre "current threats."

If anything, it is parents who sometimes must fear vindictive reprisals or censorship by school board members. In Loudoun County, Virginia, this year, members of the school board formed a Facebook group to investigate and dox parents who dared speak against CRT. Reports from Indiana, Minnesota, Virginia,and Wisconsin to name only a few, find that board members are no longer including time on meeting agendas for or are otherwise suspending public comment.

Both school board members and meeting attendees are responsible for keeping the meetings civil. NSBAs accusations that parents are a problem shows utter contempt for parents pouring into school board meetings to have their voices heard.

Censoring parents is sure to end badly. For parents to care about school children in their communities is a healthy, all-American development. Voter turnout for school board elections has been modest for years, hovering around 10 percent. The new interest should be celebrated, not criminalized.

Parents want to know what is being taught to their studentsas they should. School boards have the responsibility for directing important district operations, including curricular choices and other district operational policies. Yet board members have grown accustomed to "sleepy and ill-attended public meetings," according to USA Today, and are "reeling" to find parents upset at COVID-related policies and educators application of critical race theorys racially prejudicial ideas in K-12 classrooms.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE OPINION NEWSLETTER

According to national polling, 70 percent of a nationally representative sample of parents say they do not want schools to teach children that their skin color is the most important thing about them.

State lawmakers around the U.S. agree and are considering proposals that say no public official can compel a teacher or student to believe or profess an idea that violates the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

School officials, on the other hand, are using discriminatory activities in schools based on critical race theory. This includes schools in Portland, Oregon, where videos of a public school critical race theory working group are available on YouTube.com; Evanston, Illinois, where a teacher is suing the district over mandatory racial affinity groups; and Hayward Unified School District in California, where school officials posted a note on the district website saying they would teach CRT.

NSBA promotes CRT and has urged the Biden administration to reinstate racially discriminatory workforce development programs that President Donald Trumps administration abolished last fall. Given the publics rejection of CRT and state lawmakers efforts to prohibit racial discrimination, its positions do not reflect the interests of families or policymakers.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Parents are not to be trifled with. According to Axios, more than twice as many board recall elections or campaigns were held or initiated between January and July 2021 than during all of last year.

NSBA should not be worried about parents attending meetingsthey should be worried about voters headed to the ballot box.

Mike Gonzalez is a senior fellow in The Heritage Foundation's Allison Center for Foreign Policy and the Angeles T. Arredondo E Pluribus Unum fellow. His most recent book is "The Plot to Change America: How Identity Politics is Dividing the Land of the Free" (Encounter Books, July 28, 2020).

See the original post here:
Butcher & Gonzalez: Biden's Justice Department clueless that censoring parents is sure to end badly - Fox News