Mediaboss Marketing

Sports journalist Robert Marawa and actor Tbo Touch have accused Channel O of censoring their interviews with MacG on Podcast and Chill via a tweet on 28 October.

On 27 October, MacG claimed that the interview with Tbo Touch fell victim to memory card data corruption.

Its with great regret and sadness that we have to announce that the long-awaited and overdue interview with Tbo Touch episode has fallen victim to memory card data corruption and as a result, some parts of the interview have been irretrievably lost, said Podcast with MacG in a statement.

He went on to say this is neither censorship or sabotage.

We have exhausted all efforts to recover as much of the data as possible. This is in no way an act of sabotage nor is it an effort to censor (mute) the remarks and/or statements made by our interviewee but rather regrettably the result of an unforeseen technical glitch beyond our control. Please accept our sincerest apologies, the statement continued.

The episode will be uploaded today at 15h00 @podcastwithmacg and our team has done everything possible to ensure that it is up to the standard that our chillers have become accustomed to, the statement added.

ALSO READ: MacG gets candid with Anele: Why do you hate Kelly Rowland? [watch]

After the statement both Tbo Touch followed by Robert Marawa accused Channel O of censorship.

My interview on #PodcastandChillWithMacG was censored and edited. I guess the Tbo Touch story will always be distorted. I will the rest of the story when the time is right! Big S/O to Mac & Sol for the recovery, wrote Tbo in a tweet.

If the @iamtbotouch interview was edited and doctored on the #podcastandchillwithmacg by ChannelO then I can safely tell u for free that my interview was viewed and rejected to be flighted by the almighty @ChannelOTV !!! CENSORSHIP!!!!!!, wrote Robert in a tweet.

Tweeps were divided between believing the data memory card storage issue and censorship. Take a look at what they had to say.

ALSO READ: Robert Marawa reveals where he stands with Pearl Thusi [watch]

Read more from the original source:
MacG cant do this: Tweeps on Robert and Tbo Touch censorship claims - The South African

PLANO, TXIn a purported effort to stop the rise of woke, leftist Critical Race Theory in the classroom, a local school district issued a decision Thursday censoring all of The Adventures Of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain except for its copious use of the n-word. This move will allow educators to focus on the key elements of an American classic without fear of trafficking in the novels harmful themes of compassion and racial equality, said superintendent James Appelbaum, telling reporters that the school board had voted unanimously to excise the books dangerous lies about the cruelties of slavery and that a journey of self-discovery on the margins of society could lay bare the immorality and hypocrisy of white institutions. Weve heard stories about caucasian students that are ashamed of their own whiteness, or think of themselves as inherently inferior to students of color, and were hopeful that reading a racial slur dozens and dozens of times over again will help fix this pernicious misconception. Appelbaum added that the school board would next be considering a proposal to remove all of To Kill A Mockingbird except the section where the wrongfully-convicted Black man Tom Robinson is shot to death trying to escape prison.

Excerpt from:
Texas School Censors All Of Huck Finn Except The N-Words - The Onion

Philstar.com

October 28, 2021 | 8:14pm

MANILA, Philippines (Updated 10 p.m) Attempts to remove supposedly subversive materials from school libraries are a form of censorship and go against librarians' roles in promoting intellectual freedom, the dean of the UP School of Library and Information Studies said.

According to a report on Rappler, the Commission on Higher Education-Cordillera Administrative Region is urging higher education institutions in the region to remove materials "that contain pervasive ideologies of the Communist-Terrorist Groups (CTGs)" from ther libraries. CTG is the government term for the Communist Party of the Philippines-New People's Army-National Democratic Front.

"Removing materials from the libraries which are deemed 'subversive'is an assault [on]our students right to read and right to information which are all components of intellectual freedom and are essential components of a democratic citizenry,"Assistant Professor Mary Grace Golfo-Barcelona said in an exchange with Philstar.com.

She said that allowing censorship of a library collection would be harmful to students, librarians and the libraries themselves. By removing materials because of their ideological content, students "are deprived of their right to read, right to information, basically their freedom to information."

According to CHED-CAR, the materials need to be removed because these would radicalize students. But Golfo-Barcelona stressed that it "is wrong to believe that you become what you read."

She said that an individual's character is formed not just by the information they have accessto"but by the totality of all the students environment, upbringing and experience."

Including supposedly subversive materials in library collections is "meant to clarify, to develop understanding, andas support to academic exercises but [is] not meant to influence them to adhere to certain ideologies, beliefs, or practice," she also said.

She added that "book banning, and censorship are not the solutions, instead, a more holistic and inclusive approach should be adopted to solve a systemic problem."

In an October 6 statement in response to the pull out of "subversive" materials, the UP SLIS faculty saidthey oppose the removal of the books and "similar acts of book banning based on prejudiced judgments."

They said that libraries provide access to different points of view, which helps democracy.

"If we are to be truly free and democratic, we allow our citizens to have free and open access to information for them to critically think about their decisions and fully participate in democratic processes and uphold human rights and social justice, all of which are embedded in our constitution," they said.

They said that banning books will not end armed conflict, calling the government anti-communist task force's drive to purge so-called subversive books unfortunate for underestimating "the intellect of the Filipino readers."

"It is insulting how they undervalue our capability as critical thinkers participating in a democratic society," they also said.

Dean Golfo-Barcelonasaid that librarians "have a role to develop the intellectual capacity of the whole citizenry. As such, part of our Code of Ethics, specifically states that we, librarians should resist all forms of censorship."

Librarians, who are required to take professional board exams, pledge "that even under threat, we will strive for the freedom to read and for the other basic freedoms inherent in a democracy," she also said.

The Code of Ethics for Registered Librarians, approved by the Professional Regulation Commission in 1992 holds that "librarians should help to create and maintain conditions under which scholarship can exist like freedom of inquiry, of thought and of expression."

The International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions meanwhile holds in its Code of Ethics for Librarians and other Information Workers that "librarians and other information workers reject the denial and restriction of access to information and ideas most particularly through censorship whether by states, governments, or religious or civil society institutions."

UP SLIS is a Commission on Higher Education-certified Center of Excellence, which means it "continuously demonstrates excellent performance in the areas of instruction, research and publication, extension and linkages and institutional qualifications."

In their statement, the UP SLIS facultycalled on educators, librarians, information professionals "and all who believe and value libraries as bastions of democracy, and all those who value freedom, to take a stand and protect our libraries from all forms of censorship and all acts of book banning."

In a separate statement this week, rights group Karapatansaid the CHED-CAR memo "makes it very clear that this brazen attack on academic freedom is a State policy" directed by the National Task Force to End Local Communist Armed Conflict.

"The NTF-ELCAC is gearing for an insidious campaign of censorship through the purging of subversive materials from the libraries of schools and universities recalling the horrors of the Marcos dictatorships raids on libraries and even the book burnings of the Nazis," Karapatan Secretary-General Cristina Palabaysaid.

"CHED-CAR should be ashamed of themselves for betraying their mandate to protect academic freedom by becoming willing agents of the NTF-ELCACs abominable attacks."

The CHED-CAR memo, issued by regional directorDemetrio Anduyan Jr., was released after three state universities in September pulled out materials related to the peace negotiations between the Philippine government and the NDFas well as other "subversive"materials from their libraries, Karapatan said.

The documents surrendered by Kalinga State University in Tabuk City, Isabela State University in Isabela City, and Aklan State University in Banga were then turned over to either the military, the regional ELCAC body, or the National Intelligence Coordinating Agency.

Republic Act No.7722, the law that established CHED in 1994, opens with a declaration that the state "shall ensure and protect academic freedom and shall promote its exercise and observance for the continuing intellectual growth."

Section 13 of the same law guarantees academic freedom inuniversities and colleges.

Palabay said thatthe memo's "broad and arbitrary definition of subversive materials sets a perilous justification to not only pull out publications tagged as such but to surveil academics, scholars, authors, teachers, and students who read, write, and use them."

"We strongly call on schools, universities, and libraries to denounce and resist these attacks on academic freedom and to safeguard free academic discourse in their halls." Bella Perez-Rubio with Jonathan de Santos

Continued here:
UP library studies faculty: Removal of 'subversive' readings is censorship - Philstar.com

Art Industry News is a daily digest of the most consequential developments coming out of the art world and art market. Heres what you need to know on this Friday, October 29.

Hong Kong Passes New Film Censorship Law In another blow to artistic freedom in Hong Kong, the city passed a strict film censorship law on Wednesday that allows authorities to ban films from any era perceived as a threat to national security. The law also includes larger fines for those who are found to be violating the rules.(Artforum)

Putins Art Censorship Is on the Rise, Too While it is not Xi Jinpings China, Russia also greatly controls artistic freedoms. There is some room for dissent, but experts say the latitude is getting slimmer by the day. Writers, directors, painters, and sculptors are moving into exile, and the ones who stay are vetted by a special public council at the Ministry of Culture, writesAnna Nemtsova. (The Atlantic)

Living Statue Actor Says Female Statues Make Less Money Its no secret that most womenartists or otherwisemake less money than their male counterparts. But it turns out the pay gap even translates to living statues. Chicago-based actor Maggie Karlin revealed that they make more money on the street when dressed as a man than as a woman. (The essay is from last month, but we missed it, so maybe you did too.) Ive had my friends test this out too, but whenever I dress as a woman I seem to earn less, Karlin writes. (Business Insider)

Sothebys to Offer Josphine Bonapartes Tiaras Two tiaras thought to have once belonged to French Empress Josphine Bonaparte, wife of Napoleon, are hitting the block at Sothebys London on December 7. The two pieces, available individually, have been in aprivate collection for 150 years and carry a combined estimate of between300,000 and 500,000 ($412,814 and $688,023). (Press release)

Independent New York Has New Dates at an Old Locale The New York art fair will return to its pre-pandemic location at Spring Studios with new dates: May 58, 2022. The fair has appointed former TEFAF managing director Sofie Scheerlinck as interim chief operating officer. (Press release)

Marianne Boesky Announces a Pop Up in Geneva The New York gallery is heading to Switzerland with a pop-up show that will run for two weeks between November 10 and 27 in collaboration with Simon Studer Art in Geneva. It will present work by artists including the Haas Brothers, Donald Moffett, and Frank Stella. (Press release)

David Kordansky Now Reps Shara Hughes David Kordansky Gallery in Los Angeles has added the rising-star painter Shara Hughes to its roster. Hughes will continue to work Galerie Eva Presenhuber in Zrich and Pilar Corrias in London, but has parted ways with her longtime New York dealer Rachel Uffner. (Press release)

Peter Doroshenko Is Out at Dallas Contemporary After 11 years, Doroshenko will leave his post as executive director of the museum in May 2022 when his contract expires. The news comes six months after the museum received a storm of complaints for firing anemployee who had asked the institution to make a public statement on anti-Asian crime and the Atlanta spa shootings of March 16. (Artforum)

Vivienne Westwood Visits the Uffizi Galleries The punk fashion legend was getting inspiration from the Old Masters this week in Florence.Apparently, she lovedthe works of Andrea del Sarto, Rosso Fiorentino, Pontormo, Veronese, Raphael, and Michelangelopaying special attention to their colors and frames. (Press release)

Vivienne Westwood and Eike Schmidt. Courtesy Uffizi.

See the original post here:
Art Industry News: Even Female Living-Statue Artists Make Less Money Than Their Male Counterparts + Other Stories - artnet News

Opposition to censorship should not be based on sympathy for the censored but fear of the censors. To loud applause, the UK government says it wants to implement the most far-reaching web regulation of any western democracy. Too few are noticing that the Conservatives answer to the question of how to curb online hate is to give its politicians excessive powers and make Paul Dacre the countrys internet censor-in-chief.

The online safety bill will not only tell Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, TikTok and search engines they must have systems to prevent illegal content but clamp down on legal but harmful posts. What does that mean? Commentators say the regulation of legal speech is in the bill to stop teenagers with anorexia being bombarded with unhealthy diet tips, or the algorithm sending suicide advice to people on the edge of taking their lives, or promoting Ivermectin as a cure for Covid.

For reasons I will get to, we dont know that yet. We know with certainty, however, that a government that wants to uphold web standards is breaking every standard of good governance to guarantee that a former Daily Mail editor has a loud voice in deciding where the lines are drawn. Downing Street is desperate for Dacre to become the chair of Ofcom, at the moment when it expands its powers. The legislation will turn the broadcast regulator into a gargantuan online moderator. Ofcom staff will have rights of entry and inspection and the ability to impose penalties on online companies of 18m or 10% annual turnover, whichever is greater.

Even his most devoted fans would not say Dacre was famous for his impartiality when it came to the BBC and Channel 4 News. Nor was his Daily Mail the first place youd look for opposition to hate, either online or in print. Meanwhile, as the last of the old hot metal editors, Dacre is likely to know little of modern media technology and to think a network protocol is a Robert Ludlum thriller.

Last year, the governments own appointments advisers concluded Dacres strong opinions on the British media precluded him from becoming Ofcoms chair. Ministers refused to accept the verdict. They are now scouring the country for unscrupulous interviewers, willing to earn favour with the powerful by authorising a Dacre stitch-up.

Although the favouritism appals many, civil servants console themselves that Dacre will be just one man on Ofcoms board and unable to impose his prejudices. Their confidence would be better founded if the legislation did not give Conservative politicians the right to tell everyone at Ofcom what they can and cannot regulate.

British regulators have always remained at arms length from politics. The UK is party to a Council of Europe declaration, which spells out that governments must avoid regulatory authorities that are under the influence of political power. The online safety bill tears that old principle apart.

Todays culture secretary, Nadine Dorries, who, like Dacre, is in place to troll liberals, will not be constrained. The bill gives her the power to set Ofcoms strategic priorities. Ofcom must submit each online code of practice to Whitehall so ministers can ensure it reflects government policy. The Conservatives are not standing at arms length. They want the regulators in a necklock.

William Perrin and Prof Lorna Woods of Carnegie UK helped develop the best ideas behind the bill. They emphasised the need to regulate systems, not content. They wanted to ensure that Facebook and Twitter did not just take profits for managers and shareholders but spent money on complaints systems that were properly resourced and lived by the standards they professed to uphold. In a warning the naive Labour frontbench should read before it carries on giving the government its support, Perrin and Woods described how the government was threatening traditional checks and balances. Attempts to force regulators to follow political instructions were crossing the line in the most egregious manner.

Ministers want to use statutory instruments, which parliament rarely votes down, to direct a supposedly independent regulator. Because we do not know what Dorriess diktats will be, I cannot say whether supporters of Black Lives Matter, LGBT rights or Extinction Rebellion should worry about their online presence. But I can show that online regulation has already been twisted for partisan purposes.

When the government put forward proposals for policing the web in 2019, civil servants showed a proper concern for attacks on democracy. Russian interference in western elections and the rise of dark money and targeted misinformation persuaded Whitehall to talk of the need to protect our democratic values and principles. Social media companies must increase the accessibility of trustworthy and varied news content. Earlier this month, the whistleblower Frances Haugen claimed that Facebook chose to amplify hate and misinformation because civic integrity was bad for business. Social media companies profited from the knowledge that content that is hateful, that is divisive, that is polarising gets the most engagement online. The 2019 proposals were designed to bring them to heel.

All that has gone now. Researchers from the Constitution Unit at UCL compared the first draft with the finished legislation. The emphasis shifted decisively away from acknowledging that online platforms have a responsibility for the impact their technology has on democracy, as the fight against fake news vanished.

The Conservative party is always the richest party. In 2019, it received two-thirds of all political donations over 7,500. It benefited in the general election from the propaganda campaigns of shadowy rightwing organisations, which did not have to declare where their revenue came from. The Conservative party is also the Vote Leave party, which pioneered the use of targeting Facebook ads at swing voters. I always thought a government dominated by Boris Johnson and Michael Gove would never allow an assault on fake news and so it has proved.

I sympathise with those who want to control the online promotion of suicide, anorexia, vaccine denial, murder, rape and every other evil 21st-century technology delivers to our phones. But just because we have new technologies does not mean we can abandon old rules. Before you give the power to censor, make sure you know who you are giving it to and what they intend to do with it.

Nick Cohen is an Observer columnist

See the rest here:
Taming the tech giants is one thing. Giving free rein to censors quite another - The Guardian