Mediaboss Marketing

By Dom Serafini

The late U.S. president Ronald Reagan used to tell and retell a joke about an American bragging to a Russian about the fact that he could pay a visit to him at the White House, and banging his fists on his table, tell him, Mr. President I dont like the way youre running our country. The Russian answered that he too can go to the Kremlin and tell Mikhail Gorbachev, Mr. President, I dont like the way Reagan is running his country.

The point of the joke is that in Russia then and now there is no liberty, no democracy, and no freedom of speech.

Indeed, Americans and Europeans alike like to think that they live in states where freedom of the press and freedom of expression are observed. On the other hand, Russians, Chinese people, and Iranians, just to name a few, live under dictatorships, otherwise called authoritarian states, with no freedom of the press, of liberty, or of expression.

While people in democratic states think they enjoy free press, those in authoritarian states know that their media is controlled, and thus, those who can, tend to follow the media imported (mostly illegally) from democratic states, believing that it is fair and balanced. At least this is what happened years ago. Today, however, people in authoritarian states are starting to believe that even the so-called free press is biased, full of fake news, and most importantly, censored and full of propaganda (read advertising) that determines elections and public policies.

Trying to look impartially at various forms of censorship we can identify five forms of widely used censorship: State Censorship, Corporate Censorship, Social Censorship, Privacy Laws, and Libel Laws.

State Censorship is what is practiced in countries like Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, and the like. In these states, censorship takes different forms, like direct and indirect media ownership, and various strategies such as restricting news and conditioning news. It even extends to film, theater, and text messaging. In China, for example, a department of the Chinese Communist Party (one of the countrys multiple censorship organs) employs two million people to monitor and censor content.

In democracies, censorship takes different forms, but at all levels it begins with self-censorship and denying access, keeping in mind that, by definition, an editor cannot be impartial.

Then there is the so-called Corporate Censorship, where corporate owners of media control the news by selecting those who report it, by establishing an editorial line (e.g., progressive or conservative), and by limiting access to only those who reflect their values. Corporate Censorship tends to take guidance from governments, especially with regard to foreign policies. The most recent examples come from the Iraqi War, the Syrian War, and the bias towards authoritarian states. Corporate Censorship is a topic widely discussed in academia and explained in books such as Puerto Rican scholar Giannina Braschs United States of Banana. In addition, in the U.S., the First Amendment protects against censorship from the government, but does not protect against Corporate Censorship or from non-public outrages, like hate speech.

Social Censorship is now emerging in established democracies, which is enforced by the sarcastically called Political Correct Police Force, and complemented by advocates of Cancel Culture. Left-leaning influential groups have the power to fire people, embarrass noncompliant individuals, and discredit those who deviate from the sanctioned school of thought.

Additionally, in countries like Italy, for example, censorship is widely applied by threating libel suits, which could threaten the survival of small publications. Italy is also unique because most professional journalists are licensed by the state. Plus, like in authoritarian states, defamation is a criminal offense in Italy. (In the U.S., its a civil issue.)

In China, defamation is used to prosecute people for having slandered the people of China, by expressing views not in accordance with the government mandates.

Finally, democracies especially those in Western Europe have strict privacy laws, which tend to protect the rich and powerful, who have lots to hide from the public.

Illustration by Bill Kerr licensed underCC BY-SA 2.0.

Please follow and like us:

Read more:
The Age of Censorship VideoAge International - videoageinternational.net

YouTube has rejected a proposal from within the company to remove a video by successful Los Angeles rapper YG, which features lyrics about targeting Asian neighbourhoods for robbery.

Employees had requested the 2014 track, Meet the Flockers, be removed, following the 16 March shooting in Atlanta that killed eight people, six of them Asian women, as well as a wider wave of anti-Asian hate crime in the US.

The track begins with the lines: First, you find a house and scope it out / find a Chinese neighbourhood, cause they dont believe in bank accounts.

In an internal email reported by Bloomberg, two executives wrote: Our hate speech policy prohibits content promoting violence or hatred against protected groups, for attributes like race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity and expression In this case, this video receives an EDSA [Educational, Documentary, Scientific or Artistic] exception as a musical performance.

The executives, anonymised by Bloomberg on security grounds, said they find this video to be highly offensive and understand it is painful for many to watch especially given the ongoing violence against the Asian community, but wanted to avoid setting a precedent that may lead to us having to remove a lot of other music on YouTube.

YG, who has scored five US Top 10 albums since 2014, has not commented on the decision.

The track has previously been criticised by Jane Kim, a San Francisco politician who called for it to be banned in 2016.

See original here:
YouTube rejects internal request to censor rapper YG over robbery lyrics - The Guardian

Utah Gov. Spencer Cox vetoed a bill on Tuesday that sought to limit perceived censorship by social media companies like Facebook and Twitter.

Senate Bill 228, which narrowly passed during this years legislative general session, would have required social media companies to provide clear information about the social corporations moderation practices and created an opportunity for a Utah account holder to appeal certain moderation practices that the social media corporation employs on a Utah account holders account or post, according to a summary of the bill.

What this does is it deals with free speech. I think our free speech rights have been infringed by some large tech folks and I think thats a problem, Republican Spanish Fork Sen. Mike McKell, the bills sponsor, told lawmakers on March 1. And I think what weve got is a good bill to create a process to create transparency; thats what this bill does.

In a press release, the governors office said Cox had vetoed the bill, his first veto since taking office in January, due to technical issues with the legislation and after speaking with legislative leadership.

The press release noted that censorship by tech companies is a serious concern and that the veto will not hinder nor prevent Utah from finding the right policy solution.

The sponsors of this bill have raised valid questions about the impact social media platforms can have on public discourse and debate, Cox said. Our country continues to grapple with very real and novel issues around freedom of speech, the rights of private companies and the toxic divisiveness caused by these new forms of connection, information and communication. While I have serious concerns about the bill, I appreciate the willingness of the bills sponsors to continue to seek a better solution.

Lawmakers considered the bill following cries at the national level of liberal bias among social media company executives and censorship of conservative posts and accounts.

Not very many things infuriate me more than to see blatant censorship, especially when its one-sided, Sen. Todd Weiler, R-Woods Cross, told his colleagues on Feb. 26 while speaking in support of the bill. And I can cite 10 examples from the last six months.

But other state lawmakers said the bill raised questions of constitutionality, including Sen. Gene Davis, D-Salt Lake City, who said he had real concerns and believed social media platforms should be able to make the same editorial judgments as newspapers, TV stations and other forms of media.

They make that decision, Davis said. And these (social) media companies are no different, I dont believe, than our general media is.

Sen. Kathleen Riebe, D-Cottonwood Heights, said the bill is completely unenforceable and has no parameters.

I dont understand how this is actually going to work, said Riebe. So unless we can enforce something, I really dont think we should be passing laws.

S.B. 228 passed 21-6 in the Senate on March 1 and 39-35 in the House on March 4.

In the press release, McKell said he intends to open a new bill on May 5 to address the censorship issues.

Censorship practices are un-American and likely unconstitutional, he said. In Utah, we defend the right to freely express opinions and views, regardless of political or religious affiliation.

The Spanish Fork senator continued, The outcome of S.B. 228 is not ideal; however, the issue of free speech and online censorship remains a priority and policy will continue to be refined throughout the interim.

Connor Richards covers government, the environment and south Utah County for the Daily Herald. He can be reached at crichards@heraldextra.com and 801-344-2599.

Originally posted here:
Utah governor vetoes bill limiting perceived social media censorship - Daily Herald

New York, March 23, 2021 Kazakh authorities should revise new amendments to the countrys journalist accreditation policies to ensure they do not restrict the freedom of the press, the Committee to Protect Journalists said today.

On March 11, the Ministry of Information and Social Development adopted amendments to the 2013 Rules of Accreditation of Journalists, which include a requirement for journalists to work with a loosely defined host when covering government events, according to news reports and Tamara Kaleyeva, head of the Kazakh press freedom group Adil Soz, who spoke with CPJ in a phone interview.

According to Kaleyeva, the regulations do not define how the host would be selected; she said that the state organizations organizing such events would most likely be in charge of appointing the host, and that person would therefore be a guard, a censor.

The amended rules will go into effect on March 27, according to those reports.

Kazakh authorities should immediately revise the new amendments to the countrys journalist accreditation policies to ensure that they do not limit press freedom, said Gulnoza Said, CPJs Europe and Central Asia program coordinator. These regulations could prevent journalists from asking questions that are inconvenient for authorities, which deeply contradicts the very concept of a free press.

The amendments, which CPJ reviewed, state that the host would be in charge of ensuring that all the participants of an event follow the events theme (content), time limitations, and maintain public order.

The new regulations establish the responsibilities and rights of a host which are so big that, practically, they limit the rights of the journalists and introduce censorship, Kaleyeva said.

In Kazakhstan, journalists are required to possess accreditations to cover press conferences or other events hosted by any state institution, and the procedures for issuing such accreditations are regulated by the Rules of Accreditation of Journalists, according to reports and Kaleyeva.

Saniya Toiken, a Kazakhstan correspondent for Radio Azattyq, the local service of the U.S. Congress-funded broadcaster Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty,told CPJ via phone that the new regulations will protect the state workers from [answering] the uncomfortable questions.

Now, if a moderator tells us to shut up, we will have to shut up. They have turned us into a herd of sheep, she said.

Kazakh Minister of Information and Social Development Aida Balayeva was quoted in Radio Azattyq as saying that the amendments are necessary so that the participants are following the theme of the event, the time restrictions, and the public order, so that the topic discussed could be explained most effectively.

This is by no means an attempt to limit the rights of the journalists, she said.

CPJ emailed the Kazakh Ministry of Information and Social Development for comment, but did not receive any response.

Read the original:
Kazakhstan adopts new accreditation requirements that journalists fear will promote censorship - CPJ Press Freedom Online

The American people deserve to know whats going on at the border. In shutting out journalists, President Joe Biden is repeating the mistakes of his predecessors, trying to control the message by limiting access instead of trusting the public.

The government has blocked the media from visiting overcrowded facilities holding an increasing number of unaccompanied minors detained at the border. With a shelter system failing to keep pace, many of the migrant children traveling alone are being held in overcrowded conditions and for far longer than what is legally allowed. This is a complicated challenge not of Bidens making, but neither is it unprecedented or entirely unexpected. It is fully Bidens responsibility to respond to the new arrivals in humane and effective ways. Its early yet, but his response so far is in need of improvement.

Images released Monday by U.S. Rep. Henry Cuellar, D-Texas, from a temporary Customs and Border Protection tent near McAllen show children packed into rooms with clear plastic walls, lying on thin mattresses on hard floors and covered with foil blankets.

These pictures are not flattering to the administration, but we can handle the truth. What the truth cant handle is a lack of transparency. It not only erodes trust, but it also leaves the facts open to interpretation, spin and outright lies.

Enter U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz. He and Sen. John Cornyn are traveling to the border Friday with about a dozen of their Republican colleagues. In a letter to the president, Cruz chastised the Biden administration for refusing to allow any press to accompany them.

It is not enough for members of the Senate to see what is happening the American people must see, Cruz wrote.

We couldnt agree more that the administrations media blackout is terrible policy and worse politics. But Cruz and company headed to the border Friday must think very little of the American people if they expect their outrage to be taken at face value. Where was their fury during the previous administrations straight-arming of the media, and by extension the public, as conditions on the border deteriorated to levels far beyond what were seeing this early in Bidens tenure? Where was it? It didnt exist.

Whats different now is that Cruz wants fodder to play the kind of divisive politics he is best known for. He cynically hopes that the images that emerge will be worth more than the thousand words that can put them into context. The better to push his narrative of an unprecedented crisis at the border created by Bidens radical immigration policies.

Thats a common theme among his GOP colleagues in Washington, now, and among some Texas officials, too. Last week, House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy called the arrival of migrant children a crisis created by Bidens policies. Thats wrong on both fronts.

An analysis of CBP data published in the Washington Post found what has become a predictable increase that follows a seasonal upswing in undocumented immigration as winter ends and before the hot summer begins. Movement during 2020 was affected by the pandemic, but 2021 figures through February are almost a mirror image of what happened in 2019, University of California at San Diego researchers found. An analysis by the libertarian Cato Institute found similar results.

While preliminary data for March point to more of a surge and officials have said they expect the numbers to reach a 20-year high, those figures do not represent individual crossings, but in many cases repeated attempts by the same person. For most migrants, the border remains closed over COVID concerns, meaning that anyone detained is immediately sent back and most likely able to try to cross again. CBP estimates a 40 percent rate of recidivism.

What the presidents critics dont want to recognize is that this has less to do with Biden or Trump than with desperate conditions of violence and poverty that push people to leave their home, regardless of who sits in the White House. A situation made worse last year by two hurricanes that pummeled the region and the spread of the deadly pandemic.

These are complex problems that require complex understanding and refuse easy solutions. We continue to be heartened that while Republicans are trying to score easy political points, the Biden administration seems willing to do the hard work.

It continues to expand available shelter space to move kids more quickly from Border Patrol detention, is working on alternatives that would allow asylum seekers to apply from their home countries and has sent officials to Mexico and Guatemala.

On Wednesday, Biden announced that Vice President Kamala Harris will lead efforts to curtail immigration in the short term and implement a long-term strategy to address the root causes.

To that growing list of actions we would add allowing journalists to visit and observe the situation on the border, in detention centers and inside shelters, in a way that protects and respects immigrants. Allowing NBC News to follow a recent visit by White House officials and lawmakers to a shelter facility in Texas is a step in the right direction, but more must be done to set the record straight.

Speaking at a press conference Thursday, the president promised to give the media full access, but his timeline was vague.

Thats not good enough. If Biden hopes to find a solution that has eluded past administrations, he will need the support and trust of the American people. That starts with transparency.

Go here to see the original:
Editorial: Bidens press blackout is bad politics, bad policy. We need truth, not censorship, at the border - Houston Chronicle