Mediaboss Marketing

Reposted from the CO2 coalition

On August 28, Dr. Caleb Rossiter, Executive Director of the CO2 Coalition, published on open letter to Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) on the issue of censorship. He states:

In July you wrote to Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and, to my shock and dismay,asked him to censor meand the CO2 Coalition of climate scientists and energy economists, of which I am the executive director. At issue is an op-ed on the arcane mathematics of computerized climate models that I co-authored in 2019 with our senior fellow Patrick Michaels, a former president of the American Association of State Climatologists.

Ive been struggling to find some common ground that would interest you in looking carefully at my opinions, both on the climate disinformation you allege and on the concept of censoring rather than debating opinions with which one disagrees. ()

The energy with which you pursue your argument that the CO2 Coalition should be banned from Facebook for promoting climate denialism is impressive, but youve violated our first rule in analysis: understand the other point of view so you can portray it accurately before questioning it.

You should have contacted the CO2 Coalition to see if you could learn anything from their view of the facts, let alone of the media characterizations and conclusions about its interaction with Facebook. The Coalition website has aspecific statementcountering the original news claim that Facebook made an exception for the op-ed in question because it contained opinion. ()

And there is absolutely no evidence as of yet for your claim that, The devastation caused by the climate crisis will also be disproportionately felt by communities of color Even if there were, we have learned here in class to do full analysis of not just the costs, but also the benefits of various policy choices. Wouldnt banning cheap, reliable energy in favor of costly, intermittent renewables under a carbon neutral Green New Deal itself badly damage communities of all colors? (Remember, there is nothing renewable about the mining and manufacturing infrastructure needed for wind turbines and solar panels and their storage batteries!)

Similarly, you worry over media reports that combined climate and economic mathematical models can be tuned to project CO2-driven extreme weather that reduces US GDP by ten percent in 2100 but then you leave out the tremendous, fossil-fueled increase in GDP by then that would more than pay for such damages.

You argue that Facebook should censor non-alarmist views because, the climate crisis and environmental degradation are not matters of opinion. They are existential threats that hurt communities and economies throughout the world including and especially Black communities and other communities of color. But of course these claims are the essence of matters of opinion! They involve judgments that can go either positive or negative, depending on reasonable choices in analysis of the claims and counterclaims on science, economics, and health, as well as on the costs and the benefits of changing our energy mix. ()

As I follow your argument for Facebook censoring my views, (1) the CO2 Coalition knowingly lies (thats the definition of disinformation); (2) these lies will reduce public support for action on climate change (actually, energy action, since the climatic results of reducing CO2emissions are precisely what the models have tried, and failed so far, to project); and (3) without such action, communities and economieswill continue to be ravaged by the climate crisis. (Actually, continue is premature, since as noted, there is no climate crisis yet, only a projected one.)

There is much here, of course, that I think is unproven and that I think you didnt prove or even try to prove in your letter. But even if it were all true, wouldnt it be better to tolerate our disagreement, and then defeat my nefarious efforts in debate than to simply silence them? Surely, Facebook users are smart enough to assess evidence and make up their own minds, just like my students were. I still subscribe to the dictum often attributed to Voltaire: I may disagree strongly with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.The full letter can be downloaded at the link below.

Open Letter to Senator Elizabeth WarrenDownload

Like Loading

More here:
Open Letter to Senator Elizabeth Warren - The Shepherd of the Hills Gazette

Hong Kong publishers have been told to remove references to the separation of powers and protest slogans from school textbooks, in a move decried as censorship by the authorities.

Six publishers voluntarily submitted eight textbooks to the education regulator for vetting and were asked to make revisions, reports in Hong Kong and mainland media said on Wednesday.

Its the latest in a series of extraordinary moves on Hong Kongs education system since Beijings national security law was implemented in late June.

Liberal studies has been mandatory for senior students in Hong Kong for more than a decade, but has drawn criticism from some pro-Beijing figures who claimed its teaching materials - which schools can choose without government approval - were biased. Last year a voluntary review service was offered to publishers.

According to a comparison conducted by the South China Morning Post, two publishers have removed the phrase separation of power in sections about Hong Kong, and other illustrations of Lennon walls and protesters holding placards have been replaced. At least one textbook added text to say that if protesters violated laws they would be held legally accountable, Chinese state media outlet the Global Times said.

Cheung Yui Fai, executive council member of the Professional Teachers Union, told the Guardian government attempts to censor school subjects had been going for some time. The vetting meant the textbooks now may not reflect the real picture of Hong Kong, he said.

We would like the students to have the full picture of the development of the social issues, including the pro government side and the criticism of the governments [in Hong Kong and mainland China].

In Hong Kong now the political pressure is really high for teachers. If youre brave enough you can try your best to tell the truth to the students and lead them to have more rounded discussion of the social issues.

Cheung also said the inefficiency of the vetting process, which began before the national security laws were passed, meant the new versions had been approved only a week before school returned, and may face more amendments if even the new version were found not be within the law.

Tang Fei, a principal at Hong Kongs Heung To Secondary School, told the Global Times previous versions of the textbooks failed to prevent students falling into the traps of opposition groups propaganda.

It is entirely untrue and pure propaganda to say that Hong Kong society widely believes in the so-called separation of three powers, and opposition groups used to implant ideas in textbooks to promote their political agenda among the youth.

Despite assurances from the government that the law would make no difference to the regular lives of law-abiding Hong Kongers, schools and universities have experienced a chilling effect and actual curtailments on what they can teach, discuss, and allow.

Security chief John Lee has previously pledged to deal with the schools in the governments crackdown on dissent. Lee claimed around 40% of the protesters arrested were students, and more than 100 were teachers.

The education bureau and a textbook publisher have been contacted for comment.

Read more:
Hong Kong censorship fears as protest slogans removed from some textbooks - The Guardian

Writing about bias in the media, syndicated columnist Cal Thomas has observed that bias is not only expressed in how and what is covered, but even more in what is omitted.

Censorship by omission is, in my view, a regular practice of the mainstream media and LNP | LancasterOnline when a story runs counter to the progressive narrative they favor. While numerous cases could be cited, space will allow the discussion of just three current issues that were mostly ignored by LNP | LancasterOnline.

First, Michael Shellenberger, one of the most acclaimed leaders in the global warming alarmist community, recently published Apocalypse Never. It is a scholarly expose in which a repentant Shellenberger reveals the distortions characterizing that movement and the academic bullying. As one would expect, he is now an object of scorn despite the adulation formerly accorded him by alarmists. Readers are encouraged to research this story on the internet.

Second, as a fawning media and an undiscerning public rush to embrace the radical organization Black Lives Matter, we hear little from LNP | LancasterOnline about the militant anti-family and anti-American views of the organizations founders, who proudly proclaim themselves trained Marxists. Again, readers are encouraged to educate themselves. A good place to start is on the Black Lives Matter website.

Third, we hear nothing about the well-documented racism of Joe Biden. LNP | LancasterOnline space restrictions limit me to giving the same advice as above. Do your own research on Joe Bidens racist quotes online and imagine the media firestorm if those words were spoken by a conservative.

Linford Youndt

Lititz

Subscribe today for only $2

' + submsgtxthtml + '

Get unlimited access to breaking news, ancestry archives, our daily E-newspaper, games and more.

Subscribe today for only $2

' + submsgtxthtml + '

Get unlimited access to breaking news, ancestry archives, our daily E-newspaper, games and more.

Subscribe today for only $2

' + submsgtxthtml + '

Get unlimited access to breaking news, ancestry archives, our daily E-newspaper, games and more.

Subscribe today for only $2

' + submsgtxthtml + '

Read the original here:
On censorship by omission (letter) | Letters To The Editor - LancasterOnline

Behind the TikTok controversy is an important struggle between two dueling visions of the internet. The first is an older vision: the idea that the internet should, in a neutral fashion, connect everyone, and that blocking and censorship of sites by nation-states should be rare and justified by more than the will of the ruler. The second and newer vision, of which China has been the leading exponent, is net nationalism, which views the countrys internet primarily as a tool of state power. Economic growth, surveillance and thought control, from this perspective, are the internets most important functions.

China, in furtherance of this vision, bans not only most foreign competitors to its tech businesses but also foreign sources of news, religious instruction and other information, while using the internet to promote state propaganda and engage in foreign electoral interference. Though China is the pioneer of net nationalism, it is on the rise elsewhere, particularly in nations like Saudi Arabia and Iran and, more recently, Turkey and India.

For many years, laboring under the vain expectation that China, succumbing to inexorable world-historical forces, would become more like us, Western democracies have allowed China to exploit this situation. We have accepted, with only muted complaints, Chinese censorship and blocking of content from abroad while allowing Chinese companies to explore and exploit whatever markets it likes. Few foreign companies are allowed to reach Chinese citizens with ideas or services, but the world is fully open to Chinas online companies.

From Chinas perspective, the asymmetry has been a bonanza that has served economic as well as political goals. While China does have great engineers, European nations overrun by American tech companies must be jealous of the thriving tech industry that China has built in the absence of serious foreign competition (aided by the theft of trade secrets). At the same time, China has managed, to an extent many believed impossible, to use the internet to suppress any nascent political opposition and ceaselessly promote its ruling party. The idealists who thought the internet would automatically create democracy in China were wrong.

Some think that it is a tragic mistake for the United States to violate the principles of internet openness that were pioneered in this country. But there is also such a thing as being a sucker. If China refuses to follow the rules of the open internet, why continue to give it access to internet markets around the world?

Read more:
A TikTok Ban Is Overdue - The New York Times

Fearing loss of market share in China, Hollywood studios are now removing from their films any content related to Tibet or other human rights issues considered politically sensitive by Beijing, according to a U.S.-based media freedoms group.

As U.S. film studios compete for the opportunity to access Chinese audiences, many are making difficult and troubling compromises on free expression, PEN America says in a recent report, Made in Hollywood, Censored by Beijing.

Film content is now frequently changed even for American audiences, while studios provide censored versions of films specifically for Chinese audiences and sometimes invite Chinese censors onto film sets to advise them on how to avoid tripping the censors wires, PEN America said.

Studios decisions on casting, plot, dialogue, and settings are now made based on a desire to avoid antagonizing Chinese officials who control whether their films gain access to the booming Chinese market, PEN America said, adding that these decisions are carefully made behind closed doors and out of public view.

After making two films in 1997Kundun and Seven Years in Tibet--depicting Chinas conquest of Tibet, two major studios were banned from doing business in China for the next five years, and Hollywood quickly got the message, with Disney CEO Michael Eisner going to Beijing to apologize for his companys production of Kundun and its sympathetic treatment of exiled Tibetan spiritual leader the Dalai Lama.

Seven Years in Tibet, starring Brad Pitt, was also supportive of Tibet and would never be made again today, Emily JashinskyCultural Editor at The Federalisttold RFAs Tibetan Service in an interview.

Seven Years in Tibet is a great example of a film that would never be made in todays Hollywood, and this is because everybody in the industry is absolutely petrified of being blacklisted by the Chinese Communist Party, Jashinsky said.

Hollywood would be terrified even if they made that movie just for viewing in the United States and elsewhere, and not to be shown in China, Jashinsky said, adding that movies with sympathetic treatments of Tibet are politically against what the CCP wants their narrative to be.

An invisible phenomenon

As an industry, Hollywood should develop a mechanism for disclosure that would reveal censorship requests made to it by foreign governments and say how studios responded, said James Tager, PEN Deputy Director of Free Expression Research and Policy.

Ultimately, self-censorship flourishes in obscurity or in invisibility. So if we want to tackle this issue, we have to start discussing this more honestly and address the fact that this is largely an invisible phenomenon."

Chinas influence over Hollywood reflects the countrys growing success in forcing foreign corporate compliance with Beijings propaganda goals, with international companies as diverse as Mercedes-Benz and Marriott giving in to Chinese censorship demands, PEN America said in its report.

Meanwhile, the media freedoms group said, Hollywood films reach billions, and help to shape the way people think.

In a statement sent to RFA, U.S. Senator Ted Cruz said that one way Beijing attempts to advance its preferred narrative about Tibet and other issues sensitive to China is by coercing Americans into self-censorshipespecially in Hollywood.

Thats why I have introduced the SCRIPT Act, which would cut off Hollywood studios from assistance they receive from the U.S. Government if those studios censor their films for screening in China, Cruz said, calling the proposed legislation a wake-up call for Hollywood.

I remain committed to protecting our national security and ensuring that the Chinese Communist Party is held accountable for their censorship, human rights abuses, propaganda campaigns, and espionage operations, Cruz said.

Reported and translated by Tenzin Dickyi for RFAs Tibetan Service. Written in English by Richard Finney.

Link:
Hollywood Censors Films for Content Offensive to China, Fearing Loss of Business There - Radio Free Asia