Mediaboss Marketing

President Trumps reelection campaign saidTuesdaythat CNN has denied its offer to buy air time for a campaign ad, marking the second time the network has refused to run a pro-Trump campaign spot.

The ad, called Let President Trump Do His Job, accuses the media of attacking our president and briefly displays pictures of news anchors from several news outlets, including CNN anchors Jake Tapper, Don Lemon and Anderson Cooper.

The presidents enemies dont want him to succeed, the ad states. Let President Trump do his job.

One of the many reasons that so many millions of Americans support President Trump is because of their complete mistrust of the mainstream news media, and the presidents refusal to allow their biased filter to interfere with his messages, Trump campaign executive director Michael Glassner said in a statement.

Today, CNN provided further proof that the network earns this mistrust every day by censoring President Trumps message to the American people by blocking our paid campaign ad, he continued. Clearly, the only viewpoint CNN allows on air is CNNS.

A spokesperson for CNN said the network asked for changes to make the ad "factually accurate" and that the Trump campaign declined.

"CNN would accept the ad if the images ofreporters and anchors are removed," a spokesperson said. "Anchors and reporters dont have 'enemies,' as the ad states, but they do hold those in power accountable across the political spectrum and aggressively challenge false and misleading statements and investigate wrong-doing."

Earlier this year, CNN refused to run a Trump campaign ad because it cast the mainstream media as fake news.

Trump and CNN are locked in an increasingly personal feud that has pitted the White House against the networks top on-air talent.

CNNs chief White House correspondent, Jim Acosta, has gained prominencefor his entrenched opposition to Trump.

Acosta has infuriated conservatives, who view him as a grandstander whose chief goal is buildinghis personal brand through viral clips of heated exchanges with White House spokespeople.

At a press conferenceon Monday, Acosta, who was representing the media through the press pool, shouted a question at Trump, who responded: Youre fake news.

Havent you spread a lot of fake news yourself, sir?Acosta shot back.

CNN has run its own ads with footage of anchors lecturing White House officials and talking about whether Trump will be impeached.

The network has attracted criticism for its relentless hostility toward the president. A Harvard study found that CNNs coverage of Trump was negative 93 percent of the time over the course of his first 100 days in office.

CNN's ratings are up, although the networkstill trails rivals Fox News and MSNBC.

- This story was updated at 1:06 p.m.

View original post here:
Trump campaign accuses CNN of censorship - The Hill

A deal between Beijing and the increasingly despotic Erdogan regime in Turkey is raising fears of a new phase of Chinese political influence, in which Chinese soft power is used to persuade foreign governments to allow the same type of pro-Beijing censorship that constricts the Chinese internet in their own countries. After a meeting last week between Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu and his Chinese counterpart Wang Yi, it was reported that Turkey plans to block anti-China reports from its media and Turkish language websites. This has worried many activists from Chinas persecuted Uighur minority, for whom Turkey has functioned as something of a safe haven after other Asian countries closer to Beijing crumbled in the face of political pressure to crackdown on Uighur refugees within their borders.

Within China, the ruling Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is steadfast on three sacred rights over which it perceives there is very little room for negotiations. These are continued unchallenged rule by the CCP at home; uncompromising defence of Chinese claims to sovereignty and territorial integrity within and without Chinas present borders; and continued economic expansion at home and abroad. Beijing has often sparred diplomatically with other countries and turned the screws on the private sector at home in pursuit of these three rights. It has also long threatened foreign governments and companies if it sees them as somehow challenging any of these core interests; what is new is that China now wishes to export the censorship methods it has perfected at home to foreign audiences whose interest and familiarity with China is very limited.

Of course, Beijing has long wielded control over what its own citizens can see or speak of both online and through media outlets whose output it can control domestically. But in a globalised world China is also the source of much concern from international observers, from the international status of Taiwan and the South China Sea to repression in Tibet and Xinjiang. It has been a source of great irritation to Beijing that media outlets online who are based overseas can contradict the official narrative without penalty. As China has grown stronger it has begun to try and impose a pro-Chinese narrative on media coverage overseas whose target audiences are not Chinese consumers. This overt effort especially targets Chinese dissidents searching for space to hide or places to broadcast from, but it also seeks to undermine foreign resistance to increasingly assertive Chinese territorial demands in places like the South China Sea.

In Turkey, media freedom has all but vanished following the failed coup last year and Erdogans victory in the April referendum. The Turkish media blackout there is only part of an offensive which China is carrying out with the help of autocratic states in the Middle East against Uighurs who have fled overseas. In Egypt, the military authorities have copied the example of Thailands junta and rounded up dozens of Uighurs for deportation back to China. But Uighurs are Turkic-speaking Muslims whose fate has traditionally been championed by Ankara. By muzzling the Turkish press, Beijing has both struck a blow against the international media coverage that Uighur activists have traditionally relied upon to publicise their cause, and made it easier to forcibly return such critics to Chinese soil without arousing much negative publicity.

Some may see the agreement between China and Turkey as constituting a special case; Uighur activists are vulnerable to accusations propagated from Beijing that their organisations are tied to terrorist groups. Some Uighurs have indeed joined international terrorist networks like the Islamic State and carried out attacks overseas which targeted foreigners and not Chinese state facilities (though these have been attacked too). This has made Middle Eastern governments, most whom are not particularly concerned with human rights, happy to be persuaded to fight Beijings battles for it. The terrorism connection has also muted Western and East Asian criticism of China, conditions which cannot be said to applied to issues such as Taiwan, Tibet or historical controversies that Beijing censors such as the Tiananmen Square massacre.

But success in controlling the narrative over its treatment of the Uighurs in Xinjiang is liable to encourage China to try this method of media manipulation in other regions, over other issues. Semi-democratic Malaysia for example, despite a border dispute with China, has cooperated with Beijing in the past, sending Taiwanese and Uighur detainees back to China despite international outcry. It is not hard to imagine Beijing demanding Kuala Lumpur extend its cooperation into the area of media censorship when Malaysia already has some of the toughest media controls in the modern world. This future blackout could be over the fate of Uighurs migrants as in Turkey, or it could be over a different issue entirely, such as corruption within the ruling CCP. Chinese dissidents are already vanishing overseas with the help of foreign governments; it is hard to image they will be keen to publicise the dirty work they carry out on Beijings behalf.

As democracy falters in the West and the rest, international human rights groups and large media conglomerates must remain wary of any emerging pact of censorship between China and the gaggle of autocrats and demagogues currently in vogue. Dictatorships can cooperate internationally to conceal the truth of their actions, as Latin American military regimes did when they joined together to hunt down dissidents in each others countries during Operation Condor. When one country inside such a pact is as powerful as China, such an arrangement would give the CCP almost unprecedented abilities to persecute its own people abroad, engage in bad faith negotiations over territorial disputes and manipulate foreign audiences sentiments in favour of CCP priorities. That is not a future which is good for China or the peoples with whom it is now coming into closer contact with in the 21st century.

See the rest here:
Chinese Censorship Hits the Middle East - Raddington Report (blog)

Wall Street Journal (subscription)

The Price of Censorship for China's Internet Giants Wall Street Journal (subscription) By blocking foreign competition, China's censorship regime has groomed the country's internet companies into some of the world's biggest companies. Now Big Brother is turning against the behemoths. The country's largest social-media platforms ... China's censorship crackdown targets WeChat, Weibo, and BaiduTNW China Steps Up Censorship of Social Media SitesTheStreet.com China probes Tencent, Baidu and Sina over subversive contentFinancial Times Fortune -BBC News all 87 news articles »

Read more here:
The Price of Censorship for China's Internet Giants - Wall Street Journal (subscription)

YouTube is now demonetizing videos from content creators deemed too controversial for the platform, and conservatives and independents are being heavily impacted.

The move follows YouTubes announcement earlier in August to catch and flag controversial religious and supremacist content hosted on the popular video-hosting website. Political and social commentators on YouTube are feeling the hurtand they believe that they may be on a blacklist for having the wrong opinions.

The Daily Caller previously spoke to several popular commentary YouTubers who expressed skepticism of the system when the move was first announced last week.

Affected creators are unable to make money from their work, which is automatically flagged or vetted by volunteer experts. In addition, the new system incorporates tougher standards for controversial videos that do not break YouTubes terms of service, which are placed in a purgatory state that effectively censors them from being recommended to YouTube viewers.

The Daily Caller spoke to conservative and independent YouTubers whose channels are now being affected by the new policy. Conservative journalist Lauren Southern believes there is a drive to stifle politically divergent voices.

I think it would be insane to suggest theres not an active effort to censor conservative and independent views, said Southern. Considering most of Silicon Valley participate in the censorship of alleged hate speech, diversity hiring and inclusivity committees. Their entire model is based around a far left outline. Theres no merit hiring, theres no support of free speech and there certainly is not an equal representation of political views at these companies.

Independent journalist and activist Luke Rudkowski, who runs WeAreChange, told The Daily Caller that hundreds of his videos were demonetized in a single day on Thursday, effectively killing his ability to earn a living on YouTube.

Having had 660 of my videos demonetized in one day left me a little stunned since this is the core for my income but left me with the impression that this was done on purpose, said Rudkowski, who said that the videos included some of his most popular videos from years ago. This was videos from years ago predominately targeting the most viewed videos which has eviscerated my income.

Rudkowski, who believes it isnt a coincidence that he was targeted, says that he has experienced repeated issues with YouTube.

After dealing with all the repeated issues with YouTube it is clear that this is a campaign to de-incentivize any critical thinkers and anti authoritarians from their platform, he said.

Daniel Sulzbach, better known as MrRepzion, told the Daily Caller that YouTubes demonetization of his videos has hurt his incentive to make new content. He says that it hasnt been the first time his videos were demonetized, but when the issue happened previously in early 2017, he was able to successfully appeal for them to be restored.

The difference now is that my videos are not being restored with monetization when I file for manual review, said Sulzbach.

The YouTuber, who is known for his blistering culture critiques, discussions about atheism, and video game topics, says he doesnt understand why so many of his videos were flagged.

Some of them make zero sense, especially my video game streams, he said. This is just conjecture at this point, but I think my channel could be on a potential blacklist or list of some sort where my content is looked upon more than others?

I dont make any crazy radical videos, he continued. I hardly even do videos regarding feminism, social justice, etc. anymore. He says that even a 2-year old video response to an Instagram was demonetized without explanation, as well as content from when he was still a Christian.

Sulzbach told the Daily Caller that he plans to rely solely on Patreon to keep making videos, for now. If I fall below a threshold, Ill just quit, he said.

Edgy YouTube comedian Razorfist says every single one of his videos was demonetized. His biggest issue with the site was how the platform values progressive voices over everyone else through biased algorithms. Razorfist cited a video rebuttal to Sam Seder (a left wing comedian) as an example of the bias. He claims that Seder posted a reply containing Razorfists video in its entirety, but the algorithm flagged the original video for demonetization.

If leftist channels are being white-listed, someones going to have to explain to me how this algorithm is functionally any different than a conservative blacklist, he said.Razorfist tells the Daily Caller that he knows his content is edgy and profane, and understands why large family-friendly companies wouldnt want to advertise on his videos, but he wants to know why Google allows for leftist comedians to perform the same humor without any backlash.

Googles going to need to explain to me why John Oliver can engage in weekly invective punctuated by a hail of profane epithets, skew it leftward, and still have ads for Pampers and pimple cream adorn the margins of his unwatchable videos, he said.

Conservative vlogger and cultural pundit Mark Dice told The Daily Caller he believes YouTube is upset at the rise of conservative channels on YouTube over the past year, and that the new policies are designed to squelch dissenting voices.

I think YouTube is furious that so many conservative channels have gotten so popular in the last year, and they dont want us to be able to work full-time doing what were doing because our message is at odds with almost everything that Google and YouTubes leadership stands for, said Dice, who says that even his monetized videos are underperforming as a result of the changes.

To deal with the demonetization of his channel, Dice said that he plans to continue producing videos and supplementing his income through Patreon and merchandise sales, and a new book. He says that his videos performed better when he had a 10th of his subscriber count, years ago.

Dice believes that despite the seeming hopelessness of the situation expressed by so many other YouTubers, Google and YouTube may have made have shot themselves in the foot by censoring conservatives.

YouTube has kicked a bees nest by going after Diamond and Silk [a channel of two black female Trump supporters]. I think it wont be long before President Trump is commenting on YouTubes censorship, he said.

Ian Miles Cheong is a journalist and outspoken media critic. You can reach him through social media at@stillgray on Twitterand onFacebook.

Continue reading here:
Conservative And Independent YouTube Channels Hit By Censorship And Demonetization - The Daily Caller

Farmers are on the front lines of climate change. The people who grow the food we eat deserve clear, candid scientific advice on coping with global warming and the growing threat drought and extreme weather pose to American agriculture.

But such honest counsel, it turns out, wont come from the Trump administration. A recently revealed series of emails shows that U.S. Department of Agriculture experts who help farmers deal with manmade warming were told after President Trump took office to stop using terms like climate change and reduce greenhouse gases.

This alarming act of scientific censorship might have stayed a bureaucratic secret but for one thing: Americas powerful public records law, which has become a truly vital tool in revealing the grim details of Trumps war on climate science and the environment.

My organization, the Center for Biological Diversity, used the Freedom of Information Act to obtain these remarkable emails sent to staff at the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), a component of the USDA that provides land-conservation assistance to farmers.

The USDA emails have ignited a firestorm of controversy because they reveal the Trump administrations stark impact on language used by agency staff. NRCS leadership instructed employees to describe their work without any reference to climate change, instead describing weather extremes and eliminating any reference to human causes.

But obtaining those incriminating communications which are clearly public records was no easy task.

As an attorney specializing in public records law, I am profoundly grateful for the Freedom of Information Act, a landmark law that provides Americans with the right to know what their government is up to.

Yet in just the first six months of Trumps presidency, Ive been flabbergasted by his administrations dogged determination to avoid complying with this critically important law.

After the center submitted its FOIA request to the USDA in early April, the agency blocked the release of records under an exemption so abused by the government that some have labeled it the withhold it because you want to exemption.

The center was forced to appeal the NRCSs withholdings of information. We pointed out that officials failed to conduct an adequate search for responsive records and improperly redacted information.

As a result of the centers appeal the NRCS finally released 65 pages of records without redaction.

In other public records cases, weve actually had to sue. Indeed, weve filed 10 lawsuits to force the Trump administration to comply with its legal duty to make public records available to the public.

For example, the center sued the Environmental Protection Agency for failing to provide public records of closed-door meetings between the agency, states and industry groups regarding Trumps weakened wetlands regulations under the Clean Water Act. Those changes could potentially eliminate protections for millions of acres of wetlands, which are critical to water purification and provide habitat for hundreds of endangered species.

Weve also had to sue the EPA, Department of Energy, Department of the Interior and Department of State for failing to provide records addressing the censorship of words or phrases related to climate change in formal agency communications, violating deadlines established under the law.

We dont yet have the full picture of Trumps scientific censorship, since were still waiting for many federal agencies to release public records.

Yet one thing seems clear: The administrations opposition to transparency is closely connected to its desire to censor climate scientists and other federal experts. An administration that favors alternative facts over the truth is naturally determined to operate under the cover of darkness.

Thankfully, we have an open records law that can reveal disturbing realities like the fact that the climate-deniers now running our federal government are so determined to ignore science that theyll avoid telling farmers about climate changes increasingly potent threats to our food supply.

Thats not a pleasant thing to know, but its critical for Americans to have the full facts about the Trump administrations alarming attacks on truth.

Meg Townsend is an open government attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity, a non-profit advocacy organization focused on protecting at-risk species and protecting thelands, waters and climatethose species need to survive.

The views expressed by contributors are their own and are not the views of The Hill.

Follow this link:
How to fight Trump's climate science censorship - The Hill (blog)