Archive for the ‘Censorship’ Category

As the 1918 Flu Emerged, Cover-Up and Denial Helped It Spread – History

Spanish flu has been used to describe the flu pandemic of 1918 and 1919 and the name suggests the outbreak started in Spain. But the term is actually a misnomer and points to a key fact: nations involved in World War I didnt accurately report their flu outbreaks.

Spain remained neutral throughout World War I and its press freely reported its flu cases, including when the Spanish king Alfonso XIII contracted it in the spring of 1918. This led to the misperception that the flu had originated or was at its worst in Spain.

Basically, it gets called the Spanish flu because the Spanish media did their job, says Lora Vogt, curator of education at the National WWI Museum and Memorial in Kansas City, Missouri. In Great Britain and the United Stateswhich has a long history of blaming other countries for diseasethe outbreak was also known as the Spanish grip or Spanish Lady.

READ MORE: When Mask-Wearing Rules in the 1918 Pandemic Faced Resistance

Historians arent actually sure where the 1918 flu strain began, but the first recorded cases were at a U.S. Army camp in Kansas in March 1918. By the end of 1919, it had infected up to a third of the worlds population and killed some 50 million people. It was the worst flu pandemic in recorded history, and it was likely exacerbated by a combination of censorship, skepticism and denial among warring nations.

The viruses dont care where they come from, they just love taking advantage of wartime censorship, says Carol R. Byerly, author of Fever of War: The Influenza Epidemic in the U.S. Army during World War I. Censorship is very dangerous during a pandemic.

Patients lie in an influenza ward at the U.S. Army Camp Hospital No. 45 in Aix-les-Baines, France, during World War I.

Corbis/Getty Images

When the flu broke out in 1918, wartime press censorship was more entrenched in European countries because Europe had been fighting since 1914, while the United States had only entered the war in 1917. Its hard to know the scope of this censorship, since the most effective way to cover something up is to not leave publicly-accessible records of its suppression. Discovering the impact of censorship is also complicated by the fact that when governments pass censorship laws, people often censor themselves out of fear of breaking the law.

In Great Britain, which fought for the Allied Powers, the Defense of the Realm Act was used to a certain extent to suppressnews stories that might be a threat to national morale, says Catharine Arnold, author of Pandemic 1918: Eyewitness Accounts from the Greatest Medical Holocaust in Modern History. The government can slam whats called a D-Notice on [a news story]D for Defenseand it means it cant be published because its not in the national interest.

Both newspapers and public officials claimed during the flus first wave in the spring and early summer of 1918 that it wasnt a serious threat. The Illustrated London News wrote that the 1918 flu was so mild as to show that the original virus is becoming attenuated by frequent transmission. Sir Arthur Newsholme, chief medical officer of the British Local Government Board, suggested it was unpatriotic to be concerned with the flu rather than the war, Arnold says.

The flus second wave, which began in late summer and worsened that fall, was far deadlier. Even so, warring nations continued to try to hide it. In August, the interior minister of Italyanother Allied Powerdenied reports of the flus spread. In September, British officials and newspaper barons suppressed news that the prime minister had caught the flu while on a morale-boosting trip to Manchester. Instead, the Manchester Guardian explained his extended stay in the city by claiming hed caught a severe chill in a rainstorm.

READ MORE: Why the Second Wave of the 1918 Flu Was So Deadly

Warring nations covered up the flu to protect morale among their own citizens and soldiers, but also because they didnt want enemy nations to know they were suffering an outbreak. The flu devastated General Erich Ludendorffs German troops so badly that he had to put off his last offensive. The general, whose empire fought for the Central Powers, was anxious to hide his troops flu outbreaks from the opposing Allied Powers.

Ludendorff is famous for observing [flu outbreaks among soldiers] and saying, oh my god this is the end of the war, Byerly says. His soldiers are getting influenza and he doesnt want anybody to know, because then the French could attack him.

Patients at U. S. Army Hospital No. 30 at a movie wear masks because of an influenza epidemic.

The National Library of Medicine

The United States entered WWI as an Allied Power in April 1917. A little over a year later, it passed the 1918 Sedition Act, which made it a crime to say anything the government perceived as harming the country or the war effort. Again, its difficult to know the extent to which the government may have used this to silence reports of the flu, or the extent to which newspapers self-censored for fear of retribution. Whatever the motivation, some U.S. newspapers downplayed the risk of the flu or the extent of its spread.

In anticipation of Philadelphias Liberty Loan March in September, doctors tried to use the press to warn citizens that it was unsafe. Yet city newspaper editors refused to run articles or print doctors letters about their concerns. In addition to trying to warn the public through the press, doctors had also unsuccessfully tried to convince Philadelphias public health director to cancel the march.

The war bonds fundraiser drew several thousand people, creating the perfect place for the virus to spread. Over the next four weeks, the flu killed 12,191 people in Philadelphia.

READ MORE: How U.S. Cities Tried to Halt the Spread of the 1918 Pandemic

Similarly, many U.S. military and government officials downplayed the flu or declined to implement health measures that would help slow its spread. Byerly says the Armys medical department recognized the threat the flu posed to the troops and urged officials to stop troop transports, halt the draft and quarantine soldiers; but they faced resistance from the line command, the War Department and President Woodrow Wilson.

Wilsons administration eventually responded to their pleas by suspending one draft and reducing the occupancy on troop ships by 15 percent, but other than that it didnt take the extensive measures medical workers recommended. General Peyton March successfully convinced Wilson that the U.S. should not stop the transports, and as a result, soldiers continued to get sick. By the end of the year, about 45,000 U.S. Army soldiers had died from the flu.

The pandemic was so devastating among WWI nations that some historians have suggested the flu hastened the end of the war. The nations declared armistice on November 11 amid the pandemics worst wave.

In April 1919, the flu even disrupted the Paris Peace Conference when President Wilson came down with a debilitating case. As when the British prime minister had contracted the flu back in September, Wilsons administration hid the news from the public. His personal doctor instead told the press the president had caught a cold from the Paris rain.

See all pandemic coverage here.

Go here to read the rest:
As the 1918 Flu Emerged, Cover-Up and Denial Helped It Spread - History

Is Disney+ Censoring Cleavage on Wizards of Waverly Place? | CBR – CBR – Comic Book Resources

Disney+ is the subject of a new censorship controversy surrounding the blurring of cleavage in episodes of Wizards of Waverly Place.

Disney+ is under fire for the censorship of a character's cleavage in Wizards of Waverly Place, which is a Disney Channel original show. The question remains, however, whether this censorship was present in the original broadcast or was changed for streaming on Disney+.

Disney appears to have blurred the cleavage of Maria Canals-Barrera, who plays Theresa Russo, the mortal moth of the main characters in the show. In the censored episode, she wears a purple blouse that features a very noticeable blur where a hint of cleavage should be.

RELATED: Deadpool Creator Rob Liefeld Throws Shade At Disney With Dead Mickey Mouse

Twitter user Danielle Owen (@lovelychubly) noticed this censorship and shared a photo of it in a tweet that has since gone viral.

The photo demonstrates how distracting the attempted edit is to the eye. However, it's apparently not a Disney+ issue, as many other Twitter users have come forward to argue that this censorship was present when the episode wasoriginally broadcast in 2009.

In the age of deep fakes, more evidence is required to prove whether this censorship is new or old. But, as fans know,Disney is no stranger to censorship controversy. And while it may not have originated with Disney+, thisincident is only fanning the flames after the service's firstcensorship discovery, involving itsversion of Splash.

There, the streaming service added longer CGI hair to Daryl Hannah's famous mane in order to cover her backside as she runs into the ocean. However, much like the Waverly cleavage blurring, the edit only serves to draw the eye to the area Disney is seeking to cover.

KEEP READING: Disney+'s Loki: First Season May See More Episodes

(via Movieweb)

Legends of Tomorrow Brings Back Fan-Favorite Character

Katarina writes and lives at the intersection of mental health, media, and hope. She has written for National Suicide Prevention Lifeline and Women Write About Comics in the past. Currently she serves as editor for The Future of the Force and writes lists for CBR. Film, writing, people, and nature are Katarinas four favorite things. Her passion lies in using writing to help people understand and experience the world and its media more vividly. A new resident of LA, Katarina is probably crying about something nerdy at this very moment.

See the original post here:
Is Disney+ Censoring Cleavage on Wizards of Waverly Place? | CBR - CBR - Comic Book Resources

Newspapers Equal the Inverse of Censorship – Alameda Sun

Enclosed is enough funding to keep me informed by the Alameda Sun for several years or until rising sea levels transform our island into a saltine marsh or shoal, whichever comes first. I am not a pessimist, but were I to spend a little more, could I get survivor benefits for my subscription? I would like to leave something for my children.

Additionally, I take my summers on the shores of Hoboken, N.J., can I get same day delivery there?

In the past, I had hoped to rescue many worthy publications from subsidence: The Daily Worker, Pravda, The Lennysaver, The Springfield Shopper, The Daily Planet, Mad, Cracked, La Prensa de Nicaragua and most importantly, the TV Guide. Turns out, I was more of a pile driver than a rescue buoy.

None of them kept its head above the fiscal waterline; hopefully by subscribing, I am not putting a hex on the Alameda Sun. Were the Sun to go away, it would eclipse some important voices in the community, casting a shadow of civic nescience over the reading public and give a green light to turpitude at city hall.

Consider the inside scoop we get from Gretchen Lipow, the Rosa Luxembourg of Alameda. Or the inside story, as provided by freelancer David Howard, the Woodward or Bernstein of Alameda. Would Jean Sweeney, bless her soul, have prevailed against the Beltway abrogators and the lassitude of City Hall, had it not been for the spotlight local newspapers directed toward her mission?

Would the various and sundry Measure As have passed without the publicity provided by the Sun?

All forms of censorship are inimical to a vibrant democracy; losing a local newspaper weakens democracy at the grass-roots level. As reported on NPR radio just last week, as local newspapers disappear, opportunities increase for politicians and public employees to reach into the cookie jar and help themselves.

Journalisms most important function is to act as a watchdog on government. But remember, a watchdog does not stop sticky fingers, but without the smoke alarm, no one responds to the minor conflagrations that eventually engulf some of the better stovetops.

Internet scholar Clay Shirky warned in 2009 that we could expect an explosion of casual endemic corruption as more and more small papers shut down. The Alameda Sun, and its freelancing deep throats and snitchers and leakers have done an excellent job of shining light on the mold and mildew and redacted correspondence in the dank corridors of Alameda.

According to a recent study, lack of oversight can be measured by a rise in the cost of government in communities that lose their newspapers. Researchers at the University of Notre Dame and the University of Illinois at Chicago found that a municipalitys borrowing costs increase in statistically significant ways in news deserts that is, in places where there is no longer a local news outlet to sniff out sleaze.

Mismanaged projects like Alameda Powers misguided expensive foray into cable service can be exposed by keyboard-happy curmudgeons and sleuthing investigative reporters employed with or without pay by the tattletale local newspaper. When a newspaper closes, the most important monitoring mechanism ceases to exist, leading to a greater risk that the municipal cash flows steadily escalate as accountability and oversight deescalate.Ronald Reagans favorite Russian proverb was, Trust but verify.

While some say we cannot afford to keep the Alameda Sun, the truth may be, we cannot afford to lose the Sun. As the guy in the oil change commercial likes to remind us, You can pay me now, or you can pay me later.

Or as my felonious Uncle Cusper was wont to say, Why run for office if you dont plan to parlay the publics trust into personal gain?

Then too, without the Sun, how would we get our measure of rhyme and meter from Gene Kahane and Cathy Dana, our poets laureate? Would we print their sonnets on shopping bags? We think not. Given the present dearth of quality journalism, is it any surprise that SAT scores are dropping like flies?

Even though my monetary contribution may not be sizeable, I would like to offer some editorial direction to the Sun that might boost circulation even in these trying times. I recommend expanded coverage even if it targets topics off the Island.

First, we hear very little about Bat Boy; the better tabloids are always reporting on him, why not the Sun? Why the news blackout? Is there a privacy issue that we dont know about? Why does the National Enquirer get all the Bat Boy exclusives? Is it true Bat Boy only works the night shift and drives his car without headlights using echo location?

Then too, theres Area 51; we read next to nothing on Area 51 or UFOs; why is the Sun keeping us from the truth? The public has a right to know. The statute of limitations is up on those aliens, its high time to reopen the case. I hear some of the aliens survived the crash and are living, undocumented, in a suburb of Zabriskie Point. Find them!

Thirdly, the Royal Family; admittedly it is not local news, but Harry and Meghan are reportedly living in a Los Angeles mansion.Eric or Dennis, if youre listening, fire up the newsmobile and hop on I-5 south; with a drone camera and a telephoto lens, the paper could earn the next Pulitzer prize. Would it hurt the editorial standards of the Alameda Sun to include a tantalizing paparazzi piece a minimum of once a week?

As tabloid publisher Sid Hudgens played by Danny DeVitos character in L.A. Confidential reminds Jack Vincennes about Hush Hush News: Actually, its circulation is 36,000 and climbing. Theres no telling where this will go. Radio, television. Once you whet the publics appetite for the truth, the skys the limit.

Rarely would I over-simplify a solution, but Sid Hudgens is right, you whet the publics appetite for the truth and watch circulation climb like a homesick angel.

Instead of being headquartered in a garret on Encinal Avenue, the Sun could be basking on E Z Street, with Dennis and Eric, both wearing Pulitzer Prize medals on their goat-skin vests.

Read the original:
Newspapers Equal the Inverse of Censorship - Alameda Sun

Some Facebook users find commenting the single word coronavirus results in auto-censorship – Reclaim The Net

Some Facebook users are reporting that the social networking platform is deleting comments containing the word coronavirus. What is not clear as of this writing though is whether this censorship about the virus is true across the Facebook platform for all users or only for a select group of users in the comment section.

The new censorship scheme surprised many Facebook users who noticed something wrong about their comments on Facebook posts and got in touch to let us know about it. Though, on investigation, the problem seems more widespread.

One user reported that Facebook issues a warning that says comments containing the word coronavirus go against Facebooks community standards on misinformation that could cause physical harm.

Double your web browsing speed with today's sponsor. Get Brave.

What some other users observe though is the fact that the comment appears to have disappeared only for other people. This means that the user who posted it can still see the comment what is more commonly known as a shadowban.

Still, the question remains as to why Facebook would do implement censorship of just the word coronavirus meaning that its likely part of some wider implementation of a crackdown on misinformation or the algorithm could just be making an error.

Read more from the original source:
Some Facebook users find commenting the single word coronavirus results in auto-censorship - Reclaim The Net

#CensorWebSeries trends on Twitter in India – MediaNama.com

Home OTT regulation, Twitter

Over May 27, a pro web censorship trend has been trending on Twitter, #CensorWebSeries. The trend seems like a concerted campaign, with scant mentions until yesterday, and has received more than 65,000 mentions today alone. The accounts receiving the most engagement under the trend so far are right wing organisations like the Hindu Janajagruti Samiti; Hindu nationalist publishers group Sanatan Prabhat, and several individuals with bios along the same lines.

Tweets are mainly focused on Amazon Prime Videos Paatal Lok, a show that deals with religion and caste in a way that these tweets say are anti-Hindu. The Samiti in particular took issues with scenes such as one that depicted a mob of Hindus lynchinga Muslim train passenger. Some of the tweets also mention shows like ALT Balaji and ZEE5s Code M, and Netflixs Sacred Games and Leila.

Netizens have slammed @AnushkaSharma and the series for showing anti-Hindu culture and glorifying beef-eating in few scenes. People called out the narrative of the show and trended #BanPaatalLok #PaatalLok on Twitter.#BoycottPaatalLok#CensorWebSeries pic.twitter.com/tcWxFMQSVi

HinduJagrutiOrg (@HinduJagrutiOrg) May 27, 2020

At the time of publishing, the trend seems to have subsided (ranked at #17 among India trends), and none of the governments ministers, like Information & Broadcasting Minister Prakash Javadekar, have yet responded to the tweets they were tagged in.

This campaign comes as the government increases the pressure on streaming platforms to create a quasi-judicial content regulation body. The Digital Content Complaints Committee, the Internet and Mobile Association of Indias proposed solution, has divided the industry. That committee, called tier-2 among IAMAI members, has the support of only a minority of streaming services. Right before the COVID-19 pandemic started, members were in the process of deliberating on a consensus position. That discussion seems to be on hold, and a media statement published for ZEE5 CEO Tarun Katyal taking over as IAMAIs Digital Entertainment Committee chairman makes no mention of the issue.

I cover the digital content ecosystem and telecom for MediaNama.

Read the rest here:
#CensorWebSeries trends on Twitter in India - MediaNama.com