Mediaboss Marketing

MOSCOW Five senior editors at Vedomosti, one of Russias most prominent business newspapers, resigned on Monday in protest at the appointment of an editor-in-chief they say has applied pro-Kremlin censorship to its coverage.

Their resignation, reported by Vedomosti itself, occurred after the publications acting editor-in-chief, Andrei Shmarov, was confirmed to the post by the publishers board of directors.

The five editors Dmitry Simakov, Boris Safronov, Philip Sterkin, Kirill Kharatyan and Alexander Gubsky all served as Shmarovs deputies, Vedomosti reported.

We do not find it possible to work with an editor-in-chief who with his actions has shown that he doesnt care about rules, standards and principles, Safronov, the deputy editor-in-chief who has worked for the paper since 1999, told Reuters.

One reporter in April publicly complained that Shmarov had forbidden negative coverage of President Vladimir Putins plans to change the constitution so that he could potentially stay in power until 2036, and said that Shmarov had threatened to fire those who defied the ban.

Others said Shmarov had barred publication of opinion polls carried out by a research firm that had irritated the Kremlin.

Shmarov told Reuters at the time that he had not threatened to sack anyone and that his editorial decisions were his own and not the result of any instructions given by anyone else, including from any government or business structure.

Shmarov said on Monday he could not immediately comment.

Until recently, Vedomosti had been widely regarded as one of the few high profile publications in Russia not to be under the direct control of the authorities or businessmen with ties to the Kremlin.

Shmarov was appointed acting editor-in-chief at the end of March, after it was announced that two businessmen would be buying the newspaper. Journalists had called for the newspapers management to appoint someone else. (Additional reporting by Elena Fabrichnaya Editing by Mark Heinrich)

See the original post:
Editors quit Russian newspaper, accusing boss of pro-Kremlin censorship - National Post

Hugh Johnson Advisors CIO Hugh Johnson explains why hes buying Facebook, MasterCard and Alphabet.

Facebook on Friday apologized afteran Interceptreport saidthe company would allow business administrators to censor certain words from employees like "unionize" onits office management platform, Facebook Workplace.

The report cites aninternal company meeting in which Facebook employees discussed the Workplace app, which allows users to communicate with coworkers using a professional interface withrecognizable Facebook features like News Feed, Groups, Chat andRoom.

The company said during the meeting that there are "benefits" to"content control" for administrators, giving the example of the word "unionize" as one that business leaders might choose to censor on the platform, The Intercept reported.

The Facebook signup web page on a laptop and the Facebook app on a smartphone. (iStock)

"While these kinds of content moderation tools are useful for companies, this example should never have been used and we apologize for it," Facebook told FOX Business."The feature was only in early development and weve pulled any plans to roll it out while we think through next steps."

Walmart, the Singapore government, Discovery Communications, Starbucks, Campbell Soup Corporation and other large companies use Workplace, according to The Intercept.

FACEBOOK'S ZUCKERBERG FELT 'DISGUSTED' OVER TRUMP LOOTING POST: REPORT

Facebook has prided itself on promoting free speech on its platform and has even come under fire from employees and users alike who disagreed with the company's decision to not remove posts from President Trump in recent weeksthatTwitter decided to label or hide, highlighting the different ways social media companies choose to moderate content.

A number of Facebook employees staged a virtual walkout after it was revealed that the platform did not take the same action as Twitter against a Trump post saying, "When the looting starts, the shooting starts" in reference to potential law enforcement action against violent protesters in the wake of George Floyd's death. Twitter hid the post and added a disclaimer while Facebook kept it up without labels.

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg testifies before a House Financial Services Committee hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday, Oct. 23, 2019. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)

Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg defended leaving the posts up; he has repeatedly said Facebook promotes free speechand voters have the right to make their own decisions regarding political posts and advertisements.

GET FOX BUSINESS ON THE GO BY CLICKING HERE

We have a different policy than, I think, Twitter on this, Zuckerberg told Fox News anchor Dana Perino on May 27.I just believe strongly that Facebook shouldnt be the arbiter of truth of everything that people say online. In general, private companies probably shouldnt be especially these platform companies shouldnt be in the position of doing that.

Trump signed an executive order in May that would require the Federal Communications Commission to re-examine some aspects of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which gives protections to social media companies so they are not held liable for what users post on their platforms but still allows those platforms to edit posts that they feel could pose a threat to users.

GET FOX BUSINESS ON THE GO BY CLICKING HERE

View original post here:
Facebook apologizes after report it would censor 'unionize' on Workplace app - Fox Business

Leah McSweeney has approximately zero problems calling people out. The Real Housewives of New York City newbie is known for her trademark no-nonsense approach to life, so it should come as no surprise that she had a few choice words for a follower who felt the need to wait for it report her to Instagram.

Yes, you read that right.Athree-year-old post that Leah shared on Instagram in which she semi-exposed her nipple was reported to Instagram for going against community guidelines. And it's safe tosay Leah is not having it.

Let's back up, shall we?Leah posted a sexy snap on her feed way back when on September 19, 2017 (I know). In the shot, she is maxing and relaxing in a pair of bold pink sweatpants with no top to speak of to celebrate her Married to the Mob collaboration with none other than Penthouse Magazine. Apparently, the photo was so scandalous that it forced one follower toreport it for nudity.

"Imagine being this much of a loser to go back years on my ig and report my nipple???"she wrote on June 10 in her Instagram Stories.

Bravos Style & Living is your window to the fabulous lifestyles of Bravolebrities. Be the first to know about all the best fashion and beauty looks, the breathtaking homes Bravo stars live in, everything theyre eating and drinking, and so much more. Sign up to become a Bravo Insider and get exclusive extras.

Continue reading here:
Leah McSweeney Claps Back After Her Years-Old Nip Slip Was Reported to Instagram - Bravo

However, it is not just the present and the future that these anarchists propose to change. Like Pol Pot, with his Year Zero, or Mao Zedong and his Cultural Revolution, they wish to change the past.

In university history departments across the Western world in the last decade or so, there has been a determination to "decolonise the curriculum". This is an approach that politicises the subject by imposing a Marxist slant on it. Far from paying attention to the main facts of history, it concentrates on imposing the "woke" values of a noisy, self-advertising minority on a very different past.

Without attempting to understand the dynamics of the 19th century, these demonstrators want to remove evidence of imperialism and imperialists. In Britain, the Black Lives Matter leaders also direct their guns at capitalism, and it is a short step from there to a movement for anarchy.

Context is irrelevant to these people: historical figures who had attitudes or performed deeds of which today's society rightly disapprove are to be vilified and despised, with no quarter given. That is why statues and monuments are being ripped down or defaced around the world. For these people, the purpose of history is not to seek the truth, but to deploy it as a weapon however crude and distorted to manipulate the present.

It doesn't matter how you dress this act up: it is the imposition of the views of a minority of agitators on the rest of society without any attempt at consultation or respect for democracy. Then again, the whole point of being an anarchist is to reject democracy and to seize any excuse to attack manifestations of the establishment whether they are statues, other monuments or police officers.

Just look at some of the statues that have been attacked. Winston Churchill, who fought against fascism at a moment when Britain could have gone under the Nazi jackboot, had "racist" daubed on his statue in London's Parliament Square.

The statue of Winston Churchill in Parliament Square, London.Credit:AP

In Ballarat, busts of John Howard and Tony Abbott were vandalised with red paint, which suggests that monuments to anyone who failed to advocate leftist politics is now fair game.

In light of that, it is perhaps inevitable that Sydney's Captain Cook statue should become a target. Australia has certainly had distasteful episodes in its treatment of our Indigenous people, especially in the 19th century. But our nation, admirable by almost every international standard, only exists because of James Cook.

Colonisation of Australia's land mass was inevitable, and as Howard has all too often argued, British settlement was a far better outcome than other possibilities. Think of the English language, rule of law, representative democracy, a free press and a market economy. Context is everything.

Loading

Defacing the statue of Cook will make no difference whatsoever to the plight of Aboriginal Australians. How would eliminating Cook from our history reduce the rates of family violence, youth suicide, drug and alcohol abuse, welfare dependence and incarceration in Indigenous communities?

History cannot be undone; its legacies are in every society, everywhere. Censoring the past by removing statues, or stopping the showing of Gone with the Wind or even an episode of Fawlty Towers only makes a proper comprehension of history (and what the past was really like) impossible to grasp.

To us, much of history was horrible, but it is why Western society is as it is. Removing evidence of that history is the construction of an alternative reality. It is not reality itself.

Tom Switzer is executive director and Jacinta Nampijinpa Price is director of the Indigenous program at the Centre for Independent Studies.

More:
Censoring history makes the past impossible to grasp - Sydney Morning Herald

What new things can one ask a stand-up comedian who hosts a podcast, and takes questions from his fans regularly? Kenny Sebastian laughs in response. One of the most successful Indian stand-up comics, Kenny has had quite the journey since he decided to dabble with it when he was 19. Back then, everyone told me that comedy is a bubble and would die in three years, he says, going on to explain how the Indian comedy scene has evolved. It has all been good. The opportunities to become big are so many right now: Comicstaan, YouTube sketches, podcasts, Tik Tok. People now look out for standup comedy. Regional comedy has become so big. The only drawback is people are overestimating how stable stand-up is, he points out as we discuss censorship, his latest Netflix special, The Most Interesting Person in the Room, and all things comedy.

Excerpts from a chat:

I am going to play hooky here, and ask you if there's a question you wish people asked you.

(laughs) I miss when people would ask me something very specific about a joke. Seldom do people ask questions about the craft, but I understand why that is cos it gets too specific. But I do enjoy answering questions like that as there is a lot of thought behind every line and every word.

Taking off on this lead you gave me, Ill point out that I enjoyed how you created a natural moment out of a water break in your latest special. Its when you pause to take a swig and the audience cheers. You comment, "I'll go home, I'll drink water, and no one will react. I will be so bummed."

That's the only improvised part of the show. I did plan my water break because I needed one there. And my next joke is about the concept of stand-up and how weird it is. So, I decided I would pause, and when the audience reacted, I went along with it. I enjoy playing with my audience and that's a moment where my personality comes through. But that's also the summary of the entire set, that none of this is real; that how they reacted to the water break, is also how they react to my jokes. It might be improvised, but it's how I feel. There's a genuine surprise as to how people react to me.

This special sees you explore more of that vulnerable side...

I wanted this special to have an honest side as well. Stand-up is very tight, it's 2-2.5 years of writing, re-writing, over-analysing... it's my best work. I enjoy stand-up as it has my best writing. Usually, there's so much focus on jokes, that you don't want to waste one second. You don't want the audience to feel its boring, or wonder why a comedian is only talking about himself, and begin to demand jokes. But this was a conscious decision. I felt at this point I deserved to express myself. I am proud of this special.

How did this interesting premise of The Most Interesting Person in the Room begin?

The hard thing about stand-up is, you don't write an hour's worth of jokes and hit a show. You write about three minutes of jokes, test it, analyse what works and then repeat. So imagine doing this to get enough content for about 70 minutes. It took me two and a half years. I got to know about the special, six months before we taped it. My main focus was to have a theme for it, and anything that didn't fit had to be out.

When I first heard about my special, more than celebrating, my first thought was, 'Is my special was good enough to be on Netflix, amid so many great names?' You could be the most confident person in your circle, but walk into a TED conference, and you will be surrounded by people who are more accomplished. I found this constant shift in power to be interesting, universal, and relatable.

While your brand of comedy doesn't dabble extensively in politics, there have been passing references to social themes. With a growing demand for censorship, how do you see the form evolving?

I believe the internet is the biggest gift India has got; that's the only reason why stand-up blew up. Before YouTube, the content that young people had to watch was television which was heavily regimented with laws, and so many writers, that the final product was often watered down; it felt generic and non-personal. So when YouTube came, and young comedians started making content with no restrictions, people found it relatable. From seeing women talk about marriages in soaps, we now see a young girl talkcandidly about casual sex. That would have never happened on television.

With my special, I could shoot what I wanted, given that Netflix uploads with a disclaimer saying it is all my responsibility. This is the future because what we see on television isn't real. This is why when young people saw YouTube or platforms like Netflix, they went, This is how we are! Even if censorship happens with government intervention, a new subset will come into place. Just like how YouTube or these streaming platforms happened.

View original post here:
Kenny Sebastian: Even if censorship on digital platforms happen, a new subset will come into place - Cinema Express