Mediaboss Marketing

The magazine feared no subject under Sperling. Its coverage included an array of contentious topics like shoreline development and climate change.

Natasha Kassulke succeeded Sperling. Lost in the transition was the magazine's license to cover all things water and earth.

DNR Secretary Cathy Stepp often meddled. Under Walker's handpicked cabinet member an article about the state's endangered pine martens was killed. In 2015, a story on climate change and its impact on Wisconsin animals was kiboshed.

A search of the magazine's archives shows there hasn't been a story regarding climate change or global warming in the past three years.

Walker now wants to kill the publication once and for all.

His recently submitted budget has it ceasing publication in 2018. Cost savings of $300,000 annually and allowing the DNR to better focus on managing natural resources have been Walker's justifications for the move.

Since the magazine pays for operations and staff through subscriptions, some Badger State residents say Walker's logic is bunk. Anti-environmental politics is the culprit behind scotching the journal, they counter.

Kassulke worked at the magazine for about 15 years. She stepped down as editor last summer.

"When Walker's administration came in," she says, "I was required to show all stories, all text, all photos to the entire department leadership team for review. And through that process, I have several stories that were either edited [down], changed, or at times even killed."

In February, Kassulke's story about feedlots and drinking water was supposed to be included in a magazine insert. It still hasn't been published.

"My gut tells me [halting the magazine] is part of a continuing agenda to create a vacuum and black out information on very important environmental issues and an anti-science agenda," she says.

DNR spokesperson Jim Dick has repeatedly denied editorial content played a role in the decision.

Original post:
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker goes from censorship to killing state nature magazine - City Pages

It might be one of the leading Oscar contenders, but Indian audiences won't be seeing the full version of Moonlight.

Barry Jenkins's critically acclaimed coming-of-age drama follows three periods in the life of Chiron, a young, black, queer man growing up poor in Miami, and his journey has been heavily cut in India.

A document posted to Reddit shows that all swearing is out, with every instance of "bitch", "bitches", "motherf**ker" and "dick" muted, and two sex scenes have been cut entirely, including kissing between two men.

Reddit

Advertisement - Continue Reading Below

The cuts total 53 seconds, but two minutes and 20 seconds of anti-smoking disclaimers have been added, with one appearing at the beginning and one in the middle of the movie, plus a "static message with scroll wherever smoking scene appears".

When we saw the full version of Moonlight, we described it as a "moving and visually beautiful film that speaks not only to gay or black audiences but to all of us".

A24

But will it be walking away with any awards at the Oscars on Sunday (February 26)?

Moonlight received eight nominations, including Best Picture, but was completely shut out at last week's BAFTA Film Awards, despite being nominated in four categories.

However, last night (February 19) saw it win at the Writers Guild Awards, which makes it a clear favourite to scoop Best Adapted Screenplay at the Oscars. And Moonlight's Mahershala Ali is widely expected to beat Lion's Dev Patel to Best Supporting Actor, despite Patel's BAFTA win.

A24

Find out if Moonlight manages to defy La La Land at the Oscars on Sunday night. Here's how you can watch it live in the UK.

Want up-to-the-minute entertainment news and features? Just hit 'Like' on our Digital Spy Facebook page and 'Follow' on our @digitalspy Twitter account and you're all set.

Read more here:
Indian censorship board cuts the sex and swearing out of Moonlight - Digital Spy

Over the next few months, therell be plenty of debate about the role of the government in funding public broadcasting.

The Trump administration reportedly has the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and a host of other cultural and arts organizations targeted for elimination.

Theres certainly a debate to be had over whether the government should provide financial assistance to a segment of the media it regulates and restricts how it can raise revenue. Theres no indication the administration nor Congress is interested in taking those restrictions off, a clear sign that the ultimate goal of politicians is to kill it.

But the New York Times media critic, Jim Rutenberg, has a cautionary tale of what can happen with a government that wants to control a message holds the money self-censorship; newsrooms that pull their punches because of the fear the government will cut the revenue.

When a Texas congressman took to the House floor to complain about the way the media has covered President Trump, a commentator for a San Antonio public TV station took notice.

Rick Casey wrote his commentary. The stations Facebook page promoted it with a nod to the upcoming broadcast.

And the stations CEO spiked it just before it was to go on the air.

When I caught up with Mr. Emerson this week he acknowledged making a mistake that should not tarnish a career spent mostly in broadcast news, starting in a $1.25-an-hour job as a cameraman. I had to make a decision in what was about 20 minutes, he said.

He acknowledged that clearly we always worry about funding for public television, but said that wasnt the principal reason for his decision to hold back the commentary. We have to protect the neutrality of the station somebody could have looked at it as slander, he said. The commentary label, he said, would take care of it.

Mr. Casey is satisfied with the result. But he acknowledged that it was a close call and that he was uniquely qualified to push back in a way others might not be. Im lucky to be in the position of being 70 years old, and not in the position of being 45, he said, meaning that job security was not the same issue. Theres no level of heroism here.

If you look at what David Brooks has said on the PBS NewsHour in his commentary with Mark Shields, hes been very forceful in his opposition to Trump, Casey told the San Antonio Express-News. So thats part of our brand, but its also part of our values. As a practical reality, if the Corporation for Public Broadcasting does lose its funding, Im too humble to think its because of a piece that I did down in San Antonio.

But the enemy of the American people is censorship, regardless of where the intimidation of an independent media originates.

Bob Collins has been with Minnesota Public Radio since 1992, emigrating to Minnesota from Massachusetts. He was senior editor of news in the 90s, ran MPRs political unit, created the MPR News regional website, invented the popular Select A Candidate, started the two most popular blogs in the history of MPR and every day laments that his Minnesota Fantasy Legislature project never caught on.

NewsCut is a blog featuring observations about the news. It provides a forum for an online discussion and debate about events that might not typically make the front page. NewsCut posts are not news stories but reflections , observations, and debate.

See original here:
A preview of self-censorship in the new political landscape - Minnesota Public Radio News (blog)

New York Times

In Trump Era, Censorship May Start in the Newsroom New York Times Rick Casey, the host of a weekly public affairs program on a small television station in Texas, recently fashioned a stinging commentary on remarks by Representative Lamar Smith that was pulled shortly before it was to air. The station later reversed ...

See the original post:
In Trump Era, Censorship May Start in the Newsroom - New York Times

The ACLU of Maryland contends Gov. Larry Hogan's deletion of Facebook comments is tantamount to censorship.

The civil rights organization sent the Republican governor a letter Friday outlining its legal argument that Hogan violated the First Amendment rights of his constituents when he deleted their comments from his official Facebook page and banned some people from posting.

The letter said Hogan's actions also violate the state's social media policy, and it asked the governor to reinstate seven ACLU clients who have been banned.

"If he does not, we'll take him to court," said Deborah Jeon, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union.

Hogan's staff said in a statement they reinstated six out of the seven people, but could not find a Facebook profile for the seventh.

"We appreciate them identifying a handful of individuals out of the over 1 million weekly viewers of the page that may have been inadvertently denied access," Hogan spokeswoman Amelia Chasse said in a statement. "We have already reinstated these individuals, however we will be monitoring them closely for any profane, violent, racist, or inappropriate posts including political spamming attacks."

Chasse also said "the ACLU should be focusing on much more important activities than monitoring the governor's Facebook page."

Since he took office two years ago, Hogan has banned 450 people from leaving comments on his social media page, aides estimated. Scores were recently banned after Hogan's page was bombarded with requests to take a position on Republican President Donald J. Trump's controversial travel ban that barred immigrants from seven predominately Muslim countries from entering the United States.

Hogan spokesman Doug Mayer has said that the press staff considers such efforts "spam" and that they have a responsibility to curate the conversation online.

"We've had to remove and prevent coordinated political spam attacks from infiltrating and hijacking the page," Mayer said when the controversy surfaced two weeks ago. "We have an obligation to the 146,000 people who likes the governor's page to keep the conversation fresh, appropriate, and on topic."

Hogan has not taken a position on the travel ban, and bristled at requests for him to make comments about the Trump administration. The governor did not support Trump as a candidate.

In their letter, the ACLU contend Hogan appeared to have blocked their clients "seemingly because you did not wish to address their questions on various issues or respond to their concerns about your silence in the face of violations of civil rights and liberties by President Donald Trump and his administration."

Several other local politicians also ban posters on their Facebook page, according to The Washington Post, but do not exclude as many as the Hogan administration.

The Maryland Democratic Party and the government accountability group Common Cause have also criticized the governor for silencing constituents on Facebook.

ecox@baltsun.com

twitter.com/ErinatTheSun

The rest is here:
ACLU calls Hogan Facebook policy 'censorship' - Baltimore Sun