Mediaboss Marketing

Daryl Hannahs bare behind in Splash isnt the only thing being censored by Disney Plus and its family-friendly streaming service, as a few other shows and films have received subtle edits.

Although Splash had been streaming since February, sharp-eyed viewers noticed Hannahs hair had been CGId to cover her bare butt as her character goes running off into the ocean. A Disney spokesperson did confirm that a few scenes in the film have been slightly edited to remove nudity.

1999s Toy Story 2 had its post-credits sequence edited for an inappropriate scene when the film was re-released on DVD to tie in with Toy Story 4.

The censors removed a casting couch joke where Stinky Pete (Kelsey Grammer) flirts with two Barbie dolls hinting that he can get them into movies. You know, Im sure I could get you a part in Toy Story 3, Stinky Pete says.

The scene was deleted in light of the #MeToo movement. The original scene is below and does not appear in the streaming service version.

But Disney Plus did have a change of heart, it seems, over animated series Gravity Falls. Creator Alex Hirsch tweeted back in November 2019 about its decision to remove a symbol from Stanley Pines initial fez. Hirsh said, Lol apparently the geniuses over at Disney+ decided to remove Grunkle Stans fez symbol for no reason, but then accidentally left it in the thumbnails.

The symbol appears to be back on Stanleys fez, at least for American audiences.

Screencap Courtesy of Disney Plus

Lilo and Stitch audiences have noticed a subtle change to one of its scenes. After fighting with her sister, Lilo runs into the laundry room and climbs into a clothes dryer. In the edited version, Lilo climbs into something that looks like a pizza box.

The rest is here:
Disney Plus Censors Casting Couch Joke in Toy Story 2 and Other Subtle Edits - Variety

Over the course of the semester, the Lanthorn will be conducting an editorial series titled News on News revolving around how news is consumed today, the concept of fake news and the fight journalists continue to fight to have their voices be heard.

Over doing this editorial series, I learned a lot about how journalists think and learned some helpful lessons as to how to react to institutional pressures.

I highlighted the importance of the #FreeIgnace movement, the beninese journalist who is sadly still incarcerated for simply doing his job. I talked to students who have experienced censorship, both in their time at GVSUand in the Ukraine.

I learned some important lessons from journalists who continue to fight the good fight, whether it be Matthew Kauffman leading the charge to free Ignace Sossou or Raymond Joseph continuing to investigate a corrupt South African lottery system.

These journalists and students speaking out against the powers that be has always been important, but is crucial now more than ever, as Americans everywhere are staying in their homes trying to prevent the spread of COVID-19.

While journalists are not doing the work of essential workers and nurses and doctors working the front lines to fight the virus, those spreading news to the public are in the next tier below. Now more than ever, citizens around the world are looking towards local and national news.

As journalists, we have a responsibility to give the public accurate news, especially in this time of crisis. One of my roles as a part-time assignment editor at Fox 17 is to answer the phone of nervous viewers. Here are what the majority of those calls have consisted of the past few weeks:

Hey, my boss is making us go in to work, but my wife and I are nervous about me getting infected. What do I do to report them?

How do I file for unemployment?

Im about to run out of rent money ever since I lost my job, where can I turn to if I end being homeless in the next few weeks?

My daughter needs her heart medicine to survive. Is it even safe to go into pharmacies right now?

The Walmart by me is not practicing social distancing. Is there anything you guys can do about that?

While it can be nice to provide people with certain resources to help them get what they need in this worldwide pandemic, its a lot of pressure to try to help these people, who appear to have nowhere else to go.

I am nowhere near a guidance counselor or a life coach or a motivational speaker, but I have had to play all of those roles in these phone calls. While I struggle to sleep at night thinking of the thousands of people struggling just in West Michigan alone, its through these phone calls that I have realized that journalists are more than writers, editors, reporters, broadcaster and anchors: we have a job to help people in this time of crisis.

Phone calls such as the ones above are the reason why I am confident I will stay in journalism. As Kauffman and Gamble and Joseph advised in our interviews, journalists need to have thick skin; not just in dealing with criticism and institutional censorship and threats, but also helping those in need, whether that be in providing accurate information, conducting an investigation, or simply giving news consumers a guiding light and someone to talk to.

Through this editorial series, it has been reiterated to me that thick skin and a refusal to back down is a crucial skill that every young journalist needs to develop.

We will face criticism. We will face threats. We will be called pigs and biased, and our writing will be deemed as fake news and thats on the tame end of the criticism. But for every negative message towards us, the positive support comes through tenfold, and knowing that we have a truly important role informing and helping people makes this job more worth it than I ever could have imagined.

Read the original post:
News on News: Reflecting on institutional censorship and the conversations with the experts - Grand Valley Lanthorn

If there is one positive thing that can be said about this terrible plague were enduring, it is that now and then, it gives the Trudeau government some really, really great ideas.

Sure it was only a couple of weeks ago that the Liberals came up with the idea that they a minority in Parliament, remember should give themselves the power to tax and spend for the next two years, without having to get parliamentary approval. It was a truly brilliant idea, except that it ignored the fact that approving government spending is one of the most important functions of Parliament. Take away its authority over spending and the House of Commons might just as well be any old bingo hall, or with a little imaginative renovation, a one-of-a-kind Costco store.

Now, compliments of Privy Council President Dominic LeBlanc, we learned that the Liberal government is contemplating legislation to make it an offence to, as a CBC report put it, knowingly spread misinformation that could harm people. In plain language, this government is openly thinking of making itself the official censor of what can and cannot be said about COVID-19. Pure brilliance again, dont you agree?

Well, actually, no. Dont even think of it. Better still, to borrow a phrase from Greta Thunberg: how dare you? There is already a government that has that power, and in some cases brutally exercises it. That is the government of the Communist Party of China.

And what has it done with that power? It barred telling the truth about COVID-19, and instead told lies about it. On the where it happened, when it happened, how it happened and how it spread, the Chinese government confounded, confused and lied about a plague that has now hobbled the whole planet. And China officially reprimanded the doctor who initially tried to warn people about the coronavirus, and who, with dread irony, actually died from it. (A postmortem apology followed from the government. That surely helped.) Admire the Chinese government if thats your thing, but on this subject, it is not an example to be followed.

So, lets tap this serpent of an idea on its little head before its fangs emerge and it develops a real appetite. The problem with government having control over what is said and written, completely aside from it being the utter contradiction of a liberal democracy, is that governments especially on a matter such as this pandemic are simply not competent enough to know what is right and what is wrong.

What is required for a government to pass a law against misinformation? To begin with, it presumes an infallible authority thats able to make judgments on what is, or is not, correct information. Even worse, it presumes the government has the ability to make judgments on a matter that, incontestably, is not yet fully understood by anybody.

This virus is new. The investigation of its nature, transmission, the best policies to confront it, the extent of the response to it, even the nature of the response all of these elements are, at best, in an incomplete and early stage of understanding.

Experts have varying degrees of skill and knowledge. If experts disagree, which happens often, will some of them be silenced? In actuality, a divergence of opinions can be seen as a path to the full truth emerging. But this cannot happen if the government gags those who may seem to be wrong at the present moment.

On the purely political front, there are equal objections to giving government censorship powers. Governments take to extensions of their power like bears to honey. The more power they get, the more they believe they alone should exercise it. Power swells the ego. Add more power, and if you follow the analogy, a little balloon soon thinks its the Hindenburg. And a government swollen with power does not like other voices.

It was only a couple of weeks ago that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau barred the leader of the Opposition from joining talks with other opposition leaders because, in Trudeaus own memorable words, Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer disqualified himself from constructive discussions with his unacceptable speech earlier today.

Yet it is not for Trudeau, or any other prime minister, to determine what is acceptable speech from his constitutionally positioned critic, the leader of the Opposition. Nor is it proper for this minority government, which has had enough struggles of its own over misinformation on masks, on screening at airports, on our relative security from the pandemic to decide what the rest of us can, and cannot, say or write about this unique crisis.

National Post

Read the original post:
Rex Murphy on COVID-19: The power to censor speech and other great ideas from our Liberal overlords - National Post

Pope Francis was caught on video proclaiming that Scotch whisky is the real holy water a good-spirited joke to a group of visiting Scottish student priests who presented him with a bottle.

But the Vatican sought to avoid a brew-haha by censoring the footage ahead of an upcoming documentary about seminarians at the Scot College in Rome, according to the Scottish Daily Record.

The video showed the 83-year-old pontiff accepting the bottle of Oban 14 malt from the students during an event at the Apostolic Palace last year, but Vatican media said the clip in question has been cut from the one-hour BBC documentary Priest School, which will air Sunday.

We filmed the students meeting with the pope in the Apostolic Palace. One of them was tasked with giving the pope a bottle of malt, because they know he likes whisky, said Tony Kearney, director of the film, which followed the seminarians for 18 months.

He was really down to earth with them all and when they handed him the bottle, instead of just handing it to his assistant as he normally would with a gift, he held it up and said, Questa e la vera acqua santa, which means This is the real holy water, Kearney told the outlet.

He guffawed with laughter and it was a real ice-breaker with the students and put everyone at ease, he continued.

But wed agreed that the Vaticans media office would be allowed to approve all of our footage before we broadcast it. So we sent them the files and when they sent it back, that bit of him saying that was cut out, Kearney added.

We were really annoyed at first, but they insisted they didnt want the pope to be seen to be endorsing whisky. I think its quite funny how guarded his image is, he said.

Francis is ripping up the rule book, hes ahead of the curve, and the flunkies around about him need to catch up, said Kearney, who called the seminarians ordinary blokes who like a drink, like the football and live ordinary lives.

It appears that Francis may indeed enjoy a drink every once in a while, according to a report in Forbes.

Last year, the Dundee Courier reported that Scottish priest Jim Wallis met the pope shortly after becoming the spiritual director at the Pontifical Scots College in 2018, according to Forbes.

Joined by a group of Scottish bishops, they presented Francis with a bottle of whisky.

It was a great honor to go into the Vatican and go to the chamber to meet the pope and he came out and shook all of our hands. Then we presented him with a bottle of whisky and he looked at it and said, Ha ha, thats holy water! Hes obviously been gifted some whisky before, Wallis said.

In fact, Queen Elizabeth II gave the pope a bottle of Scotch when they first met in 2014, the news outlet reported.

More here:
Vatican censors video of Pope Francis joking Scotch is 'the real holy water' - New York Post

According to the Motion Picture Association of America,Splash is rated PG. According to Disney+,Splashis rated PG-13. In almost every case, studios work hard to bringdown a movies ratings. Im not sure Ive ever seen a movie studio willfully (and seemingly unilaterally)slap a higher rating on a film that it has been given by the MPAA.

That doesnt mean that Disney has added more sexuality toSplash, the 1984 romantic comedy about a guy (Tom Hanks) who falls in love with an actual mermaid (Daryl Hannah). Quite the contrary. As observed by Allison Pregler on Twitter and confirmed by me with my own eyes on my own Disney+ account Disney has added extra CGI hair to Hannahs character in a key scene in order to remove any inkling that she might be naked onscreen.

Watch the censoredSplash footage right here:

Heres the original version of the scene, albeit in a low-res version that makes comparing a little tougher than it would be otherwise. You will note that Hannahs character already has extremely long hair that masks some of her private areas. Its not like her posterior was just hanging out there for the whole world to see. The Disney+ version just addsmore hair until it looks like shes wearing hair underwear:

Even though its only (technically) rated PG,Splashwas actually Disneys first movie ever released through its Touchstone Pictures label, which was explicitlycreated for films from Disney that were deemed to adult for the traditional, family-friendly Walt Disney Studios banner. Why, then, is it on Disney+, which is specifically intended for that same family audience? Why not put it on Hulu, the Disney-controlled streaming site that has much more adult content? I dont know. All I know is that censoredSplash footage is wild. Really, really wild.

Gallery The Disney Movies Were Surprised Are Actually on Disney+

See the article here:
Disney Plus Censors 'Splash's Nudity In the Most Ridiculous Way - ScreenCrush