Mediaboss Marketing

Sign Up for

Our free email newsletters

The smartest insight and analysis, from all perspectives, rounded up from around the web:

Facebook and Twitter "spent years preparing to face" the kind of controversy that came with the New York Post's publication of emails allegedly taken from the computer of Joe Biden's son Hunter, said Robert McMillan at The Wall Street Journal. They still ended up with a mess. Twitter, which initially blocked users from sharing the article (and even froze the Post's official account), did "an about-face" after an outcry from Republicans and said it would change its ban on hacked content "unless it's directly shared by hackers." Meanwhile inside Facebook, "executives had performed role-playing exercises about how to respond to an email dump." Following the playbook they developed, Facebook flagged the Post's articles for fact-checking and limited their exposure in news feeds. That didn't shield Facebook from widespread criticism: Republicans lawmakers complained of censorship, even as the Post's articles stayed at the top of the most-shared charts.

"What were they thinking?" asked Matthew Walther at The Week. The platforms' explanations of their actions "are not credible." If Facebook was really concerned about users sharing "unconfirmed" reporting, it wouldn't have waited until last week to block Holocaust denial. It looks instead like "the deliberate use of long-tolerated monopoly power to influence the course of an election." The fallout could well mean that those monopolies as we know them now "will not survive another presidential election." Imagine if these Silicon Valley giants united to ban all content critical of President Trump and promote criticism of Biden, said Glenn Greenwald at The Intercept. Twitter's rationale about blocking documents taken without authorization is unjustifiable and dangerous. What about The New York Times' reports on Trump's leaked tax returns? Anyone cheering for Twitter or Facebook now is "being short-sighted and myopic."

If you're complaining that there is no simple rule telling social media companies what to publish, you've fallen for a false narrative about "censorship," said Max Boot at The Washington Post. "Social-media companies have no obligation to pass along possible Russian disinformation," and it "would be the height of irresponsibility" to broadcast these stories without some fact-checking first. After they got burned in 2016, "it's entirely understandable and proper that Facebook and Twitter exercise some caution." That's not censorship. "It's editorial judgment," and we need more of it.

These platforms have never been neutral, said Kevin Roose at The New York Times. They've been controlling what we see for years. It's just that "their decisions were often buried in obscure 'community standards' updates or hidden tweaks to the black-box algorithms that govern which posts users see." They've just made their "high-stakes decisions" more visible. But Facebook and Twitter still haven't provided nearly enough visibility into their decision, said Andy Kessler at The Wall Street Journal. On the contrary, Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey's explanations and reversal have given "his adversaries the fuel to burn his tweet house down." If the social media giants with their multibillion-dollar valuations want to survive this, they'll need to go much further on transparency. I want to see Facebook's community standards "chiseled in stone" and detailed explanations for each banned post.

This article was first published in the latest issue of The Week magazine. If you want to read more like it, you can try six risk-free issues of the magazine here.

Excerpt from:
Is social media censoring speech or combating disinformation? - The Week

For nearly four years, unverified stories from unnamed sources about the Trumps have abounded. Reported as fact were whistleblower statements and unsubstantiated dossiers attempting to implicate the Trumps in all manner of nefarious doings. Unverified tax records have been fodder for gleeful little fantasies.

Former Hunter Biden associate, retired Naval Lt. Tony Bobulinski held a press conference Thursday. He confirmed the Biden emails were authentic including the ones sent to him. He also made some incriminating allegations about Joe Bidens dealings while he was vice president.

Most news services declined to cover the story.

One example concerns taxpayer funded NPR. Back in Jan. 13, 2017, Elizabeth Jensen of NPR lamented about once again having to report on what she called unverified information (the Russian dossier paid for by Hillary Clinton).

Last week, NPR Editor Kelly McBride responded to a question about why NPR was ignoring the Hunter Biden story. McBride said the NY Post story hadnt been verified and the assertions didnt amount to much. So unverified stories about the Trumps are used while stories, verified or unverified, about the Bidens are not. Thats biased censorship by a taxpayer funded agency.

Since the debates Donald Trumps speeches have been a positive message of hope for a return to normalcy. A return to across the board prosperity for all Americans like we had before the plague from China. He believes success will unite us and hes delivered before.

Joe Bidens message is to end fossil fuels which would destroy industries, plunge us into darkness and close many businesses. During a pandemic recession Joe would raise taxes and the minimum wage. A grimacing Joe made the outrageous claim he would end the virus with masks. He said on the floor of the senate he favored cutting social security but now like so many other things hes said, he denies it.

In Pennsylvania Joe called his opponents supporters chumps but claims hes a healer. Saturday he said we have put together the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of American politics. What does that mean?

Now sounding even more grim, Joe is predicting a dark, dark winter. With his ban on fossil fuels along with quarantines and closures, a future with Joe and the Democrats would be dark. It would be a return to the misery of the Dark Ages.

Do we want rolling blackouts like California with homelessness, hopelessness and helplessness caused by more government regulations? Do we want a leader in a black mask bringing about a new Dark Ages for our children and grandchildren? Do we really want Joe Biden?

Ralph Miller

Visit link:
Censorship And The New Dark Ages - The Chattanoogan

The Providence JournalJournalists need to step up their game

During World War II, the press in the United States for the most part performed unbelievably well.

The voluntary censorship they imposed upon themselves was incredible.The mistakes that were made were few and far between.

Sadly, the voluntary censorship today is quite different. It is in the form of what their political view is.It is simple. You emphasize the shortcomings of your political adversary and diminish their achievements. On the other side, you embellish the achievements of those you support politically,and minimize or altogether do not mention their shortcomings.

I am quitesure numerous journalism professors are rolling over in their graves.

The media, for the most part, is a private enterprise with a constitutional guarantee.They should take this serious and act as journalists.

George Tashjian, Coventry

I seldom agree with Victor Davis Hanson's views expressed in his commentaries, but I somewhat agree with his column decrying the politicizing of certain institutions ("Destroying the institutions we inherited," Commentary, Oct. 18).

Having said that, he did not go far enough with his examples.He did not mention President Trump's castigation of his political enemies during his State of the Union addresses.He did not point out Trump's failure to have regular, informative press briefings, an American presidential institution.He did not bemoan the president's failure to release his taxes, another presidential tradition.

Mr. Hanson fails to take Trump to task for the president's unwillingness to commit to a peaceful transition of power, a most American of institutions.And the list goes on. Trump is a destroyer of institutions and traditions, Mr. Hanson.

Kirk A. Brague, Smithfield

The shocking news of Donald Trumps tax returns for the years 2016 and 2017 should be a wake-up call to the voters in this country! While most of us pay our fair share, he avoids doing so by manipulating facts and numbers. It is an undeniable fact that he is cheating us all. If his accountants and lawyers are aiding him in this fairy tale, they deserve the same punishment meted to other scoundrels. Jail time isnt enough.

What kind of penalty would serve to make him change his ways? I have a few suggestions, none ofthem pleasant!

Jane S. Nelson, Providence

Follow this link:
Opinion/Letters: Voluntary censorship; Hanson and institutions; Trump's taxes - The Providence Journal

Glenn Greenwald

Photographer: Evaristo Sa/AFP via Getty Images

Photographer: Evaristo Sa/AFP via Getty Images

Glenn Greenwald, one of the original founders of the The Intercept, said Thursday that he had resigned from the publication.

The final, precipitating cause is that The Intercepts editors, in violation of my contractual right of editorial freedom, censored an article I wrote this week, refusing to publish it unless I remove all sections critical of Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden, Greenwald, best known for his reporting on American and British global surveillance programs that were based upon documents provided by Edward Snowden, said in a post published on Substack.

The Intercept said in a statement that Greenwalds decision resulted from a fundamental disagreement over the role of editors in the production of journalism and the nature of censorship.

A brief glance at the stories The Intercept has published on Biden will suffice to refute those claims, the publication said.

Before it's here, it's on the Bloomberg Terminal.

Continued here:
Glenn Greenwald Resigns From The Intercept, Cites Censorship - Bloomberg

Ashley Catherine Fontones|Pocono Record

For this week's Group Editorial, the Pocono Record asked readers to share their thoughts on censorship. The prompt was: "Should social media platforms participate in media censorship? Should the government?"

Last week's prompt: Is voting a privilege, right, or obligation?

Editor's response: Readers cherish their right to vote | Fontones

While this has been a hot topic of debate in the political stratosphere, the prompt only recruited one response. I think this has more to do with the fact that the election is days away, and you readers definitely have more pressing matters to attend to.

This week, I've decided to move forward with our Group Editorial, but rather than have me respond to readers in my Sunday column, I'm going to respond right here. Why not? This topic is not going away any time soon,and if you would still like to sound off, please consider submitting a letter to me on the topic (please keep those letters to 300 words.)

Longtime letter writerDianne Kurkowski-Worm of Stroudsburg was our lone participant this week. Here is her response.

The American people should shudder at the mere thought of censorship in the United States of America.And yet, it has happened.

The New York Post is a venerable newspaper, founded by Alexander Hamilton.It recentlypublished a story aboutfinancial dealings between Hunter Biden and foreign entities.They probably would not come out with such a story for no reason.

Yet a tech giant has decided to take the New York Post off its platform and not publish this story.Unless one has read the originalNew York Post story, the American people have no idea what that story said.Right before the election.How convenient.And the mainstream media is not covering it either.One might wonder why.

It probably would surprise no one that Silicon Valley is most decidedly liberal.Even so: Who gets to decide what is "misinformation?"Mark Zuckerberg, who dreamed up Facebook in his basement?A newspaper editor?A government official?

The answer is no one should censor any kind of news or withhold any kind ofinformation.Especially right before an election.

It is bad enough for the past four years the American media has been so biased in its reporting it might as well be considered censorship.This latest instance with the tech giants is enough to make one's heart palpitate.

I don't want to live in the western hemisphere version of Communist China.Do you?

More than a decade ago, I embarked on my first real job in the media industry. It was an internship in Manhattan, and this was back when internships were completely unpaid.

I was a nervous, college student from Pratt Institute, showing up to my own cubicle in Viacom's Standards and Practices department. For those of you who may not be familiar with the term Standards and Practices, when it comes to television, the department may have a hand in network censorship. I worked in the MTV division, so there was plenty of material to learn from.

Near the end of the internship, we began focusing on the internet. Use of social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter were just taking off at the time, and online streaming services like Hulu or Netflix were still relatively new. "Fake news" was not a trending search topic.

I've written about "Fake News" once before. Early on in the pandemic, a chain text message circulated throughout the Poconosregarding the president's impending use of the Stafford Act. The text message usually started off the words: "They activated 3 of my friends who are a part of the National Guard this morning..."

Editorial: The text message is fake.

The text was quickly proven to be fake, but some people in my personal circletook it seriously. The panic the Stafford Act text causedback in March is one example of real world consequences.

I believe in responsible censorship, but my definition of it may surprise you. Censorship should involve carefully researched standards on what type of content should be released to what type of audience. When it comes to a for-profit company like Facebook, they reserve the right to monitor content and remove it at their discretion.

When governments get involved in censorship, that is where the line is blurred.

The Federal Communications Commission is prohibited by law from trying to prevent or censor broadcast material. It is also barred from making any regulation that would interfere with freedom of speech.The FCC is allowed to act, however, when indecent material is involved or at risk of being broadcast to children. Obscene content is not protected by the first amendment.

Such laws exist to protect the first amendment, and in turn freedom of the press. But does such a law apply to a private company like Facebook? The FCCguidelines I referred topertain specifically to radio and television. Guidelines recommend that individual stations make decisions on whether or not to air content.

When it comes to social media, the FCC addresses the industry in the 1996 Communications Decency Act. Section 230 of the act protects social media companies from liability for the content posted by users, and allows them the freedom to remove objectionable posts.

Removing the content entirely does not read as traditional media censorship to me, nor are we at this time anywhere close to a "communist state." It would appear that the law protects a social media platform's right to discern whether or not a post should be removed.Still, Facebook's removal of the New York Post article could set the precedent for future actions. Discretion should be the key word that comes to mind whenever a platform moderator is tasked with investigating a post or link.

Facebook was, at one point, making progress on this front.

Over the summer, Facebook put disclaimers on links that were questionable. The message readers received was something akin to: "The content of this link could not be verified by a fact check, and therefore may contain misinformation. Proceed with caution."

I appreciated this approach. Shouldn't readers have the right to assume the risk?

Our next prompt: What are you thankful for?

Those interested should submit 200-400 words on the topic by Nov. 11, to make Fridays print edition. If the group fills up, we will give you a head start on our next prompt. Email afontones@poconorecord.com for more info.

- Ashley Catherine Fontones is the Managing Editor at the Pocono Record. For more information on Group Editorials, email her at afontones@poconorecord.com.

See the original post here:
Group Editorial: The line between censorship and culling spread of misinformation - Pocono Record