Mediaboss Marketing

Writing about bias in the media, syndicated columnist Cal Thomas has observed that bias is not only expressed in how and what is covered, but even more in what is omitted.

Censorship by omission is, in my view, a regular practice of the mainstream media and LNP | LancasterOnline when a story runs counter to the progressive narrative they favor. While numerous cases could be cited, space will allow the discussion of just three current issues that were mostly ignored by LNP | LancasterOnline.

First, Michael Shellenberger, one of the most acclaimed leaders in the global warming alarmist community, recently published Apocalypse Never. It is a scholarly expose in which a repentant Shellenberger reveals the distortions characterizing that movement and the academic bullying. As one would expect, he is now an object of scorn despite the adulation formerly accorded him by alarmists. Readers are encouraged to research this story on the internet.

Second, as a fawning media and an undiscerning public rush to embrace the radical organization Black Lives Matter, we hear little from LNP | LancasterOnline about the militant anti-family and anti-American views of the organizations founders, who proudly proclaim themselves trained Marxists. Again, readers are encouraged to educate themselves. A good place to start is on the Black Lives Matter website.

Third, we hear nothing about the well-documented racism of Joe Biden. LNP | LancasterOnline space restrictions limit me to giving the same advice as above. Do your own research on Joe Bidens racist quotes online and imagine the media firestorm if those words were spoken by a conservative.

Linford Youndt

Lititz

Subscribe today for only $2

' + submsgtxthtml + '

Get unlimited access to breaking news, ancestry archives, our daily E-newspaper, games and more.

Subscribe today for only $2

' + submsgtxthtml + '

Get unlimited access to breaking news, ancestry archives, our daily E-newspaper, games and more.

Subscribe today for only $2

' + submsgtxthtml + '

Get unlimited access to breaking news, ancestry archives, our daily E-newspaper, games and more.

Subscribe today for only $2

' + submsgtxthtml + '

Read the original here:
On censorship by omission (letter) | Letters To The Editor - LancasterOnline

Behind the TikTok controversy is an important struggle between two dueling visions of the internet. The first is an older vision: the idea that the internet should, in a neutral fashion, connect everyone, and that blocking and censorship of sites by nation-states should be rare and justified by more than the will of the ruler. The second and newer vision, of which China has been the leading exponent, is net nationalism, which views the countrys internet primarily as a tool of state power. Economic growth, surveillance and thought control, from this perspective, are the internets most important functions.

China, in furtherance of this vision, bans not only most foreign competitors to its tech businesses but also foreign sources of news, religious instruction and other information, while using the internet to promote state propaganda and engage in foreign electoral interference. Though China is the pioneer of net nationalism, it is on the rise elsewhere, particularly in nations like Saudi Arabia and Iran and, more recently, Turkey and India.

For many years, laboring under the vain expectation that China, succumbing to inexorable world-historical forces, would become more like us, Western democracies have allowed China to exploit this situation. We have accepted, with only muted complaints, Chinese censorship and blocking of content from abroad while allowing Chinese companies to explore and exploit whatever markets it likes. Few foreign companies are allowed to reach Chinese citizens with ideas or services, but the world is fully open to Chinas online companies.

From Chinas perspective, the asymmetry has been a bonanza that has served economic as well as political goals. While China does have great engineers, European nations overrun by American tech companies must be jealous of the thriving tech industry that China has built in the absence of serious foreign competition (aided by the theft of trade secrets). At the same time, China has managed, to an extent many believed impossible, to use the internet to suppress any nascent political opposition and ceaselessly promote its ruling party. The idealists who thought the internet would automatically create democracy in China were wrong.

Some think that it is a tragic mistake for the United States to violate the principles of internet openness that were pioneered in this country. But there is also such a thing as being a sucker. If China refuses to follow the rules of the open internet, why continue to give it access to internet markets around the world?

Read more:
A TikTok Ban Is Overdue - The New York Times

Fearing loss of market share in China, Hollywood studios are now removing from their films any content related to Tibet or other human rights issues considered politically sensitive by Beijing, according to a U.S.-based media freedoms group.

As U.S. film studios compete for the opportunity to access Chinese audiences, many are making difficult and troubling compromises on free expression, PEN America says in a recent report, Made in Hollywood, Censored by Beijing.

Film content is now frequently changed even for American audiences, while studios provide censored versions of films specifically for Chinese audiences and sometimes invite Chinese censors onto film sets to advise them on how to avoid tripping the censors wires, PEN America said.

Studios decisions on casting, plot, dialogue, and settings are now made based on a desire to avoid antagonizing Chinese officials who control whether their films gain access to the booming Chinese market, PEN America said, adding that these decisions are carefully made behind closed doors and out of public view.

After making two films in 1997Kundun and Seven Years in Tibet--depicting Chinas conquest of Tibet, two major studios were banned from doing business in China for the next five years, and Hollywood quickly got the message, with Disney CEO Michael Eisner going to Beijing to apologize for his companys production of Kundun and its sympathetic treatment of exiled Tibetan spiritual leader the Dalai Lama.

Seven Years in Tibet, starring Brad Pitt, was also supportive of Tibet and would never be made again today, Emily JashinskyCultural Editor at The Federalisttold RFAs Tibetan Service in an interview.

Seven Years in Tibet is a great example of a film that would never be made in todays Hollywood, and this is because everybody in the industry is absolutely petrified of being blacklisted by the Chinese Communist Party, Jashinsky said.

Hollywood would be terrified even if they made that movie just for viewing in the United States and elsewhere, and not to be shown in China, Jashinsky said, adding that movies with sympathetic treatments of Tibet are politically against what the CCP wants their narrative to be.

An invisible phenomenon

As an industry, Hollywood should develop a mechanism for disclosure that would reveal censorship requests made to it by foreign governments and say how studios responded, said James Tager, PEN Deputy Director of Free Expression Research and Policy.

Ultimately, self-censorship flourishes in obscurity or in invisibility. So if we want to tackle this issue, we have to start discussing this more honestly and address the fact that this is largely an invisible phenomenon."

Chinas influence over Hollywood reflects the countrys growing success in forcing foreign corporate compliance with Beijings propaganda goals, with international companies as diverse as Mercedes-Benz and Marriott giving in to Chinese censorship demands, PEN America said in its report.

Meanwhile, the media freedoms group said, Hollywood films reach billions, and help to shape the way people think.

In a statement sent to RFA, U.S. Senator Ted Cruz said that one way Beijing attempts to advance its preferred narrative about Tibet and other issues sensitive to China is by coercing Americans into self-censorshipespecially in Hollywood.

Thats why I have introduced the SCRIPT Act, which would cut off Hollywood studios from assistance they receive from the U.S. Government if those studios censor their films for screening in China, Cruz said, calling the proposed legislation a wake-up call for Hollywood.

I remain committed to protecting our national security and ensuring that the Chinese Communist Party is held accountable for their censorship, human rights abuses, propaganda campaigns, and espionage operations, Cruz said.

Reported and translated by Tenzin Dickyi for RFAs Tibetan Service. Written in English by Richard Finney.

Link:
Hollywood Censors Films for Content Offensive to China, Fearing Loss of Business There - Radio Free Asia

(Illustration/Dado Ruvic/Reuters)

When CNN hired Sarah Isgur, a former Jeff Sessions spokeswoman and now staff writer at The Dispatch, last year to be a political editor at its Washington bureau, left-wing media types put on a full-court press to smear her professionalism. The CNN newsroom which, last I looked, included former Obama official Jim Sciutto was reportedly demoralized by her very presence. Conservatives, and its probably fair to say that Isgur is a pretty moderate one, arent welcome in mainstream journalism. We dont need to go through all the numbers and polls to stress this point. Journalists have long jumped back and forth between Democratic Party politics and media gigs. The job is the same. The venue is different.

I bring this up because, as my former colleague Sean Davis points out, Nick Pacilio, Kamala Harriss former press secretary, is now in charge of deciding announcing what the president of the United States can and cant say on Twitter to his 85 million followers. Twitter has already removed debatable contentions by the president or, contentions no more misleading than any number of Joe Biden allegations. The point of removing tweets, I assume, has more to do with being able to call Trump a liar than worrying about his spreading misleading information.

But the optics are remarkably terrible for Twitter. Its almost certainly true that whoever holds the job of senior communication manager at the social-media giant will be ideologically progressive like the companys CEO. But could you imagine what the nightly reaction on CNN and MSNBC would be if Mike Pences former spokesperson was seen censoring Joe Bidens tweets during a presidential election? I have no doubt Democrats would be calling for congressional hearings.

Correction: Twitter says Pacilio isnt involved in the removal decisions himself. I have updated the post to reflect his role though Pacilios definitive tweets give users no clue as to how the process plays out or who makes these decisions. I dont think the optics are any better for Twitter, but I should have been more careful.

Excerpt from:
Kamala Harriss Former Press Secretary Is the Face of Twitter Censorship - National Review

There are significant cultural and other differences between the United States and India, but one feature seems to unite them seamlessly: the inability (at least as reflected in media and among campaigners and activists of various persuasions) to reach political consensus on whether Facebook is implementing too much or too little censorship?

And just like in the US, in India, too, accusations that Facebook needs to step up its censorship game are coming from the left, while those telling opposite ideological beliefs say their speech on the global social network is already muzzled to an unacceptable degree.

One, but not insignificant difference, is the way this dissatisfaction is expressed against Facebooks representatives: in India, Reuters said, Ankhi Das, a top exec with the giant, has had to formally turn to the police with a criminal complaint against those making death threats against her. They accuse Das and the platform of allegedly giving a leg-up to the ruling BJP party, led by the countrys prime minister.

The case against Das and Facebook is that hate speech coming from BJP supporters is not being removed, just as we see from the left in the US and Europe.

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

Facebook is meanwhile denying the accusations of exhibiting political bias in India not only those coming from the left, but also those simultaneously voiced by the right, including the BJP, who say their nationalist voices are the ones censored on the platform.

OpIndia presents this side of the row, saying that the perception of Facebook favoring the prime ministers party is false, and a result of local liberals joining forces with whats referred to as WSJ propagandists.

This report finds evidence that if any, Facebook has a pro-left bias that is evident in its own guidelines used as the basis for moderation and censorship, especially on issues like hate speech and gender identity.

In addition, says OpIndia, Facebook took down as many as 687 pages with links to the Indian National Congress ahead of the 2019 India elections, also targeting BJP pages which, the article warns, amounts to involvement in electoral malpractice.

Go here to see the original:
In India, the push for censorship on Facebook comes from the left, just as it does in the US and Europe - Reclaim The Net