Mediaboss Marketing

On Friday, Donald Trump, with his usual sociopathic levels of impulsiveness,thought it wise to commit another likely impeachable offense in the middle of a hearing in the ongoing impeachment inquiry. As former ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch testified to Trump's bizarre, unethical and abusive behavior, he took to Twitter to lambast her in real time, claiming that everywhere she had been posted "turned bad" and personally blaming her for the civil war in Somalia, which is the epitome of a baseless accusation. House Intelligence Chair Adam Schiff, D-Calif., called the act "witness intimidation".

When asked about it by reporters later that day, during a press conference that was ostensibly about health care pricing, Trump, as is his habit, declared that he's the real victim.

"You know what? I have the right to speak," Trump said, in response to a question that was, by being a question, an invitation to speak.

"I have freedom of speech just as other people do, but theyve taken away the Republicans rights," he continued, as exactly zero people tried to turn off his microphones or shut him up in any other way.

Trump knows his followers love these victim trips so much that they'll simply ignore the fact that Democrats couldn't shut him up if they wanted to. In reality, Democrats don't want to shut Trump up at all. If anything, the opposite is true. Democrats clearly want Trump to keep that motormouth running and those rage-fingers tweeting: The more Trump uses that freedom of speech, the stronger their case for impeachment gets.

"Trump could come right before the committee and talk, speak all the truth that he wants if he wants," Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi told Margaret Brennan of "Face the Nation" in an interview that aired Sunday. The speaker also defined what the word "exculpatory" means for Trump, safely guessing it's not a word he has much experience with.

"He should come to the committee and testify under oath and he should allow all those around him to come to the committee and testify under oath," Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumersaid at a news conference on Sunday, adding that Trump's failure to appear and his insistence that his staff also refuse to testify suggests that he is "afraid" and "hiding."

Indeed, the only people who appear interested in silencing the president are his own staff members. As Axios reported Sunday, "President Trump's public schedule next week is designed to keep him distracted from the televised hearings and to counterprogram Week 2 of those hearings."

Considering that the events on his schedule a Cabinet meeting, a visit to a factory in Texas, an arts awards ceremony are humdrum presidential activities that would barely make the news even in boring times, it's safe to say that the White House staff doesn't really see any of this stuff as "counterprogramming" that will actually distract anybody's attention from the impeachment hearings.

Except for maybe one person's attention. The obvious purpose is to keep Trump busy so he doesn't get into trouble, a management style familiar to any parent of toddlers. Frankly, it's a smart move, as Trump's behavior last Friday showed. Even on Fox Business, which has been fiercely pro-Trump, a host cracked and saidthat his Twitter behavior "makes him look like a big dumb baby" and draws more attention to the hearings than if he could just sit still with his coloring book like a big boy.

Odds that White House staff can use Trump's busy schedule to keep him off the internet completely, however, aren't looking good. Even though tweeting invective at Yovanovitch backfired on Trump Friday, he kept it up over the weekend, lashing out at Jennifer Williams, who is an aide to Vice President Mike Pence and a foreign service officer. Williams will reportedly give testimony about Trump's phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky that is expected to make the already clear extortion scheme even clearer.

Trump's tendency to get even more riled up whenever women criticize him is no doubt a major concern for his staff going into this week. Multiple women not just Williams, but also Laura Cooper,a deputy assistant secretary at the Defense Department, and Fiona Hill, a former Russia specialist at the National Security Council are expected to testify before the Intelligence Committee. That's a lot of women saying stuff about Trump that happens to be both true and damning. Everyone knows that's an especially potent trigger for his ill-advised outbursts.

The big-mouth problem isn't limited to Trump, either. His lawyer, co-conspirator and all-around odious lackey Rudy Giuliani seems not to understand, even though he used to be a federal prosecutor, why suspected criminals invoke their Fifth Amendment rights. Instead, Giuliani's addiction to Twitter and TV cameras means thathe constantly says things that incriminate himself or the president or whoever else is in the line of fire.

SIt's not just Trump who is playing the victim of censorship by Democrats when the real issue is censorship from the White House itself. House Republicans are also getting in on this victimology trip, complaining that the witnesses called so far aren't close enough to the White House to be authoritative about what actually happened, and implying that Democrats are silencing such witnesses.

This is a lie, of course. There's plenty ofdocumentation showing Trump at the center of the extortion plot against Ukraine. But it's a lie wrapped in an even bigger lie, because there are several high-ranking administration officials who were directly involved in the Ukrainian extortion scheme, such as acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney (who has already confessed on TV) and outgoing Energy Secretary Rick Perry,whose centrality to the scheme was once again confirmed in a recent batch of leaked emails.

These people are right in the middle of things and could speak directly to what the president said and did. Trump has instructed them not to testify. In fact, Trump has tried to preventanyone who has information from testifying, reportedly lambasting Secretary of State Mike Pompeofor failing to do more to block State Department employees from showing up under subpoena.

The censorship isn't coming from the Democrats, who have a red carpet rolled out for anyone and everyone in the Trump administration who wants to talk. It's coming strictly from Trump, his staff and fellow Republicans, all of whom know that the last thing Trump needs is more information reaching the public. Republicans' big problem is that the man they've self-tasked with defending has an irrepressible need to incriminate himself and commit more crimes. So while they're whining about "freedom of speech," Donald Trump refuses to exercise his constitutional right to remain silent.

Read more here:
Democrats are not "censoring" Donald Trump his increasingly desperate staff is doing that - Salon

Seventy years ago, before the War of Independence was officially over, the state found a no less important issue to deal with. The Council for Oversight of Films and Plays, known by its less formal name the censor held a special meeting. On the agenda: a sharp reprimand of the Cameri Theater for using the word urinate in a play, without permission from the state. Looking at this issue years later, this seems like a parodic comedy suitable for the stage, but documents from the State Archive revealed now in honor of the Cameris 75th anniversary show that the issue was discussed with extreme seriousness.

The council decided in its meeting to reprimand you for changes in the original text of the play Nights of Rage, which you had presented to it for critique, against clause 3(4) of the Public Plays Order (Critique) 1927, the letter of reprimand, dated July 1, 1949, opened.

It turned out that after the theater received a permit for the play, it added without authorization the word urinate to one of the dialogues. You must immediately remove this word from the above play, the council demanded.

The stinging response was written by the actor Yossi Yadin, brother of Yigael Yadin, who was to be the Israel Defense Forces second chief of staff a few months later. Yadin wrote, in the name of the theater management, that the word urinate appears in the Bible (Samuel and Kings). Therefore, he concluded: We see no reason not to use this word on stage. Yadin went even further: We see in this word an expression of a biological need that every mortal feels, and the laws of nature should not be ignored or denied. We think that this word reveals no military secret nor could it compromise the security of the state or the public.

At the end of that same month, the council revisited the matter. According to the minutes of the meeting of July 28, one of the council members reread the dialogues in the play and came to the conclusion that the expression urinate is not essential and is harmful to literary good taste. And yet, it does not constitute cursing, and on this basis its use cannot be banned. The council also turned for an outside opinion to the poet and playwright Aharon Ashman. Please be so good as to express your opinion on the play. In your opinion should the word urinate be left in or not? he was asked.

Ashman replied: As for the fatal word, I do not know whether a storm should be raised because of it. Quoting from Proverbs, he added: Apparently a righteous man knows the life of his beast. They know their audience and serve up the concoction that tastes best to it let them enjoy it.

Eventually the state allowed the Cameri to use the word urinate, but it had the last word. No changes may be made to the play that was approved by the council without special permission, it said in a letter signed by the council chairman Yaakov Kisilov. The councils authority to approve or withhold approval for plays was taken away from it 30 years ago.

We've got more newsletters we think you'll find interesting.

Please try again later.

The email address you have provided is already registered.

Documents on the affair are to be released together with a group of documents about the first years of the theater, to be published by the State Archive next week on its website, that afford a fascinating look at the history of the state through the theater. After the state was established, the theater requested government funding, explaining: The standard of living of the actor does not allow the theater to reach the artistic level to which it aspires. A decade later, the relationship between the theater and the government was on the edge of a blowup when income tax authorities threatened it with criminal action. I believe this step could lead their artistic thoughts into prosaic problems of life in Israel, which now also includes income tax, the tax commissioner wrote at the time.

Read the original:
The 'harmful' word that pitted Cameri theater against the national censor in 1949 - Haaretz

As the launch of Disney+ drew near, there was both a fear and expectation that a PC filter would be put on classic Disney movies, censoring several scenes now deemed too controversial and outright racist. Now that Disney+ is live, it is now clear that Disney had no intention of censoring its content and instead opted for a disclaimer written in each films description. This news came at both the horror and relief of many Disniacs seeking their idea of purity.

But there is a major problem The Walt Disney Company is faced with: They CANT take those scenes out because we find them at what are objectively extremely crucial plot points. Here are three of the most controversial scenes to prove this point:

Please note: This piece does NOT deny the views of the majority today. Instead, this piece stands to prove unfortunately objective points of storytelling and to show a need for us to be able to view stories through a lens beyond our own.

Yes, the lead crow in Dumbois named Jim Crow. Yes, a murder is what you call a group of crows, and yes, together, they are portrayed in ways that would make the Twittersphere cry racist! But these wise-cracking birds appear in one of the most important scenes in the film.

Why are they so important? THEY TEACH DUMBO TO FLY. They give him the magic feather, and they sing the most iconic song to come out of that movie after Baby Mine: When I see a elephant fly(which includes an ingenious level of puns). In all the racist ebonics-shouting hokiness, these crows are intended to be seen as heroes in what was written at the time to be a scene that starts with heckling banter and turns into one thats fun, and literally uplifting.

Okay, outside of the obviously racist cartoony Asian voices, this is still just a creepy, annoying, and uncomfortable song that should make everybody cringe. But it is a crucial scene for this telling.

Why are they so important? Because the cats sing their song as they trash the house, and they represent an invasion on Ladys home on an animal front as well as Aunt Saras human front. It is after this that the cats frame Lady for the crimes, and it drives their owner, Aunt Sara, to put Lady in a muzzle. The muzzle was the last straw, and Lady ran away. That scene is supposed to be disturbing and uncomfortable and distasteful from every angle and be a driving force to get Lady out of the house and on her adventure with Tramp.

I was just going to mention the Powwow scene, but lets talk about their role in the movie in general. Disney has a horrid track record of portraying Amerindians in a way that that would be favored in todays society, and the straight-up red-faced, raspy-voiced portrayal of the Indians in Peter Panis no exception (especially when the beautiful women like Tiger Lily are shown to have the most caucasian features, but thats a-whole-nother can of worms). But they are still crucial to the story.

Why are they so important? Well, for those of you who know Peter Pan,you know J.M. Barrie made them a rather crucial part of the story, and the same is true for Disneys version. When John, Michael, and the Lost Boys get captured by the Indians, we learn that Tiger Lily was captured by Captain Hook, which sends Peter and Wendy on their quest. The Powwow scenewhich is meant to serve as comic relief after the intense encounter with Captain Hookis what finally disillusions Wendy to Neverland and makes her ready to go home.

In short, there is no clean way to sufficiently clean up these stories other than investing in remakes to re-write movies and Disney canon to fit our time. Adding disclaimers and keeping the movies pure is the best way to go. But this writer wants to challenge every Disniac out there to try to view these movies from the world for which they were released and understand that none of the above scenes were produced to be maliciously racist and degrading. Society has a way of making things once okay be not okay anymore.

We should teach the next generation of Disniacs to see that dissonance between the moviegoing world of the past and today so that they can still appreciate these films for what they are, and still see what is good and funny today while understanding what is not OK anymore. Believe it or not, it is possible. Getting hung up on every PR blemishwith Disney or otherwiseis just as bad as agreeing with or blatantly ignoring them.

Continue reading here:
OpEd: The problem with censoring classic Disney movies on Disney+ - Inside the Magic

[ sen-ser-ship ]SHOW IPA

/ snsrp /PHONETIC RESPELLING

the time during which a censor holds office.

the inhibiting and distorting activity of the Freudian censor.

OTHER WORDS FROM censorshipanticensorship, adjectiveprecensorship, nounprocensorship, adjectiveself-censorship, noun

Dictionary.com UnabridgedBased on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, Random House, Inc. 2019

The CDA was passed not in the name of censorship but in the name of protecting children from stumbling across sexual material.

Jordan also banned it, and Malaysia, Egypt, and Indonesia subjected it to their censorship boards.

To many of us, that smacks of censorship, the highest offense to our pride in self-publicity.

So this startling move towards Internet censorship should come as no surprise.

Ironically, Trotter had succeeded in tightening a censorship bill but failed to stop the movie.

And here ends our melancholy tale, which the censorship of the press in Russia prevented from ever before being publicly related.

Thus far it seemed, on such news as the censorship permitted to come through, that Maritz stood alone.

It represented the breaking forth of the unconscious into expression, controlled by a censorship on the part of the poet.

The audiencia had general authority over the inspection and censorship of books which were printed in the colony or imported.

By devious ways it had broken through the censorship of the frontier in cunning cipher.

censorship

a policy or programme of censoring

the act or system of censoring

psychoanal the activity of the mind in regulating impulses, etc, from the unconscious so that they are modified before reaching the conscious mind

Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 2012 Digital Edition William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd. 1979, 1986 HarperCollins Publishers 1998, 2000, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2012

Excerpt from:
Censorship | Definition of Censorship at Dictionary.com

When a news-worthy event happens, you can learn about it in a matter of minutes even when it happened hundreds of miles away. However, with the power to access all kinds of information at the tips of your fingertips, dont you ever wonder if there are some things that you would be better off not knowing about? This is where the role of media censorship comes into light. Media censorship is the act of monitoring information and determining if it should be broadcast, published, or televised. This is done for different reasons, such as protecting a persons privacy and avoiding the release of information that can affect a nations security. What are the advantages and disadvantages of allowing media censorship?

1. It protects children from extremely violent and sexual material.The internet, mobile phones, and television have made it easier for kids to access all kinds of content, even those that can negatively influence them. With media censorship children can surf the web and watch TV with more freedom while being protected from pornographic and heavily violent material.

2. It limits advertisements that can be harmful.Some ads promote products that can be harmful to peoples health, such as those that can influence body shaming, unhealthy eating habits, and addiction. It is understandable why these types of advertisements should be censored.

3. It helps control hate.The media can censor information that is slandering certain religions, race, companies, or individuals. This is helpful in avoiding the development of prejudice or discrimination based on false information or propaganda.

4. It helps protect security.There are instances when sharing sensitive information may do more harm than good. By screening what is being reported and making sure it is published in a proper and timely manner, you can avoid panic and chaos.

1. It encourages ignorance.Ignorance is a tool that can be used to control people and keep them unaware about what is really going on in their community. Censoring information about corruption and injustices means people will continue to be victims and of abuse and exploitation.

2. It promotes manipulation for personal gain.If the government is in charge of censoring media, politicians can use it to their advantage by allowing the publishing of information or advertisements only of companies, organizations, and other affiliations that support their political goals.

3. It limits education and awareness.War, poverty, terrorism, epidemics, and climate change are some of the most pressing issues society is faced with today. Sugarcoating or screening the information presented to the public could prevent people from knowing what is really going on in the world and hinder them from preparing for or addressing global issues.

4. It takes away the freedom of speech.The First Amendment of the American Constitution protects the freedom of speech, and this freedom is what the U.S. is built upon. Limiting what can and cannot be said or published by the media is taking away this basic right.

Media Censorship is a double-edged sword that, if used the wrong way, can be harmful to the one at the tip of the blade and the one who is holding the sword. So it is an idea that should be considered carefully and fairly.

Mar 11, 2016-Flow Psychology Editor

See original here:
8 Pros and Cons of Media Censorship | Flow Psychology