Archive for the ‘Media Control’ Category

Rupert Murdoch Wants Lachlan To Inherit Control Of Media Empire, Sparking Legal Battle With Other Children Report – Deadline

HBOs Succession looks more and more like the House Of Murdoch, where Patriarch Rupert is fighting with three of his adult children over who will control the family media empire when he passes.

An irrevocable trust in place for years would hand control to four of them Lachlan, James, Elisabeth and Prudence. But Murdoch the elder is trying to change that by ensuring that Lachlan, the current CEO of Fox, would remain in charge, according to a story in the New York Times. Thats created a rift with the other three siblings, who are trying to block him.

Prudence is Murdochs eldest daughter from his first wife, Patricia Booke. Lachlan, Elisabeth and James are his children from Anna Torv. Rupet Murdoch, 93, had two children with his third wife, Wendi Deng, who have an economic interest in the trust but no voting control.

Excerpt from:
Rupert Murdoch Wants Lachlan To Inherit Control Of Media Empire, Sparking Legal Battle With Other Children Report - Deadline

Media has normalised Trump’s bullying it’s time to take control – Independent Australia

Presidential candidate Donald Trump has become notorious for his aggression and bullying, which the mainstream media is happy to ignore. Rosemary Sorensen writes.

AT THE DAILY FEATURES conference back when I was editing the books pages for Brisbanes Courier Mail, I was once witness to the kind of nasty, vicious, petulant, boorish outburst that now marks to an outlandish degree American presidential nominee Donald Trumps responses to anything and everything.

Maybe the editor-in-chief had a bad hair day or had been bawled out by those up the hierarchy (were talking News Corp here). As the group of section editors gathered in the conference room, he sat like a cross cane toad at the head of the table, glowering until, with no warning except for that look of simmering fury, off he went.

We were useless, hopeless, pathetic, stupid. The pages of the newspaper we were responsible for were awful. The laziness! The rubbish! On notice, the lot of us!

The tantrum was spectacular.

Fear is a powerful emotion and the response in the room from a group of people who understood very well the culture of that place (rewards for applying yourself to the demands, punishment for stepping out of line) was a collective cowering. Sensible people knew that the response of least resistance was to ride it out, go back to your desk and get on with it. Yes, it was unfair, but thems the breaks.

No one, least of all the editor-in-chief, expected there to be a conversation about the accusations, but ah yes, reader she harried him.

I spoke back, mildly suggesting that the abuse was a teensy bit unfair, that the features pages were pretty good and that the journalists and sub-editors working on them were often turning up early and leaving late, keen to deliver good content.

Looking around that table, I saw no ones eyes. All heads dropped. They knew what was coming.

And it came, like spew from a kid with gastro. How dare I defend my colleagues! If I didnt want to accept the abuse, I could leave, right now, walk out of that room and I was done, fired.

It was full on and, while I think I knew the threat was stupid, I also realised this was a showdown that the boss would never let me win. I didnt leave the room. Maybe that was cowardly, but I think I just wanted to get on with the books pages for that week and all that drama was tiresome.

Only one of the other people in the room came up to me immediately after the meeting to tell me they thought the abuse had been a bit unfair, but we all went on as though nothing had happened.

Culturally, such aggressive behaviour has, over the past decades, become unacceptable in most workplaces and there are processes in place for complaint. Retrospectively, I find the editors tantrum comical and Im still more upset by the lack of support in the room, which at the time seemed wimpish. I think that, like me, those people just wanted to get on with their jobs.

Now, however, Trump and the way hes being reported is normalising that aggression once more. All the conventions of good manners have been trampled. The name-calling and reputational put-downs, the grotesque belittling and false accusations, the bile of uncontrolled contempt for anyone in his way these are relayed in videos and reported in print immediately and everywhere, as media outlets of all stripes clamour for attention.

It's changed the rules of the game. Where there are places where dictators incarcerate or kill anyone who speaks out against unfairness and tyranny (the awful rigged trial of Hong Kongs Jimmy Lai is but one example), in countries such as the USA and its acolytes (the UK and Australia) the method is, for now, a bit more subtle if you can call what Trump is doing subtle. It grabs attention and puts your opposition into a corner. It controls the narrative.

It excites people, particularly those in the media who have lost, forgotten or never had the pride in their work that demands decency and fair play as the bedrock of their craft.

Can it be countered? Whats the most effective response to that loud, rude, aggressive push into the corner?

Because progressive liberals count among their ranks clever, quick-witted, well-educated and passionate extroverts, humour has been a brilliant defence against such bullying. But is it effective? Does it get through to those who are smacked between the eyes by the everywhere-images and soundbites?

Its not a bad response. I wonder if Id been clever enough to say something witty in that meeting all those years ago, what might have happened next. (I dont think Id have got a laugh, frankly.)

Somehow, the response has to shift the narrative, to take back control. Thats the importance of all the alternatives to the captured mainstream media, including websites like this one and all the social media forums where people find support to speak about things that are unfair. Thats why, too, theres such enormous pushback against those alternatives: almost daily we see how speaking out results in attacks that wrest back the initiative by undermining the speaker.

Theres a sporting rule that says you play the ball, not the player. Thats a tough call when the player is making it all about them, shouting in your face, shoving you back into a corner of the playing field. Its also a tough call when those commentators with the loudest voices arent interested in or care about what happens to the game players, spectators, referees, the whole kit and caboodle if the bullying cheat wins.

Rosemary Sorensenwas a newspaper, books and arts journalist based in Melbourne, then Brisbane, before moving to regional Victoria, where she founded the Bendigo Writers Festival, which she directed for 13 years.

Support independent journalism Subscribeto IA.

Read this article:
Media has normalised Trump's bullying it's time to take control - Independent Australia

Russian authorities to set control on social media accounts with over 1,000 followers – NEWS.am

Russians with a daily audience of more than 1,000 people on social networks will be obliged to submit information about themselves to Roskomnadzor. The corresponding proposal is currently being worked out in the agency.

At the same time, each user of social networks still has the opportunity to limit the viewing of his page by outsiders and avoid the transfer of information about themselves, the ministry added.

The initiative also suggests that Russian companies will be prohibited from distributing their advertising on public pages whose users have not provided information about themselves.

Roskomnadzor explained the new requirement by the fact that according to the current law "On Information, Information Technologies and Information Protection" information distributed without the use of mass media must include reliable information about its owner or distributor in the form and volume sufficient for its identification. This also applies to personal pages in social networks.

Read the original:
Russian authorities to set control on social media accounts with over 1,000 followers - NEWS.am

Lawrence O’Donnell Torches Media Over ‘Out Of Control’ White House Briefing – HuffPost

MSNBCs Lawrence ODonnell fiercely criticized the White House press corps on Monday after reporters peppered press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre with questions about a neurologists visits to the White House.

We just got this letter, and if you saw any of the White House press briefing today, it was the White House press corps, many of them at their absolute worst, ODonnell said on The Last Word.

He said that, after reading the White Houses explanation, much of the press corps out-of-control behavior was as bad a circus as it looked like.

The New York Times reported Monday that an expert on Parkinsons disease from Walter Reed National Military Medical Center had been to the White House eight times in as many months leading up to this spring, according to visitor logs.

Jean-Pierre subsequently fielded questions about Bidens health in a testy briefing. She told reporters Biden was not being treated for the neurodegenerative disease.

However, she declined to state the purpose of Dr. Kevin Cannards visits or even confirm whether he had visited, prompting irritation from some present.

The White House later released a letter from Bidens physician, Dr. Kevin OConnor, explaining that Cannard had been serving as a neurology consultant to the White House Medical Unit for over a decade and has for years held neurology clinics at the White House Medical Clinic to support the thousands of active-duty members assigned in support of White House operations.

OConnor said this information would not typically be disclosed, in order to protect patient privacy, but an exception had been made in this instance with Cannards permission, in the interests of accuracy.

Biden was examined by Cannard in each of his annual physicals, as already disclosed in his medical reports, OConnor said, adding that Biden had not seen a neurologist outside that setting.

ODonnell slammed The New York Times for reporting that Jean-Pierre dodged and refused to answer questions in the briefing. He argued she was trying to be responsive to medical questions where there were limitations on what she could say.

How many times did a neurologist visit the Trump White House? ODonnell asked. The White House press corps has no idea and will never know, because the Trump White House never, ever released the White House visitor logs.

The only reason The New York Times knows that this doctor was in the White House logs is because ... the Biden White House, unlike the Trump White House, makes that information public, he added.

Biden has faced furious scrutiny about his health and ability to win the 2024 election following his shaky performance at the June 27 presidential debate.

Continue reading here:
Lawrence O'Donnell Torches Media Over 'Out Of Control' White House Briefing - HuffPost

Facebook and Instagram Update Ban List to Include Posts on Zionists Who Control the World – The Jewish Press – JewishPress.com

In a significant policy shift, Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, announced on Tuesday that it would expand its hate speech regulations to include the removal of posts that use the term Zionist as a proxy for Jews or Israelis in a derogatory context, AFP reported.

The tech giants latest update aims to address the complex issue of online antisemitism while attempting to maintain a balance with free speech principles. Under the new guidelines, content that employs Zionist in conjunction with dehumanizing comparisons, calls for harm, or denials of existence will be taken down.

Were extending our approach to treat Zionist as a proxy for Jewish or Israeli in certain contexts, a Meta spokesperson explained. This move builds on the companys existing policy of flagging the term when used alongside antisemitic imagery or explicit references to Jewish people.

Meta emphasized that the policy update is designed to combat instances where Zionist is used to propagate harmful stereotypes, such as claims of world domination or media control, rather than in legitimate political discourse.

This development comes on the heels of another recent modification to Metas content moderation strategy. Earlier this month, the company announced a more nuanced approach to using the Arabic word shaheed, commonly translated as martyr, following recommendations from its independent oversight board.

As social media platforms continue to grapple with the spread of hate speech and misinformation, Metas policy shifts reflect the ongoing challenges in navigating the fine line between protecting free expression and preventing the proliferation of harmful content online.

See the original post:
Facebook and Instagram Update Ban List to Include Posts on Zionists Who Control the World - The Jewish Press - JewishPress.com