Mediaboss Marketing

Dear Compton, censorship is the subject of this comment.

Some of you think the Compton Herald has crossed the line, become reprobate, turned its back on the people, and indeed, imploded simply because a perceived enemy of some of you has been given access to our pages.

No such villainy has happened. The craft of Journalism requires an ethical imperative to present the truth underscored by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

The First Amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, ensuring that there is no prohibition on the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble, or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.

It was adopted on Dec. 15, 1791, as one of the 10 amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights.

This First Amendment is not some archaic doctrine written by men in a bygone era, now relegated to dusty, brittle pages shuttered in an old dark room. Not remotely true. The First Amendment, notably the passages, there is no prohibition abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press breathes free.

That includes the City of Compton.

One thing that an objective newspaper will incite, adhering to fairness in reporting and assuring free expression for all is rancor from factions determined to suffocate the voice of an opposing view. That is exactly what is currently playing out on a national stage between President Donald Trump and the media he wants to silence.

In Compton, there is tremendous dissension against Mayor Aja Brown. The city may very well be split straight down the middle. Thats to be expected in politics.

But what is not to be expected is censorship by the local newspaper. The rancor in this town to muffle certain elected individuals is at a fever pitch. The Herald never will participate in any such offense.

We may pen editorials and comment to oppose or affirm certain individuals for public office, and we will scrutinize public officials in Compton and publish their scurrilous activity, but that is left to the discretion of the editorial board of the Herald.

Everyone has an equal voice at the Compton Herald. Individuals may pen opposing views, but they must take care not to libel, or present information that is uncorroborated.

Lets be clear, the Compton Herald does not now, nor ever will bend to the will of the public, which would render censorship through this medium if it were possible.

Read more:
COMMENT: No censorship at the Compton Herald, no sir! - Compton Herald

Trickle-Down Censorship: An Outsiders Account of Working Inside Chinas Censorship Regime. By JFK Miller. Hybrid Publishers. Kindle Edition, 184 pp., US$7.99

As we enter a post-truth world or so we are told theres probably no better time than to curl up with JFK Millers Trickle-Down Censorship: An Outsiders Account of Working Inside Chinas Censorship Regime. It serves well as a timely reminder of the dangers in the other direction state control of truth and non-truth alike.

Miller, who has a relaxing chatty style, punctuated by occasional chunks of drier journalese to explain some background issue, takes a well-paced, gently humorous, sometimes self-deprecating dip into life working as an editor on thats Shanghai, a listings magazine, in the mid-2000s. At times, its almost like sitting down with an old friend for a pint in the pub and listening to his stories about those crazy times in China battling with the censors. Its easy reading despite the difficult and oft-depressing topic.

This is Millers first book, but you might know him through his excellent website whyiwrite.net, an insightful spread of interviews with authors, many of whom have written about China. Here in his own book, richly annotated, hes done a nice job of peeling back the oily curtain of media control on the mainland.

Youd be forgiven for wondering how could anyone possibly fill 250 plus pages just on censorship? Is there really that much to say? They censored this. Then they censored that. Now there are not censoring this but still censoring that. I dont know why theyre censoring that but not this, but now they are censoring this again.

Fear not, Miller does more than just regale stories about how his magazine was shaped and shaved by Minitrue (his nickname for the faceless men and women who said no). He organizes the book thematically rather than chronologically and provides a lot of context and color when tackling each. So we meet the many faces of Chinese censorship: everything from banned political topics to the golden rule (report only the good not the bad), the impact of sensitive anniversaries to the play of propaganda (nicely described by Miller as the yang to censorships yin), and from self-censorship (that imaginary policeman looking over your shoulder as you type) to sex and pornography.

Miller has to cut a photo of a model showing the faint shadow of a nipple beneath a gossamer top. Thats all it takes, apparently, to shut down a magazine in China: a solitary tit, scarcely enough to excite an oversexed schoolboy.

Censorship in China is well covered, but a decent discussion of the export of censorship is not, and that I feel is something sorely missing in this book. Miller is in a distinctly good position to do so now, living in the West and having an insiders experience of the subtleties of the censorship machine in action.

A chilling development of recent years has been an effort by Beijing to buy or bully the right to apply its censorship rules or spread propaganda across borders. This can be seen from state media produced China Watch pullouts inserted into mainstream newspapers such as The Washington Post and The Telegraph in London, to denying visas to journalists from publications that report on dubious wealth acquisitions at the top of the Chinese Communist Party leadership.

Indeed, the book itself appears to be a minor victim of this very phenomenon. The front cover features a bold red and yellow design (reminiscent of the PRCs own flag colors) of a map of China and Taiwan. In alignment with Chinas One China policy the two appear as a single country. Despite Taiwans lack of a seat at the UN, it does have de jure independence (and a dwindling number of diplomatic allies; 21 at the last count) and, I would argue, it is commonly shown outside China as a separate country.

I asked Miller by email about the cover, and this was his thoughtful reply:

I never really pondered it until you asked. It never occurred to me that I shouldnt have Taiwan there. I suppose that after living on the mainland for six years that I grew accustomed to the idea that Taiwan is part of China I suppose I just wanted a map on the front cover to represent the China I came to know through the eyes of my censors, i.e. one with Taiwan. Plus if I left it off which never occurred to me anyway I would have been making a statement on Taiwan independence. This book just wasnt the place to weigh in on one of the thorniest issues in geopolitics and, anyway, it would have deviated from my core subject which is censorship and self censorship.

The problem is of course, whether you include Taiwan or not, its a political statement either way. Perhaps his choice of cover is nothing more than simply the remnants of his training in Shanghai. And six years is a long time. Right at the beginning of the book he writes: My ability to self-censor is well honed. It should be; I have been doing this for six years. In the self-mocking patois of the Chinese Internet I have been harmonized.

The absurdities of censorship make for a rich topic and some of Millers best stories are based on the perplexing decisions of his censors. At one point in 2007, after Miller is assigned by his boss to start a news digest, he plans to include an image of Osama bin Laden on the front page. No, say his censors, because Being a sensitive figure, Osama bin Laden hasnt been confirmed to exist.

Miller also offers us a rare glimpse of the human side of censorship. The main, and perhaps only character, in Trickle-Down is his boss Li, with whom he seems to have a love-hate relationship. More hate than love I suspect: Lis hair is spiked at the top like a toilet brush, and he is variously described as manipulative, eccentric, under-handed, money-mad, but devilishly charming (I was fond of him at times). The real treat is saved for near the end of the book, as Miller meets his censors for the first time when they come to Shanghai for a meeting and a lunch. Ill leave you to read the book yourself to find out what they are like.

As his life unfolds in China, Miller describes how his feelings about censorship, which started off as a kind of cheerful courtesy he must offer because he is a guest in the country, morphs into a kind of grumbling acceptance until by the end his own self-censorship sparks fear and self-loathing even though he admits his publication was largely froth and bubble and not serious investigative journalism. I imagine that writing this book is an effort to make some amends to himself on that score.

Dinah Gardner is a freelance writer living in Taiwan.

Continued here:
Book Review: Trickle-Down Censorship - Asia Sentinel (blog)

Facebooks application for Patent 0350675 is either a smart method to use artificial intelligence to root out fake news or a potentially dangerous way of imposing censorship on muckraking media and political satire.

The threat of censorship is especially worrisome now that the search for fake news is becoming automated, with computers guided by artificial intelligence aiding human censors.

Facebook is a leader. It has applied for a patent for a computer device that would have the capability of sweeping through Facebook posts, searching for keywords, sentences, paragraphs or even the way a story .The computer would spot content that includes objectionable material. This vague phrase seems to leave the door open for Facebook to censor opinion or unconventional posts that are out of the mainstream, although the company denies it has that intent.

I heard about such automated searching last year when I was working on a story for Truthdig about an organization called PropOrNot. It had compiled a blacklist of more than 200 news outlets that it said were running pro-Kremlin propaganda, and Truthdig was on the list. In the course of finding out how PropOrNot compiled the list and how Truthdig was added to it, I interviewed a well-known communications scholar, professor Jonathan Albright of Elon University in North Carolina.

Albright told me the information was collected basically through an algorithm, or set of instructions to a computer for sweeping or scraping websites or other material on the internetsimilar to what intelligence agents do in examining emails.

The computer would be instructed to tag words, sentences, paragraphs or even how the story is framed. I theorized that was how PropOrNot works, scraping sites in search of material that would fit its description of purveyors of Russian propaganda. Apparently, Truthdig and some other publications were incorrectly caught up in a PropOrNot sweep. PropOrNot, which operates in anonymity, told me my description of its methodology was generally correct.

In the course of our conversation, Professor Albright told me Facebook was trying to develop a patent for a fake-news detection system.

His fear is that it is turning into a form of censorship or could be developed as censorship. He said he was concerned that Facebook, Google or the government could develop filters to determine what is [supposedly] fake and make decisions about that. They could hunt for particular words, sentences and ways the news is framed. Dissent could be filtered out, as could articles with unusual, non-mainstream slants. There are going to be keywords and language that will not be standard, and alternative voices will be buried, Albright said.

That concerned me. I dont, of course, like fake news of the kind that proliferated during the last election and afterward. Facebook, with its millions of users, is a target for people posting false news. Aware of that, Facebook has partnered with well-known news and fact-checking organizations to root out such news. They are ABC, FactCheck.org, The Associated Press, Snopes and PolitiFact.

I wanted to know how Facebook and these organizations determine what exactly constituted fake news. Thinking of how PropOrNot wrongly portrayed Truthdig and other news media as purveyors of Kremlin propaganda, I feared that Facebook and its news collaborators could end up wrongly censoring posts, particularly those of opinion-oriented publications and websites like ours.

I found the Facebook patent application (a Facebook representative told me the company often applies for patents and that shouldnt be taken as an indicator of future plans). I also discovered an article last November by Casey Newton on The Verge website explaining the application, which was most helpful to me, a non-technical person.

The application envisions using artificial intelligence to scan material that is scored by the computer and given a value. Based on that, it can be determined whether the content items include objectionable material.

Determining what passes Facebook tests are the social networks community standards. The standards, in brief, ban some nudity, hate speech, images glorifying sadism or violence, bullying and promotion of suicide, terrorism and organized crime. Violation of these standards could mean removal of a post from the Facebook site or its relegation to the bottom of the newsfeed, severely limiting readership.

I asked Facebook how this worked. A representative said that once a post is flagged, either by a person or the computer, it is turned over to teams of multilingual employees who are trained in maintaining community standards.

What about opinions that many consider outrageous or wrong? In December 2015, I wrote a column comparing Donald Trump to Hitler, and people told me I was wrong or at least way off the mark. Would comparing Trump to such an evil mass murderer constitute hate speech and be a violation of the standards? The Facebook representative said the company was not seeking to censor opinion or limit freedom of expression.

Mark Zuckerberg, Facebooks founder and CEO, has acknowledged that dealing with an opinion piece requires caution. In a Facebook post, he wrote that many stories express an opinion that many will disagree with and flag as incorrect even when factual. I am confident we can find ways for our community to tell us what content is most meaningful, but I believe we must be extremely cautious about becoming arbiters of truth ourselves.

Others are not sure how this would work out. I asked USC professor Mike Ananny, another respected internet communications scholar, if Facebooks automated data search, combined with its community standards, could be used to censor Truthdig or similar opinion journals.

Its a good question, he replied in an email. I dont believe Facebook would intentionally try to bury opinion sites like Truthdig, but ultimately, we have to take them at their word because we dont have the access required to interrogate and audit their systems. Even if it has intentions that we think align with our editorial values, we just dont know how these intentions play out when they are translated into opaque algorithmic systems.

Kalev Leetaru, a senior fellow at the George Washington University Center for Cyber & Homeland Security, wrote in Forbes last December, Remarkably, there has been no mention of how Facebook will arbitrate cases where journalists object to one of their articles being labeled as fake news and no documented appeals process for how to overturn such rulings. Indeed, this is in keeping with Facebooks opaque black box approach to editorial control on its platform. We simply have no insight into the level and intensity of research that went into a particular label, the identities of the fact checkers and the source material they used to confirm or deny an article the result is the same form of trust us, we know best that the Chinese government uses in its censorship efforts.

Leetarus mention of China brings to mind a new law that initiates an American government effort to identify and counter what officials consider propaganda from foreign nations.

In December, President Barack Obama signed legislation authored by Republican Sen. Rob Portman of Ohio and Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut that greatly increases the federal governments power to find and counter what officials consider government propaganda from Russia, China and other nations and provides a two-year, $160 million appropriation. It would create a web of government fake-news hunters.

Portmans office said the legislation establishes a fund to help train local journalists and provide grants and contracts to NGOs, civil society organizations, think tanks, private sector companies, media organizations, and other experts outside the U.S. government with experience in identifying and analyzing the latest trends in foreign government disinformation techniques.

Its bad enough that Facebook and its media colleagues will be scrubbing and scraping for fake news, deciding whether investigative or opinion articles fit into that category. Creating a government fake-news search complexespecially with this Trump administrationis much worse.

Journalisms job is to cover government deeds and to shed light on actions that reporters, editors, publishers and the public consider wrong. It is journalisms obligation to investigate and explain government on behalf of the public.

This is muckraking, the word I used at the beginning of this column.

Merriam-Webster says the word dates back to the 17th century and means to search out and publicly expose real or apparent misconduct of a prominent individual or business. The Cambridge Dictionary says muckraking is trying to find out unpleasant information about people or organizations in order to make it public.

President Theodore Roosevelt used the term as an insult to reporters. They, being contrarians, wore the term as a badge of honor, as they still do.

Theres a difference between muckraking and fake news. Determining the difference is too difficult for a computer, even one with the smartest kind of artificial intelligence.

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

See the original post:
Will Facebook's Fake-News Detection System Lead to Censorship? - Truthdig

THE media regulation bill preparedby the National ReformSteeringAssembly (NRSA)smedia reformcommittee as part of nationalreform has faced harsh criticism thatit seeks to control media outlets,rather than protect the media.

The key points that major mediagroups have strongly opposed arethe make-up of the proposed professional council and the medialicensing system outlined in the bill.

This has led them to call for ACMKanit Suwannet, head of the committee sub-panel spearheading theproposal, to be removed.

But he stuck to his guns and vowedto look into the details again. ACMKanit talked to The Nationabout theideas behind the story, plus hispanels next moves amid fierce

resistance by many media professionals.

HOW DID THE PANEL COME UP WITH THE IDEA TO HAVE THE MEDIA REGULATED THROUGH NEW MECHANISMS LIKE THE MEDIA PROFESSIONAL COUNCIL AND SUCH?

We didnt. It was something we took from the now-defunct National Reform Council (NRC)s committee on media reform. They are not around today as they were dissolved after the previous draft charter was aborted. But what they studied remained, and we continue their work. The professional council was part of their study.

WHY WOULD THE PROFESSIONAL COUNCIL BE SET UP, WHEN THE PRESS ALREADY HAS THEIR OWN ASSOCIATIONS?

For that, you will have to ask the NRC. We just took the baton from them. But from the study they conducted, the thing about the regulation proposed, they said it was necessary.

Yes, the media has associations, federations and everything as self-regulatory mechanisms, which abide by some laws such as that of the National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission (NBTC). But it doesnt work very well. It hasnt been very effective.

So, the idea of establishing the professional council came about to allow co-regulation.

Everything follows the study conducted by the NRC.

IS REGULATING CONTROLLING OR NOT, IN YOUR VIEW?

Those are two completely different words. They are not even close to one another. Looking at them either in Thai or in English, they are two different words.

But I understand that maybe the media has a lesson from the past that gets them so worried. I totally understand but personally I think, we can talk and discuss this over and adjust it.

There is nothing rigid about the composition of the council. We can change both the composition and the qualifications [for people on the council].

Now I have assigned everyone on the panel to think [the proposal] over, we will discuss what the composition should be and who should represent the state in the council when we meet again.

SO, THE PERMANENT SECRETARIES WILL NOT SIT ON THE COUNCIL AS FIRST PROPOSED ANYMORE?

We discussed that in the meeting on Monday. Some people in the NRSA whips said they should still be there because the council will be subsidised by the state. So, there should be some connection.

But we will think about the new composition again who should sit on the council. We try to make them as relevant to the media field as possible.

WHEN STATE REPRESENTATIVES REMAIN ON THE COUNCIL, HOW WILL YOU ASSURE THE MEDIA THAT THEY WILL BE INDEPENDENT?

Well, both sectors, private and public, must go together. We have dealt with concerns about the composition [of the council] and reduced the number of the permanent secretaries down from four.

But actually, there is nothing to worry about. The four permanent secretaries are from different ministries. They are independent. They each have one vote. And the media can still scrutinise them. Especially now with social media, you can publish all the documents online.

It is impossible for the permanent secretaries to have influence over you. This is not to mention seniority and credentials of a permanent secretary position. Now the reformers are doing homework. If it is not a permanent secretary [on the council], then what should they be?

WHAT ABOUT LICENSING OF THE PRESS? WILL THAT BE A MEANS TO CONTROL THE MEDIA AS CLAIMED?

Even presently you do have a kind of licensing, but it is at the company level. We just expand it to an individual level.

But as the official name of the bill suggests, the licensing system will rather help to protect your rights as well as to promote media ethics and standards. If you are a certified press worker with a licence issued, you should be entitled to benefits and privileges such as awards.

As a result, you will love your institution. You will want to maintain your standards and report the news ethically. Unlike when there is no clear system or no licensing, you can come and go however you like. It lacks order.

SO, IS A LICENCE COMPULSORY OR NOT?

We propose that it would be. But I want to stress that any training or examinations prerequisite for a licence are entirely the responsibility of the council. You have full control. This is not against the draft constitution.

BUT WILL THE THREAT OF LICENCE REVOCATION BE A FORM OF MEDIA CONTROL BY THE STATE?

Not by the state. It would be the authority of the professional council. The council is entitled to issue its own regulations. If you meet the minimum standard, there is no way your licence can be revoked.

It is the same as driving. If you drive well and safely, you are fine. Unless you do something wrong, you wont face any consequences. And there are steps before any revocation, which comes last on the list. First you get warned, then you get fined. If you dont show improvement, you will be suspended. Revocation is the last and the strongest measure.

GIVEN THE COUNCILS ENTITLEMENT WOULD HAVE EXTENSIVE AUTHORITY, HOW WELL DO YOU THINK IT CAN SERVE THE MEDIA?

That would depend on the composition of its members. Now it is unclear, but the number of permanent secretaries will be reduced. It can be cut down to three, two or one. It remains undecided. But at least one will stay. It is necessary since self-regulation has not proven effective.

WHEN CAN THE DRAFT BILL BE FINALISED AND WHAT ARE YOUR NEXT STEPS?

Everything will be clearer early in March. After that, we will forward it to the whips. Then it enters the NRSA and the Cabinet. That is the process, if it can go through and doesnt get rejected.

See the original post:
Kanit offers changes to controversial media bill - The Nation

Samuel Sinyangwe Ariel Matos

When neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman was acquitted of charges after fatally shooting Trayvon Martin in Sanford, Florida, Sinyagwe realized his own path was permanently affected. Then, when Michael Brown was fatally shot and killed in Ferguson, Missouri, Sinyangwe realized he could not not get involved.

"If we cannot live, we cannot learn," said the co-founder of

His work is an important addition to the conversations surrounding systemic racism, state violence and inequities.

"Black excellence is rooted in finding your potential and doing what you love and care about. Black excellence is the realization that we can be the best at whatever we want to be," he said. "Whatever it is that you do, be the best at it. President Obama has proven that in the highest office in the land."

DEFINE YOURSELF OR YOUR WORK IN THREE HASHTAGS #driven #evidencebased #comprehensivechange

MY SELF-CARE RITUAL INVOLVES I don't have enough of them. That will be a goal of mine moving forward.

MOST PEOPLE PROBABLY DON'T KNOW THAT I LOVE/HATE Most people don't know that I love exotic foods, for sure. I am living in New York City right now, and I am always trying to find something new and different and delicious and affordable in this city. And it never disappoints, except maybe the affordable part.

Something I hate? I don't know - how about institutional racism. I hate institutional racism.

NBCBLK is using the 28 days in the month of February to honor 28 of the nation's most impressive innovators, all 28 years and younger. Get to know the #NBCBLK28 class of 2017.

Follow NBCBLK on

The rest is here:
NBCBLK28: Samuel Sinyangwe: Number Cruncher in the Fight Against Systemic Racism - NBCNews.com