Mediaboss Marketing

The SABC continues to censor political views that oppose the ruling party. Thats according to ANC veteran Khulu Mbatha, author of the critical new book Unmasked: Why the ANC Failed to Govern.

Mbatha was scheduled to discuss his book on Motsweding FM on Thursday night in an interview set up by his publishers, KMM Review Publishing Company. After not receiving a call from the popular radio station, he contacted his publisher.

It was only on Friday morning that Mbatha learned why the interview was canned. He received a text from his publisher that had been sent from a producer at Motsweding FM.

The producer apologised for the lack of communication and explained what happened: I was advised earlier as I submitted my script to put the interview on hold because of the editorial policy of the SABC. I will be informed further on how to treat the interview moving forward because the content is against the ruling party.

Mbatha, once a special adviser to former president Kgalema Motlanthe, was angry when City Press contacted him on Friday morning.

I am very much disturbed. Censorship is still happening at the SABC. It is the worst form of censorship, he said, just before boarding a flight to the Franschhoek Literary Festival, where he will be talking about his book.

In Unmasked, Mbatha who is one of 101 ANC veterans who have called for a conference to deal with the ANCs crisis delivers a sharp critique of the party. The ANC, he writes, was never truly ready to rule in 1994 and has failed dismally to address the core issue of economic inequality in the country.

Kaizer Kganyago, SABC spokesperson, said the interview was postponed because the station wanted to have time to read the book.

An email was sent to the relevant party in this regard, and it is not true that the reason for postponing the interview was due to the contents of the book which are said against the ruling party. The reasons are clear and there is no mention of the ruling party.

On March 8, the council of the Independent Communications Authority of South Africa (Icasa), acting on the recommendation of the Complaints and Compliance Committee, declared the SABC boards 2016 amendment of its editorial policies to be invalid.

This was after the The SOS Coalition and Media Monitoring Africa (MMA), represented by the Legal Resources Centre, challenged amendments to the SABCs editorial policies over, among other things, the broadcasters refusal to show violent protests.

During former chief operating officer Hlaudi Motsoenengs reign at the SABC numerous adverts, commentators and programmes were reportedly canned for presenting views negative to President Jacob Zuma and the ANC.

Icasa found that, in amending its policies, the SABC had failed to consult the public, which is a breach of the SABCs licence conditions and of the Broadcasting Act.

The SABC was forced to revert to its original editorial policies of 2004.

Contacted on Friday, Icasa spokesperson Paseka Maleka said that Mbatha can lodge a formal complaint with Icasa and we shall engage the SABC on the matter.

MMAs William Bird was aghast when told about the SMS.

This is fundamentally outrageous, he said, with all the emphasis on trying to restore credibility at the public broadcaster. Its a flagrant violation of [Mbathas] right to freedom of speech. The board and parliament need to be investigating this as well.

Mbatha said he had contacted Communications Minister Ayanda Dlodlo about what happened with Motsweding FM.

She promised to get back to me, he said.

* This article was updated on May 19 to include the SABC's response to the matter.

See original here:
'Censorship is still happening at SABC' - News24

Politics

19:38 19.05.2017(updated 19:39 19.05.2017) Get short URL

Speaking toRadio Sputnik onthe sidelines ofa forum forRussian-speaking broadcasters, Kosachev said that unfortunately, many Western countries' information policy today is broadly aimed atdiscrediting Russia and limiting its opportunities inthe international arena.

The senator explained that today, ordinary Western readers, viewers and listeners are bombarded byan information policy developed and implemented bytheir states. "It is a policy they accuse us ofpursuing, butwhich they themselves implement withoutany inhibitions. This is a policy ofdiscrediting Russia, a policy ofeliminating, or atleast restricting Russia's opportunities asa competitor inthe international arena," Kosachev noted.

Photo: RUSSIAN FOREIGN MINISTRY

At the same time, the senator said that attempts are being made tocut readers, viewers and listeners offfrom objective information, "of the kind that comes tothem fromSputnik, throughother authoritative broadcasters operating inRussian and withRussia."

"This is a very unfortunate situation, and it has nothing todo withthe freedom ofspeech or the freedom ofinformation," Kosachev noted.

The senator said that the current drama surrounding Russia inthe American media was a perfect example ofthe kind ofgross distortion ofreality that's being manufactured.

AFP 2017/ POOL / Kim Hong-Ji

"The US media is not any sort offourth estate. They are governed bythe first, second and third estates inthe interests ofthese authorities. And US authorities today are openly divided and disjoined; we see what is being done withPresident Trump, and just how much this manipulation ofpublic consciousness throughthe media contradicts what Americans themselves and the world asa whole are accustomed toassociating withthe 'American values' offreedom ofspeech, democracy, freedom ofthe press, and so on."

In the senator's view, US information policy went overboard oncensorship some time ago already.

"All that remains forthem todo is resort tothe Soviet-style tradition (which we see inthe US, and inUkraine, incidentally) ofsimply cutting offaccess toalternative sources ofinformation, and thus preventing people fromunderstanding the essence ofwhat is really going on," Kosachev said.

Visit link:
Russian Senator to Sputnik: 'West Using Soviet-Style Methods of Media Control' - Sputnik International

"It's one of the worst I've seen," says Barbara Petersen, president of Florida's First Amendment Foundation.

Her frustration stems from this year's legislative results regarding exemptions to the state's public records laws.

Petersen believes doors are closing on open government.

"It's a concern, and it's a continuing concern," Petersen says.

In the recent legislative session, state lawmakers passed 17 exemptions to public records laws.

According to Petersen's records, it was the second highest amount of exemptions since 1995.

The record was set in 2014, when 22 exemptions passed. The average is about 10 a year.

"But in terms of volume, it was almost 12% of all the bills passed by the Legislature, so they can't agree on school funding," Petersen says. "They can't agree on medical marijuana, gaming, but it seems they can agree on chipping away at our constitutional right of access to government information."

Petersen agrees some exemptions are justified but many aren't.

Her biggest concern with this year's exemptions, Senate Bill 118, which she said will keep the public from viewing criminal history records, if a person is found not guilty or acquitted.

Petersen argues there are many reasons a case can be tossed such as perhaps the victim didn't want to to press charges.

She says in cases such as O.J. Simpson, George Zimmerman and Casey Anthony, the new exemptions would have sealed information, if they were in existence at the time.

"That means if you want to hire a babysitter or a clerk to work in your store you would go to the FDLE website search for the name and they won't pop up," Petersen says referring to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. House Speaker Richard Corcoran entered the legislative session declaring more transparency. Corcoran said he was not concerned.

"The question is, are you protecting the publics interest," Corcoran says. "Does the public who has an absolute right to know how their taxpayer money is being spent, is that right? And is that knowledge being protected? And it absolutely is."

Petersen says the public should pay close attention to who's proposing these exemptions and why, because it ultimately affects your access to records.

She says in 1985 there were about 250 exemptions to Sunshine Laws. There now are more than 1,000.

"The last time the Legislature did anything to improve our public records laws, to enhance our right of access, was in 1995, and that tells you something," Petersen says.

This year is the first year ever the First Amendment Foundation is calling on the governor to veto this year's budget. Not because of any specific policies, Petersen says, but rather because major policy changes were agreed to in secret behind closed doors.

Florida's First Amendment Foundation has been around since 1983.

Read more from the original source:
Public records advocate opposes public records exemptions passed by Legislature - ABC Action News

Instagram has been ranked as the worst social networking app when it comes to its impact on young people's mental health, according to a new survey published by the Royal Society for Public Health (RSPH) in the UK.

The #StatusofMind survey asked 1479 young people, aged 14 to 24, to score popular social media platforms on issues such as anxiety, depression, loneliness, bullying and body image.

The photo-sharing app, which has over 700 million users worldwide, appeared to be more detrimental to young people's mental health when compared to Snapchat, Facebook, Twitter and YouTube.

Chief executive of the RSPH, Shirley Cramer, said social media sites pose a real and immediate threat to the health of young people.

"Social media has been described as more addictive than cigarettes and alcohol, and is now so entrenched in the lives of young people that it is no longer possible to ignore it when talking about young people's mental health issues", Ms Cramer told The Telegraph.

"It's interesting to see Instagram and Snapchat ranking as the worst for mental health and wellbeing - both platforms are very image-focused and it appears they may be driving feelings of inadequacy and anxiety in young people.

"The platforms that are supposed to help young people connect with each other may actually be fuelling a mental health crisis", Ms Cramer said.

The report offers an insight into the possible link between mental illness and heavy social media use.

"Instagram easily makes girls and women feel as if their bodies aren't good enough as people add filters and edit their pictures in order for them to look 'perfect'", an anonymous female respondent said in the report.

"This [social media] resulted in me not eating properly and losing a lot of weight and becoming very depressed, I finally recovered which was hard for myself to be bullied online again in year 8. Overall I would say social media has caused me many issues and has caused me to be depressed many times", another respondent said.

The report also identified the length of time that people are engaging with social media platforms as the greatest cause for concern.

"Seeing friends constantly on holiday or enjoying nights out can make young people feel like they are missing out while others enjoy life", it notes.

"These feelings can promote a 'compare and despair' attitude in young people.

"Individuals may view heavily photo-shopped, edited or staged photographs and videos and compare them to their seemingly mundane lives".

Young people who spend more than two hours per day connecting on social networking sites are more likely to suffer from increased levels of psychological distress, depression, anxiety and suicidal ideation, according to the report.

However, it isn't all bad news; social media platforms can also promote a sense of community and provide emotional support for at-risk youth.

"I have anxiety and on many occasions I have found videos that put how I feel into words and explain it, and this benefits me a lot making me feel more confident", an anonymous respondent said.

Despite the criticisms levelled at Instagram by a host of respondents in the survey, the app was found to have a positive effect on self-expression and self-identity.

However YouTube was the only social media platform found to have an overall positive impact on young people's mental health.

In an effort to counter the negative impacts of heavy social media, experts listed a series of checks and measures designed to bolster mental health, including:

The impact of five social media sites were evaluated in the following order:

Continue reading here:
'Fuelling a mental health crisis': Instagram worst social network for young people's mental health - The Sydney Morning Herald

Modern conflicts are fought both in the dirt and on the communications battlefield. The proliferation of propaganda and 'fake news' - uploaded online or broadcast over the airways - makes it extraordinarily difficult for those involved in conflict to strategise, maintain morale or even know exactly what is going on within their borders. For this reason, governments have a marked tendency to overreact when dealing with the free flow of information in fraught times: security issues nearly always trump free expression concerns.

This was recently illustrated in Ukraine, where, the Ukrainian Institute of Mass Information (IMI) reported, sanctions were imposed on several Russian media outlets considered to be working against Ukraine's national interests. The sanctions were decided upon by the National Security and Defence Council of Ukraine in April 2017 and put into force by presidential decree this week.

The move has provoked broad condemnation from IFEX members who argue that it will have a disproportionately negative effect on Ukrainians' free expression and access to information.

The decree is actually part of an expansion of Ukrainian sanctions imposed as a response to Russia's illegal annexation of the Crimean peninsula in 2014. According to the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), the decree will apply to 468 companies and 1,228 individuals, including Russia's most popular news and social media services, such as the RIA Novosti news agency and the broadcasters Channel One, VGTRK, Zvezda, TNT, Ren TV, TV-Center, NTV-Plus, RT and RBC. The Russian social networking sites Odnoklassniki and VK (formerly known as VKontakte) will also be hit. These sites are immensely popular in Ukraine where (as Isaac Webb on the Global Voices website reports) Odnoklassniki and VK had 11 million and 27 million users respectively in 2014.

IMI provides a list of the kinds of restrictions the media outlets will face. Briefly, they involve the "blocking of assets, suspension of economic and financial obligations, limitation or termination of the provision of telecommunication services and use of public telecommunication networks."

The sanctions will stay in place for up to three years.

In their statements on the decree, both CPJ and ARTICLE 19 highlight the broader, worsening environment for free expression in Ukraine, pointing specifically to the barring of certain Russian journalists from the country and to an intensification of the crackdown on social media users who express "separatist views."

But there is some question as to how effective the new sanctions will be. IMI's executive director, Oksana Romaniuk, told Human Rights Watch of her doubts regarding the decree's enforceability without specific changes to the law. And on the Global Voices website, Kevin Rothrock reports that Russia is already interfering in the affair: news channel Rossiya-24 has been providing on-air instructions to its viewers on how to circumvent the media ban.

Those IFEX members who issued statements were unanimous in calling for the ban to be lifted immediately.

Nina Ognianova, Central Asia Programme Coordinator at the Committee to Protect Journalists, said: "Attempts to ban Russian media in Ukraine are antidemocratic, are likely to be ineffective, and could easily backfire by making the government appear afraid of allowing citizens to make up their own minds. We call on Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko to reverse this misguided order and to cease interfering with Ukrainian citizens' right to receive information and opinion from a range of sources."

Katie Morris, Head of Europe and Central Asia for ARTICLE 19, said: "The decision to block access to social networking sites is a serious violation of the right to freedom of expression. Website blocking is a severe form of censorship: it catches legitimate content at the same time as content that may be legitimately prohibited. In this case, blanket blocking of some of the most popular sites within Ukraine will inevitably result in unnecessary and unjustifiable restriction on freedom of expression, affecting millions of people within Ukraine."

Tanya Cooper, Ukraine researcher at Human Rights Watch, called for an international response. She said: "This is yet another example of the ease with which President Poroshenko unjustifiably tries to control public discourse in Ukraine. Poroshenko may try to justify this latest step, but it is a cynical, politically expedient attack on the right to information affecting millions of Ukrainians, and their personal and professional lives. In a single move Poroshenko dealt a terrible blow to freedom of expression in Ukraine. It's an inexcusable violation of Ukrainians' right to information of their choice, and the European Union and Ukraine's other international partners should immediately call on Ukraine to reverse it."

Link:
Eastern block: Ukraine bans Russian media and social networking sites - IFEX