Mediaboss Marketing

The claim that college students censor viewpoints with which they disagree is now common. Versions of this claim include the falsehoods that students shut down most invited speakers to campuses, reject challenging ideas and oppose conservative views.

Such cynical distortions dominate discussions of higher education today, misinform the public and threaten both democracy and higher education.

Indeed, politicians in states such as Florida, Texas and Ohio argue that a so-called free speech crisis on college campuses justifies stronger government control over what gets taught in universities.

Since 2020, numerous state legislatures have attempted to censor forms of speech on campuses by citing exaggerations about students and their studies. Passing laws to ban certain kinds of speech or ideas from college campuses is no way to promote true free speech and intellectual diversity. The most common targets of such censorship are programs that discuss race, gender, sexuality and other forms of multiculturalism.

My concerns over public discourse about higher education extend from my book on popular misinformation about universities and why it threatens democracy. In it, I show that many negative perceptions of students and universities rest on factual distortions and exaggerations.

The character of public debates about higher education is important. Millions of Americans rely on a healthy system of university education for professional and personal success. Rampant cynicism about higher education, leading to declines in public support for it, only undermines their pursuits.

Based on my research, I offer alternative ways to frame debates about higher education. They can lead to discussions that are more constructive and accurate while better protecting fundamental American values such as free speech and democracy.

The idea that college students are hostile to opposing viewpoints is false. Pundits and media personalities have promoted this falsehood aggressively. Such figures have benefited, politically or financially, from sensationalism about a college free speech crisis.

In opinion polls, college students typically express stronger support for free speech and diverse viewpoints than other groups. Partisan organizations often cherry-pick that data to make it seem otherwise. But poll results tell only part of the story about college campuses today.

Several thousand institutions make up U.S. higher education. The system includes hundreds of thousands of students from different backgrounds. College campuses are often more demographically and intellectually diverse than surrounding communities.

Judgments about higher education based on sweeping generalizations about college students conflict with the full realities of campus life. A wider range of perspectives, including from students themselves, can enrich debates about university education.

Universities protect free speech more effectively than do other parts of society. They dont do so perfectly, but more effectively.

Universities are major centers for the study of the First Amendment, the free press, human rights, cultural differences, international diplomacy, conflict resolution and more. Many institutions require students to take basic speech and writing courses that enhance their skill in argument and debate.

Manufactured outrage about college students who protest invited speakers fuels sensationalism about free speech on campuses. Despite occasional disruptions over bigoted speakers, universities offer numerous forums for free speech, open debate and intellectual diversity.

Just one large university holds thousands of classes, meetings, performances and other events on a daily basis. People freely express their views and pursue new ideas in those settings. Now multiply that reality by several thousand different institutions.

Debates over free speech in higher education can be improved by acknowledging the many forums in which people speak freely every day.

For the past several years, many state legislatures have promoted the falsehood that universities are hostile to various ideas. The most commonly cited examples are conservative ideas, traditional expressions of patriotism and great works of Western literature.

The notion of hostility to such ideas on college campuses has surfaced in numerous bills that create new forms of state interference in education. Thirty-five pieces of legislation banning diversity, equity and inclusion programs in colleges have been introduced in state legislatures. So far, three of them have been signed into law, while four are pending final legislative approval.

Tenure for faculty members, which protects independent thought, is also under assault in states such as Florida and Texas. Politicians in those states justify ending tenure protections by claiming that professors teach students to censor free speech.

Such rising government interference creates a genuine threat to free speech on college campuses and in society beyond. A historic increase in state censorship, which began with higher education, has spilled over into censorship of materials about race, gender, sexuality and multiculturalism in K-12 schools and public libraries.

Advocacy organizations like the ACLU and the American Association of University Professors have condemned this censorship. So have numerous conservative leaders.

Informed scrutiny of university policies and what faculty members teach is always welcome. But cynical distortions have fueled anti-democratic censorship of universities, not constructive efforts to improve them.

The ability of citizens to exercise academic freedom is not only vital in education. Its also training for democracy.

Academic freedom includes the freedom to attend a university of ones choice. The freedom to learn what one chooses in that university. The freedom of an institution to offer a wide range of subject matters to students. And the freedom to teach or conduct research without political interference.

These freedoms are not reserved for Ivy League universities. U.S. higher education includes state schools and community colleges that serve middle- and working-class communities. Those institutions are the backbone of many professions, from health care and technology to engineering and education.

The quality of public debate over free speech in higher education matters. Government interference with colleges does not punish elites. It rewards deeply cynical views of higher education and restricts a freedom that should be available to all Americans.

Follow this link:
Saying that students embrace censorship on college campuses is incorrect -- here's how to discuss the issue more ... - The Conversation

New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul and eight of their gubernatorial colleagues are urging publishers not to censor their textbooks.

The governors, all Democrats, signed a letter sent to publishers such as Pearson, McGraw Hill and Scholastic last month, raising concerns the companies might be tempted to water down critical information to appeal to the lowest common denominator. They urged publishers to hold the line for our democracy and not censor any material.

The letter comes as several Republican-led states have passed laws restricting texts on race, gender and history in schools. Thats putting pressure on some publishers to alter their texts, including one that initially softened and then removed references to race in the story of Rosa Parks to get approval in Florida, the New York Times reported.

In a tweet announcing the letter, Murphy said, school textbooks should never be censored due to political pressure from governors like [Florida] Gov. Ron DeSantis.

Murphy, who chairs the National Governors Association and the Democratic Governors Association, said he spearheaded the letter because the countrys future and democracy are at stake.

The letter goes on to say states will work closely with their school districts to inform them of which texts have been censored before procuring any books.

The letter was sent to nine publishers and the Association of American Publishers, which represents publishers across the country.

Link:
NY and NJ governors ask textbook publishers not to censor school material - Gothamist

Three days ago, the censoring of a six-second sequence in William Freidkins The French Connection was reported by Hollywood Elsewhere.

The gist of this nixing had to do with Gene Hackmans gritty cop character, Popeye Doyle, uttering the N-word. This was spotted on the Criterion Channel stream of Friedkins 1971 classic.

Well, apparently, the rights holders to the film are none other than Disney. Criterion had nothing to do with the censorship. It is presumed that the sequence was removed by Disney, which bought the films original owner, 20th Century Fox in March of 2019.

So the theory now is that Disney probably went in and censored it, but, you know, for your own good.

Disney routinely apologizes for its past problematic content, theyve even installed warning labels on older films. Hell, theme-park attractions have been cancelled by them. Nothing is out of bounds for the mouse house.

If Disney is the party responsible for vandalizing an American classic to protect adults from a racial slur in a 50-year-old, R-rated movie, then one would presume that they will eventually release a statement about this.

Heres the problem. For all the fan uproar this has caused, no trades have reported it. The fact remains that Disney owns the film and can do whatever the hell they want with it. Do I believe they will get pressured to reinstate the original cut of the film? No.

Why would anyone in the mainstream media actually call blasphemy on the nixing of the N-word, even if it was committed on an American classic?

Far less harmful words have been censored these last few months in classic books. Ian Fleming, Roald Dahl, Agatha Christie and Dr. Seuss have all been revised under the guise of a sensitivity review.

The reactionary times we live in are trying to negate whatever happened in the past. Instead of learning about it, and making sure the same mistakes dont happen again they are just trying to erase history.

My advice is simple: My recommendation to all of you is to buy as much physical media as possible (books, DVDs etc) before an inevitable purging of the classics becomes the norm.

Go here to see the original:
Disney Might Be To Blame for 'The French Connection' Censorship ... - Jordan Ruimy

L.L. Bean has just added a third shift at its factory in Brunswick, Maine, in an attempt to keep up with demand for its iconic boot.

Orders have quadrupled in the past few years as the boots have become more popular among a younger, more urban crowd.

The company says it saw the trend coming and tried to prepare, but orders outpaced projections. They expect to sell 450,000 pairs of boots in 2014.

People hoping to have the boots in time for Christmas are likely going to be disappointed. The bootsare back ordered through February and even March.

"I've been told it's a good problem to have but I"m disappointed that customers not getting what they want as quickly as they want," said Senior Manufacturing Manager Royce Haines.

Customers like, Mary Clifford, tried to order boots on line, but they were back ordered until January.

"I was very surprised this is what they are known for and at Christmas time you can't get them when you need them," said Clifford.

People who do have boots are trying to capitalize on the shortage and are selling them on Ebay at a much higher cost.

L.L. Bean says it has hired dozens of new boot makers, but it takes up to six months to train someone to make a boot.

The company has also spent a million dollars on new equipment to try and keep pace with demand.

Some customers are having luck at the retail stores. They have a separate inventory, and while sizes are limited, those stores have boots on the shelves.

See the original post:
Maryland governor asks textbook publishers to resist censorship - NBC4 Washington

I am rarely in favor of content censorship of any kind, but, like so many parents, I am deeply disturbed by the impact that a rudderless social media is having on our kids, specifically on their health. 

I was reminded about it yet again this week with the sudden run on TikTok of an ancient Chinese herb, berberine, which is found in a barberry, golden seal or even a rhododendron plant. Teens are calling it “nature’s Ozempic,” and promoting it on social media for weight loss, despite that its effect on losing weight is quite small. Don’t get me wrong, berberine does have powerful metabolic effects in terms of lowering blood sugar and cholesterol, but it also impacts the gut and can cause bloating, gas and constipation with unknown long-term effects, which is exactly why a physician should be involved, not self-appointed teen experts on TikTok.

U.S. Surgeon General Dr. Vivek Murthy is right to put out an advisory warning that social media has become a huge risk to the health of our youth, increasing during the social isolation brought on by the pandemic, but present even before. Murthy spoke to me on SiriusXM’s Doctor Radio Reports recently and talked about the negative impact of social media on the self-esteem of children and teens. 

Murthy said viewing thousands of images on social media causes teens to make dangerous comparisons to their own lives and images. He said this content is “driving social comparison at a time of adolescence when young people are going through a critical time of brain development, where they’re more susceptible to peer suggestion, per comparison and peer influence.” 

The idea of vulnerable groups turning to social media for “connectivity” makes sense. Unfortunately, it is a trap, often leading to further stigmatization and cyberbullying. 

A doctor like me can try to help by starting a conversation with parents and kids about social media and emphasizing the need for more personal interaction and media-free zones but it is unclear how much of an impact that will really make. The pull on our youth is strong. The social media culture is highly seductive and growing. Murthy noted that technology companies are “not transparent with the data they have about the health impact of their platforms on our kids,” meaning “we don’t even fully understand how bad some of these harms may be or which kids are most at risk.” 

The surgeon general believes that technology companies can design their platforms in ways that support the health and well-being of our kids. I think this goal is laudable but naïve. Social media sites will find a way to pay lip service to the idea without instituting fundamental change, even in the face of increasing regulations which Murthy is right to suggest. 

TikTok, for example, already has a health and wellness hub, but parading under that banner are many videos that mislead and misinform. I believe they will always find ways to infiltrate the brains of our youth, a backdoor that bypasses critical thinking, as Columbia psychiatrist Dr. Ryan Sultan said to me on Doctor Radio.

Don’t get me wrong, Murthy is absolutely right to compare the need for safety regulation for social media to what we already have in place for car seats or automobiles themselves. As a physician, I don’t think twice about the Food and Drug Administration demanding safety protocols for drug manufacturing and distribution, so why should social media be any different?  

As Murthy said to me, policymakers have “a critical role” to play. They must create standards to protect young people from being exposed to “violence and sexual content,” “harassment and bullying” and “the features on social media that seek to manipulate them into spending more and more and more time” on platforms. 

Again, a laudable goal. There is no doubt that the addictive impact of social media may rob our children of some of life’s key moments. And, for once, I have no problem with the idea of trying to restrict content much as the movie rating system kept me from seeing an X-rated movie when I was a kid. 

But the problem is that these kinds of regulations are no longer effective, as social media sites (and teens) will easily find ways around them. Still, every parent with a developing child in this country shares the surgeon general’s concern and we must force action, even if we know that action will have limited impact.

Marc Siegel, MD, is a professor of medicine and medical director of Doctor Radio at NYU Langone Health. He is a Fox News medical correspondent and author of the new book, “COVID; the Politics of Fear and the Power of Science.”

Here is the original post:
Should the government censor social media for kids? - The Hill