Mediaboss Marketing

CNNhas long been criticized by media analysts and journalists for its deference to the Israeli government and the Israel Defense Forces in its coverage of the occupied Palestinian territories, and the cable network admitted Thursday that it follows a protocol that could give Israeli censors influence over its stories.

A spokesperson for the networkconfirmedtoThe Interceptthat its news coverage about Israel and Palestine is run through and reviewed by theCNNJerusalem bureauwhich is subject to the IDF's censor.

The censor restricts foreign news outlets from reporting on certain subjects of its choosing and outright censors articles or news segments if they don't meet its guidelines.

Other news organizations often avoid the censor by reporting certain stories about the region through their news desks outside of Israel,The Interceptreported.

"The policy of running stories about Israel or the Palestinians past the Jerusalem bureau has been in place for years," the spokesperson told the outlet. "It is simply down to the fact that there are many unique and complex local nuances that warrant extra scrutiny to make sure our reporting is as precise and accurate as possible."

The spokesperson added thatCNNdoes not share news copy with the censor and called the network's interactions with the IDF "minimal."

But James Zogby, founder of the Arab American Institute, said the IDF's approach to censoring media outlets is "Israel's way of intimidating and controlling news."

ACNNstaffer who spoke toThe Intercepton condition of anonymity confirmed that the network's longtime relationship with the censor has ensuredCNN'scoverageof Israel's bombardment of Gaza and attacks in the West Bank since October 7 favors Israel's narratives.

"Every single Israel-Palestine-related line for reporting must seek approval from the [Jerusalem] bureauor, when the bureau is not staffed, from a select few handpicked by the bureau and senior managementfrom which lines are most often edited with a very specific nuance," the staffer said.

Jerusalem bureau chief Richard Greene announced it had expanded its review team to include editors outside of Israel, calling the new policy "Jerusalem SecondEyes." The expanded review process was ostensibly put in place to bring "more expert eyes" toCNN's reporting particularly when the Jerusalem news desk is not staffed.

In practice, the staff member toldThe Intercept, "'War-crime' and 'genocide' are taboo words. Israeli bombings in Gaza will be reported as 'blasts' attributed to nobody, until the Israeli military weighs in to either accept or deny responsibility. Quotes and information provided by Israeli army and government officials tend to be approved quickly, while those from Palestinians tend to be heavily scrutinized and slowly processed."

Meanwhile, reporters are under intensifying pressure to question anything they learn from Palestinian sources, including casualty statistics from the Palestinian Ministry of Health.

The Ministry of Health is run by Hamas, which controls Gaza's government. The United Nations agency for Palestinian refugeessaidin October, as U.S. President Joe Biden waspublicly questioningthe accuracy of the ministry's reporting on deaths and injuries, that its casualty statistics have "proven consistently credible in the past."

Despite this,CNN's senior director of news standards and practices, David Lindsey, told journalists in a November 2 memo that "Hamas representatives are engaging in inflammatory rhetoric and propaganda... We should be careful not to give it a platform."

Another email sent in October suggested that the network aimed to present the Ministry of Health's casualty figures as questionable, with the News Standards and Practices division telling staffers, "Hamas controls the government in Gaza and we should describe the Ministry of Health as 'Hamas-controlled' whenever we are referring to casualty statistics or other claims related to the present conflict."

Newsroom employees were advised to "remind our audiences of the immediate cause of this current conflict, namely the Hamas attack and mass murder and kidnap of Israeli civilians" on October 7.

At least 22,600 people have beenconfirmed killedin Gaza and 57,910 have been wounded in Israeli attacks on Gaza since October 7. Thousands more are feared dead under the rubble left behind by airstrikes. In Israel, the death toll from Hamas' attack stands at 1,139.

Jim Naureckas, editor of the watchdog group Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting,notedthat the Israeli government is controlling journalists' reporting on Gaza as it's been "credibly accused of singling out journalists for violent attacks in order to suppress information."

"To give that government a heightened role in deciding what is news and what isn't news is really disturbing," he toldThe Intercept.

Meanwhile,pointed outauthor and academic Sunny Singh, even outsideCNN, "every bit of reporting on Gaza in Western media outlets has been given unmerited weight which not granted to Palestinian reporters."

"Western medianot justCNNhas been pushing Israeli propaganda all through" Israel's attacks, said Singh.

Read more here:
CNN admits it runs all Gaza coverage through bureau monitored by Israeli military censor - Salon

Jeffrey Wright has garnered Oscar buzz with his riveting performance in the highly acclaimed film American Fiction. But the road to his success was a strenuous one, as he recalled some of the struggles he overcame while promoting the film with co-stars Tracee Ellis Ross, Sterling K. Brown, and Erika Alexander.

During the roundtable discussion with Entertainment Weeklys Around the Table, Wright revealed how producers replaced his voice on a project despite his protest.

I did a movie called Ride with the Devil, and it was a film about the Civil War where I was playing a freedman, or actually a former slave working to free himself, but doing that on the side of the Confederacy, based on historical figures, Wright said. This took place in the Kansas-Missouri Border War, outside of the regular army.

"In this scene in which he has this, kind of the apex of his awakening and his need to emancipate himself, he says, 'Being that man's friend was no more than being his n-----. And I will never again be anyone's n-----,'' Wright continued. "And it's such a self-empowering statement and understanding of the word."

The studios that produced the film (based on the novel Woe to Live On by Daniel Woodrell) eventually revealed that the decision to censor Wright was hatched by a marketing plan for the project. It was determined that the use of the N-word internationally would be a bit risky for their target audiences.

The movie was distributed by USA Films and co-produced by Universal Studios and Good Machine Productions and according to Wright, they believed the film would be a little more palatable for whoever their target audience is in Iowa, or wherever, at least in their mind if the N-word was redacted.

Sticking to his guns, Wright refused to delete the N-word in this instance just to make certain audiences feel more comfortable, despite the horrific reality of slavery and the use and legacy of the word.

Then they had me come do the airplane version of dialogue. There were a few curse words and this and that, and then with the word n***** they said: Wed like to change that to negro, or whatever the choice was. And I said, Nah. Thats not happening, Wright said

I headed out the door to my car. And they found some other actor to come in and do that one word, apparently, so that the airplane folk would be comfy in the darkness of their own ignorance around the language of race. It was so crazy, he explained.

More than 25 years later, Wright is able to tackle issues of race head-on in American Fiction, but in a completely different way. In the film, Wright plays Thelonious "Monk" Ellison, a frustrated writer who authors a stereotypical novel as a joke that goes on to be more popular than he ever could have imagined.

American Fiction is currently playing in theaters across the country.

Read more:
Jeffrey Wright Was Dubbed By Another Actor After Refusing to Censor His Use of the N-Word - BET

Pro-Palestinian and pro-Israeli supporters converge at a demonstration of New York University students in November. Andrew Lichtenstein/Corbis via Getty Images hide caption

Pro-Palestinian and pro-Israeli supporters converge at a demonstration of New York University students in November.

The conflict between Israel and Hamas is testing the limits of free speech across college campuses. And it's also affecting those who study the Middle East.

Who are they? They are the scholars who research and teach about the Middle East on college campuses in the U.S.

What did it find? Notably, it found that a clear majority of U.S.-based scholars (69%) didn't just feel the need to self-censor when speaking about the Middle East in general, but specifically in academic and professional settings.

Want to learn more on this conflict? Listen to Consider This on whether Biden's unconditional support of Israel is nearing its limit.

Members of Columbia University's faculty hold a protest in support of free speech on the Columbia University campus in November. Spencer Platt/Getty Images hide caption

What are people saying? The poll was conducted by Shibley Telhami a professor of government and politics and the director of the University of Maryland Critical Issues Poll and Marc Lynch a professor of political science and international affairs at George Washington University.

Telhami spoke to All Things Considered host Ari Shapiro about the findings and how the academic climate has shifted.

On the motivations for scholars choosing to self-censor:

The key is that most of it was actually fear rather than sensitivity. And so that was fascinating.

There are many who self-censor because they got advice from senior colleagues or from administrators not to say anything that might be interpreted offensively by people, and it wouldn't be good for their careers, particularly assistant professors and graduate students.

So that's not exactly self-censorship because you're sensitive. It's more about worried about the consequences. We had a lot of colleagues who said they were not invited when the university held events on their very issue of expertise because they were worried that their views may not conform to what is needed on campus.

There were some who were told by administrators to watch out what they say publicly. So we were struck by the kind of atmosphere that a lot of our colleagues across U.S. campuses faced on this issue, much more than I would have expected.

On how it is playing out:

I think the universities are facing different pressures. One of the pressures, obviously, we do have real, genuine increases in antisemitism, Islamophobia, anti-Palestinian, anti-Israeli sentiment.

And universities have to manage all that, and make sure that all their people feel safe. A lot of it is genuine there's nothing un-genuine about it it has to be taken seriously.

But there are a lot of groups that act disproportionately on some of the issues. And undoubtedly a lot of the scholars who follow the issue feel that the public space does not conform to their own professional interpretations of Israel-Palestine. So they're concerned about criticizing Israel publicly.

On the importance of gauging the experiences of scholars:

When you explain violence, you are not embracing violence. This is something that we as social scientists all, of course, understand. We never have to repeat to ourselves.

But society around us does not get it all the time because they think you're taking side when you're explaining why things happen. But if you don't explain why things happen, you're going to repeat the same mistake over and over and over again.

Learn more:

The interview with Shibley Telhami was conducted by Ari Shapiro, produced by Karen Zamora and edited by Tinbete Ermyas.

See the rest here:
Why Middle East scholars are self-censoring in the wake of the Israel-Hamas war - NPR

Robert Mapplethorpe was one of the most famous photographers in the worldand one of the most controversial. When his work came to Cincinnati in 1990, it would be at the center of a vicious fight over obscenity and the First Amendment, one that threatened the future of art in America.

This episode of One Year was written by Evan Chung, One Years senior producer. It was produced by Kelly Jones and Evan Chung, with additional production by Olivia Briley.

It was edited by Josh Levin, One Years editorial director, with Joel Meyer and Derek John, Slates executive producer of narrative podcasts. Merritt Jacob is our senior technical director.

JoinSlate Plusto get a special behind-the-scenes conversation at the end of our season about how we put together our 1990 stories. Slate Plus members also get to listen to all Slate podcasts without any ads.

Sources for This Episode

Books

Bolton, Richard. Culture Wars: Documents from the Recent Controversies in the Arts, New Press, 1992.

Carr, C. On Edge: Performance at the End of the Twentieth Century, Wesleyan University Press, 2008.

De Grazia, Edward. Girls Lean Back Everywhere: The Law of Obscenity and the Assault on Genius, Vintage, 1993.

Marshall, Richard. Robert Mapplethorpe, Whitney Museum of Art, 1988.

Meyer, Richard. Outlaw Representation: Censorship and Homosexuality in Twentieth-Century American Art, Oxford University Press, 2002.

Smith, Patti. Just Kids, Ecco, 2010.

Articles

Adams, Henry. Thirty Years After The Perfect Moment, CAN Journal, November 2020.

Adler, Amy. The Shifting Law of Sexual Speech: Rethinking Robert Mapplethorpe, University of Chicago Legal Forum, December 2020.

Andry, Al. Arts Case Strategy Perplexes Experts, Cincinnati Post, Oct. 3, 1990.

Andry, Al. Police Will Review Mapplethorpe, Cincinnati Post, March 23, 1990.

Anti-Mapplethorpe Strategy Began at March 7 Meeting, Cincinnati Post, March 28, 1990.

Barrie, Dennis. The Scene of the Crime, Art Journal, Autumn 1991.

Batson, Larry. Cincinnati Museum Still Under Siege From Keep-It-Clean Forces, Star Tribune, June 17, 1990.

Bermudez, Frederick. CAC Supporters to Face Charges, Cincinnati Enquirer, Sept. 25, 1990.

Bolton, Douglas and Sharon Moloney. Will Art Fury Hurt the City?, Cincinnati Post, March 30, 1990.

Burns, Michael. Cincinnati: Anti-Porn Capital, UPI, Oct. 19, 1986.

Dunne, Dominick. Robert Mapplethorpes Proud Finale, Vanity Fair, February 1989.

Cembalest, Robin. The Obscenity Trial: How They Voted to Acquit, ARTnews, December 1990.

City of the Year: Cincinnati, Sports Illustrated, Dec. 31, 1990.

Dennis, Debra. Art Critic Goes to Bat for Photos in Court, Cincinnati Post, Oct. 3, 1990.

Dennis, Debra. Photo Show Verdict: Not Guilty, Cincinnati Post, Oct. 6, 1990.

Dobush, Grace. 25 Years Later: Cincinnati and the Obscenity Trial Over Mapplethorpe Art, Washington Post, Oct. 24, 2015.

Faherty, John and Carol Motsinger. Pornography or Art? Cincinnati Decided, Cincinnati Enquirer, March 28, 2015.

Findsen, Owen. Controversy Brought Crowds, Cincinnati Enquirer, May 26, 1990.

Findsen, Owen. Group Wants Center to Cancel Photo Show, Cincinnati Enquirer, March 21, 1990.

Findsen, Owen. Museum Chief Prepares for Mapplethorpe, Cincinnati Enquirer, Feb. 13, 1990.

Findsen, Owen. Perfect Moments Time Arrives, Cincinnati Enquirer, April 6, 1990.

Findsen, Owen. Police to View Mapplethorpe Exhibit, Cincinnati Enquirer, March 24, 1990.

Findsen, Owen. Ruling that CAC Is Not a Museum Jolts Art World, Cincinnati Enquirer, June 21, 1990.

Fox, John. Then and Now: Mapplethorpe CAC, Cincinnati CityBeat, March 30, 2000.

Gamarekian, Barbara. Mapplethorpe Backers Picket the Corcoran and Plan New Shows, New York Times, June 17, 1989.

Glueck, Grace. Publicity Is Enriching Mapplethorpe Estate, New York Times, April 6, 1990.

Grundberg, Andy. The Allure of Mapplethorpes Photographs, New York Times, July 31, 1988.

Harrison, Eric. Sides Square Off for Mapplethorpe Photo Trial, Los Angeles Times, Sept. 23, 1990.

Hartigan, Patti. The Picture of Innocence, Boston Globe, Aug. 3, 1990.

Honan, William H. Congressional Anger Threatens Arts Endowments Budget, New York Times, June 20, 1989.

Horn, Dan. Post Poll: 59% Say Let Show Go On, Cincinnati Post, April 13, 1990.

Kastor, Elizabeth. Funding Art That Offends, Washington Post, June 7, 1989.

Kaufman, Ben L. Judge Refuses to Dismiss Indictments, Cincinnati Enquirer, June 20, 1990.

Kaufman, Ben L. Judge to Police: Keep Hands Off Exhibit, Cincinnati Enquirer, April 9, 1990.

Lobb, Monty, Jr. The Side of Virtue and Dignity, Cincinnati Enquirer, March 30, 1990.

Mapplethorpe: One Year Later, Cincinnati Enquirer, April 6, 1991.

Masters, Kim. Art Gallery Not Guilty of Obscenity, Washington Post, Oct. 6, 1990.

Masters, Kim. Defense Rests in Mapplethorpe Art Trial, Washington Post, Oct. 4, 1990.

Masters, Kim. Jurors View Photos of Children, Washington Post, Oct. 3, 1990.

McLeod, Douglas M. and Jill A. MacKenzie. Print Media and Public Reaction to the Controversy Over NEA Funding for Robert Mapplethorpes The Perfect Moment Exhibit, Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, June 1998.

Merrill, Elizabeth M. Zaha Hadids Center for Contemporary Art and the Perils of New Museum Architecture, Criticism, 2019.

Mezibov, Marc. The Mapplethorpe Obscenity Trial, Litigation, Summer 1992.

Moloney, Sharon. As Show Leaves, Debate Rages On, Cincinnati Post, May 26, 1990.

Moloney, Sharon. Perfect Image Clashes with Citys, Foes Say, Cincinnati Post, March 29, 1990.

Moloney, Sharon and Al Salvato. Police View Mapplethorpe, Cincinnati Post, April 2, 1990.

Moore, Kevin. Whipping Up a Storm: How Robert Mapplethorpe Shocked America, the Guardian, Nov. 17, 2015.

Moores, Lew. Photos Condone Behavior, Witness Says, Cincinnati Enquirer, Oct. 5, 1990.

ONeill, Cliff. The Mapplethorpe Mess, OutWeek, July 3, 1989.

Palmer, Alex. When Art Fought the Law and the Art Won, Smithsonian Magazine, Oct. 2, 2015.

Prendergast, Jane. 4,000 Pack Photo Exhibit, Cincinnati Enquirer, April 7, 1990.

Prendergast, Jane. Arts Center, Director Indicted, Cincinnati Enquirer, April 8, 1990.

Prendergast, Jane. Funding Given Up by CAC, Cincinnati Enquirer, March 26, 1990.

Siebert, Mark and Lew Moores. Lewd, But Art, Jurors Say, Cincinnati Enquirer, Oct. 7, 1990.

Sischy, Ingrid. White and Black, the New Yorker, Nov. 5, 1989.

Span, Paula. The Childrens Portraits: Innocence or Pornography?, Washington Post, May 3, 1990.

Stein, Jerry. High Noon for Mapplethorpe Show, Cincinnati Post, April 6, 1990.

Sturmon, Sarah and Sharon Moloney. Mapplethorpe Suit Jolts City, County, Cincinnati Post, March 29, 1990.

Uzelac, Ellen. Mapplethorpe Trial Puts Cincinnati on Art MapBut Town Talks About Baseball, Baltimore Sun, Sept. 27, 1990.

Vaccariello, Linda. A Lion in Winter, Cincinnati Magazine, February 1997.

Vester, John W., William J. Gerhardt, and Mark Snyder. Mapplethorpe in Cincinnati, Cincinnati Enquirer, March 24, 1990.

Wilkerson, Isabel. Cincinnati Art Gallery and Director to Stand Trial, New York Times, June 20, 1990.

Wilkerson, Isabel. When a Crusade Is a Career, New York Times, April 14, 1990.

Audiovisual

Damned in the U.S.A, dir. Paul Yule, 1993.

Perversion for Profit, Citizens for Decent Literature, 1963.

Robert Mapplethorpe, dir. Nigel Finch, Arena, BBC, 1988.

Footage of the visitor reactions at the Contemporary Arts Center on April 8, 1990 was filmed by Bart Everson and Michael Northam.

Excerpt from:
Robert Mapplethorpe and Cincinnati: The Perfect Moment and the fight over censorship and obscenity. - Slate

From PEN America:

In a cumulative data summary released today, PEN America reflects on the nearly 6,000 book bans in public schools documented from July 2021 to June 2023. Spineless Shelves: Two Years of Book Banning illustrates the spread of copycat book bans and an apparent Scarlet Letter effect, where several works from an authors catalog were subsequently targeted after at least one of their works was banned.

Over the 2021-22 and 2022-23 school years, the sweeping attack on the freedom to read in public schools impacted 247 school districts across 41 states, affecting millions of students, the century-old free expression and literary group said. The data summary pulls together data from PEN Americas July 2021 to June 2023 School Book Ban Indexes for the first time and provides new insight into the movement to censor books nationwide.

[Clip]

In the new data summary, PEN America reflects on two phenomena: copycat bans and a Scarlet Letter effect.

Books that are banned in one district are frequently banned in others, with such copycat bans proliferating in school districts across state lines. A useful example is the work of Sarah J. Maas. In the 2021-2022 school year, her work was banned 18 times across 10 districts; but in 2022-23, that exploded to 158 bans across 36 districts a 778% increase. As PEN America explored in Banned in the USA: The Growing Movement to Censor Books in Schools, groups pushing for book bans frequently share lists of titles to target, which has inflamed this copycat effect.

Several authors have also experienced a Scarlet Letter effect, where several works from their collection were subsequently targeted after at least one of their works was banned. This is again illustrated by author Sarah J. Maas. In the 2021-2022 school year, eight of her titles were banned. This doubled to sixteen titles in 2022-23. A similar effect has impacted bestselling authors Ellen Hopkins, Jodi Picoult, Alice Oseman, Laurie Halse Anderson, and Rupi Kaur, among others, all of whom saw more of their catalogs scrutinized after one of their works was initially targeted for banning.

[Clip]

From July 2021 to June 2023, PEN Americas Index of School Book Bans recorded 5,894 instances of book bans. Florida and Texas lead the country in number of bans, but the crisis has spread to 41 states. A significant increase in the number of books banned from both school libraries and classrooms indicates not only an increase in the number of books banned, but that more of the bans are being enacted as permanent removals.

[Clip]

PEN America defines a school book ban as any action taken against a book based on its content and as a result of parent or community challenges, administrative decisions, or in response to direct or threatened action by lawmakers or other governmental officials, that leads to a previously accessible book being either completely removed from availability to students, or where access to a book is restricted or diminished.

Direct to Complete News Release

Direct to Full Text Report: Spineless Shelves: Two Years of Book Banning

Filed under: Data Files, Libraries, News, School Libraries

Read more from the original source:
New Report From PEN America: Two Years of Book Banning: Cumulative Data Set and Censorship Trends - LJ INFOdocket