Mediaboss Marketing

In my earlier Times Argus commentary July 27, I criticized Publisher Steve Pappas for holding back on publishing many articles from the New York Post in October 2020, which exposed salacious and incriminating information found on Hunter Bidens laptop (clearly implicating President Joe Bidens deep corruption). This story was buried yet, for almost more than the five years prior to that, Publisher Pappas chose to publish numerous AP stories incriminating Donald Trump. These stories were all leaked sources from the DOJ, FBI (incidentally, which is a crime), and from people not authorized to speak to the press and those who demanded anonymity. But the press ran with those leaked stories and continued the narrative Donald Trump was a Russian agent. We got him this time. Where did those years of incriminating, false stories end up? We read little about that in the Times Argus. After all, the mainstream media did not want to admit they were wrong.

Why was that? In my opinion, the government was never able to convict Trump after all the years of Russia, Russia, Russia because there was not enough proof (worthy of impeachment and indictment) and the media could never admit to their loyal readers they got this story so wrong. After all, losing credibility from your readers could have serious consequences for their financial viability.

So where are we now with the raid on Mar-a-Lago? Agree with Donald Trump or have a visceral hatred, we are now in a very similar media frenzy with this event even before anyone really knows the facts. Sound familiar? It is apparent the Department of Justice and Merrick Garland (by extension) are feeding information to the media and by doing so, are creating provocations which all are going to have the effect of damaging an already wounded DOJ and trust in the FBI. Perhaps, more importantly, American opinion of equal justice under the law will continue to erode. If you dont believe this, read all persuasions.

This DOJ behavior is questionable and the legal basis for raiding a past presidents home remains to be determined. Lets wait and see. We currently have a sewer of leaks without regard to fairness and are only two weeks into this event. Our government currently feels emboldened they can control the narrative through leaks to the media. They have obviously leaked information to the Washington Post and New York Times, a reminder of how they approached the Russia hoax: same game plan, drip, drip, drip. Intelligent, aware American citizens (and Times Argus readers) should understand this with open minds and eyes wide open. Failure to do so make haters giddy but, remember, what goes around, comes around.

Interestingly, Dave Gram (worked in Vermont journalism for 35 years) excoriated me in his Aug. 2 commentary by saying I was wrong for criticizing Publisher Pappas and said Newspaper investigations often take years to develop into publishable stories.

How is it, Gram, that Publisher Pappas can print an AP story about the Mar-a-Lago raid less than two weeks after it happened and at the end of this -page story, which said after prosecutors interviewed another witness who told them that there were likely additional classified documents still stored at Mar-a-Lago, the person said. The person was not authorized to discuss the matter publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity.

Dave Spaulding lives in Montpelier.

Go here to see the original:
Spaulding: Censorship at the top? | Commentary | rutlandherald.com - Rutland Herald

The alternative union movement, the Australian Medical Professionals Society (AMPS), will be organising one of the largest formal conferences to discuss the consequences of the lockdown policies on the medical profession in the country.

AMPS is part of Red Union, an umbrella organisation for several newly established trade unions servicing teachers, nurses, police officers, and doctors. Red Union was founded in response to the actions of traditional union groups during the pandemic, who mostly cooperated with state-backed vaccine mandates.

The Reclaiming Medicine conference on Sept. 10, 2022, at theAmora Hotel Riverwalk in Melbourne will feature notable speakers, including author Naomi Wolf, who wrote The Bodies of Others: The New Authoritarians, COVID-19 and the War Against the Human, and Amy Kelly, program director for the War Room/DailyClout Pfizer Documents Analysis Project.

Local experts will also be speaking, including economist Gigi Foster, who will present her cost-benefit analysis of lockdown policies, and Dr. Pierre Kory, the worlds foremost expert on using ultrasound to diagnose critically ill patients and is alsothe former chief of the Critical Care Service and Trauma and Life Support Center at the University of Wisconsin.

AMPS believes the current range of medical, medicolegal and medico-political issues brought about by the pandemic requires a greater breadth of discussion, the organisers said on its website, adding that many medical professionals felt silenced during the pandemic and were forced into abiding by the official narrative around COVID-19.

In the name of medicine, and towards maintaining a uniform official narrative, we saw unprecedented censorship of scientific debate and respectful discourse from social media providers.

In the name of medicine, medical journals published articles stating that questioning a viable hypothesis was a conspiracy theory, the group said.

AMPS said the conference would be one of the first to deal with these issues publicly.

Australian authorities have been strict in enforcing compliance around following COVID-19-related science.

TheAustralian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA) is the countrys peak accreditation body for health practitioners, which works with 15 other government bodies (National Boards) responsible for professions such as nurses or pharmacists.

AHPRA has taken steps to warn and suspend medical practitioners who have taken a public stance (even via social media posts) that criticised lockdown policies and the efficacy of vaccines.

Lawyer Peter Fam, who will also appear at the Reclaiming Medicine conference, said he had spoken with hundreds of doctors who were very terrified of contradicting the official COVID-19 narrative.

Generally speaking, theres only a couple of them who are willing to publicly share any of the things they share in those spaces, the Sydney-based lawyer previously told The Epoch Times.

Learn more about Reclaiming Medicineathttps://cis.eventsair.com/amps-conference-2022

Follow

Daniel Y. Teng is based in Sydney. He focuses on national affairs including federal politics, COVID-19 response, and Australia-China relations. Got a tip? Contact him at daniel.teng@epochtimes.com.au.

Read the rest here:
'Reclaiming Medicine': Alternative Doctors' Union to Host Conference on COVID-19 Censorship - The Epoch Times

The National Coalition Against Censorship (NCAC) has written to the Madison County School Board in Ridgeland, Mississippi, regarding recent restrictions on 10 books, requiring students to obtain parental permission in order to read them.

The 10 books in question address race-related or LQBTQ+ themes, and we are concerned that the district may have unconstitutionally targeted these books for the political views they express.

We understand that school districts can be subject to heavy pressure to censor books, which is why it is vital to have strong book challenge procedures. The district should strive to address the concerns of parents by explaining the pedagogical purposes of the library and instructional materials chosen by qualified education professionals, rather than by simply labeling them as supposedly problematic.

NCAC strongly urges the district to reconsider this policy and to adopt alternatives which do not endanger the rights of students to read and learn.

Please read our full letter to the Board here:

More here:
Madison, Mississippi, School District Restricts Books on Race and LGBTQ+ Themes - Blogging Censorship

Censored

'Bleep, bleep, bleep.' What's going on? Is this a lesson on profanity? No - that right there is the sound of censorship, or the suppression of information. Censorship can take many forms, from burning books to restricting what information is available on the Internet for the citizens of an entire country. At its most basic, it's all about the control of information. Whoever owns the access to information can decide what people learn and what they do not. This can be governments, private companies, mass media - any group that in some way controls access to information.

But why? Well, a government or a private company may not want people finding out too much about their policies because the result could be a rebellion. Knowledge can be power. But can censorship be a good thing, too? Well, let's take a look, and then you can decide for yourself. We promise not to censor you.

In general, there are four major types of censorship: withholding information, destroying information, altering or using selective information and self-censorship.

Withholding information is a common form of censorship used by many governments throughout history. For many years, the United States government heavily censored information that came out of war zones because the government did not want citizens to turn against the war. The less citizens saw of the war, the more likely they were to believe it was a good thing.

Another common one is the destruction of information, like the book burnings used by the Nazis to physically eliminate information that went against their ideas. The act of trying to erase someone from history has a long precedent as well; ancient Egyptian pharaohs were known to destroy any records of rival pharaohs, even to the point of making their names illegal.

What else? Oh yeah, altering information is a good one. The former dictator of the USSR, Josef Stalin, was known to have photographs altered to remove images of people whom he had executed.

More commonly, altering information comes back to education, rewriting textbooks so that history only shows what you want it to. For many years, American history textbooks ignored the atrocities committed against Native American communities, and Japanese textbooks used to gloss over their brutal invasion of China during WWII.

And of course, there is also self-censorship, when people monitor themselves and stop themselves from giving the entire truth. There are many reasons for this. Perhaps you are afraid that the government will kidnap you for speaking against them, or perhaps you are afraid that you will be fired because a viewpoint is not supported by your employer. Encouraging self-censorship is one of the most effective ways for those in power to keep information quiet.

Regardless of how it's achieved, all censorship is seen as justified by somebody. Political censorship, for example, is used by governments to control the image of the state. For example, during the Cold War, the USSR needed the areas under their control to believe that they were winning and that life in communist Eastern Europe was better than life in the United States or capitalist Western Europe. So, the USSR carefully monitored writers, newspaper editors, television programs and other sources of information to ensure that only positive aspects of communism were depicted, along with the negative aspects of capitalism.

Another frequent source of censorship across history is religious censorship, where information is forbidden because it goes against religious ideas. One famous example of this was the trial and imprisonment of Galileo in 1633 for proposing that the Earth revolved around the Sun, which at the time was seen as heresy.

So, people in power who are afraid of the truth obviously like censorship. That means it must be pretty bad, right? Actually, many forms of censorship are not only accepted but embraced. For example, information regarding national security and military defense are often censored from the public. Many argue that if information on the movements of the United States military, for example, were made public, that an enemy would have an advantage and could launch brutal attacks.

And then there's moral censorship. The vast majority of TV networks are not permitted to show excessive violence or nudity, but it's not because somebody's trying to hide the truth from you, it's because somebody is trying to prevent kids from being exposed to things that kids shouldn't see. And then there are issues like child pornography, which we've decided is so immoral that it's actually illegal. Is it wrong of the government or mass media to censor child pornography? These are areas where censorship becomes a fine line where we, as a community, allow information to be suppressed for a sense of greater good.

Now, for some, the Internet is seen as something that should be unlimited, unrestrained and completely uncensored. It is the ultimate portal for sharing information, and we've seen how powerful that can be. The Arab Spring, a series of revolutions in the Arabic-speaking world that toppled entire governments, was sparked by social media. But again, where do we draw the line? Are racism, violence and hate suddenly acceptable just because they are on the Internet? Sometimes we decide that we need more access to information, and sometimes we decide that we need just a few more 'bleeps.'

Censorship is defined as the 'bleep, bleep, bleep, bleep, bleep.' Actually, that's just censorship in action. The suppression of information is something that has occurred throughout most of human history in some form or another. Censorship has been used to protect military secrets, hide truth from people to keep them oppressed, prevent ideas that contradicted accepted religious or scientific ideas or even preserve common morals. Censorship can be imposed by someone in power, or it can be a personal choice. A lot of censorship is seen as oppressive, but most societies agree on some level of censorship against immoral and illegal ideas. So, where's the line? 'Bleep.'

When you are finished, you should be able to:

See the rest here:
Censorship History, Types & Examples - Study.com

Assessment | Biopsychology | Comparative |Cognitive | Developmental | Language | Individual differences |Personality | Philosophy | Social |Methods | Statistics |Clinical | Educational | Industrial |Professional items |World psychology |

Social psychology:Altruism Attribution Attitudes Conformity Discrimination Groups Interpersonal relations Obedience Prejudice Norms Perception Index Outline

This article needs rewriting to enhance its relevance to psychologists..Please help to improve this page yourself if you can..

Censorship is the suppression or deletion of material, which may be considered objectionable, harmful or sensitive, as determined by a censor.

Typically censorship is done by governments, religious and secular groups, corporations, or the mass media, although other forms of censorship exist. The withholding of classified information, commercial secrets, intellectual property, and privileged lawyer-client communication is not usually described as censorship within the censoring community, though can be by outside observers. The term "censorship" often carries with it a sense of untoward, inappropriate or repressive secrecy.

Censorship is closely related to the concept of freedom of speech. It is often associated with human rights abuse, dictatorship, and repression.

The term "censorship" is often used as a pejorative term to signify a belief that a group controlling certain information is using this control improperly or for its own benefit, or preventing others from accessing information that should be made readily accessible (often so that conclusions drawn can be verified).

Confiscation of a forbidden book (poetry by Sergei Yesenin) in Gulag. Painting by Nikolai Getman, provided by The Jamestown Foundation.

The rationale for censorship is different for various types of data censored. Censorship is defined as the act or practice of removing obscene, vulgar, and highly objectionable material from things we encounter every day. Whether it is on TV, in music, books, or on the Internet censorship is an inescapable part of our lives. There are five main types of censorship:

A National Geographic Magazine censored by Iranian authorities. The offending cover was about the subject of love, and the picture hidden beneath the white sticker is of an embracing couple.[1] February 2006.

The Rhodesia Herald of September 21, 1966.

Wieczr Wrocawia" - Daily newspaper of Wrocaw, People's Republic of Poland, March 20-21-21, 1981, with censor intervention on first and last pages --- under the headlines "Co zdarzyo si w Bydgoszczy?" (What happened in Bydgoszcz?) and "Pogotowie strajkowe w caym kraju" (Country-wide strike alert). The censor had removed a section regarding the strike alert; hence the workers in the printing house blanked out an official propaganda section. The right-hand page also includes a hand-written confirmation of that decision by the local "Solidarno" Trade Union.

In wartime, explicit censorship is carried out with the intent of preventing the release of information that might be useful to an enemy. Typically it involves keeping times or locations secret, or delaying the release of information (e.g., an operational objective) until it is of no possible use to enemy forces. The moral issues here are often seen as somewhat different, as release of tactical information usually presents a greater risk of casualties among one's own forces and could possibly lead to loss of the overall conflict. During World War I letters written by British soldiers would have to go through censorship. This consisted of officers going through letters with a black marker and crossing out anything which might compromise operational secrecy before the letter was sent. The World War II catchphrase "Loose lips sink ships" was used as a common justification to exercise official wartime censorship and encourage individual restraint when sharing potentially sensitive information.

An example of sanitization policies comes from the USSR under Joseph Stalin, where publicly used photographs were often altered to remove people whom Stalin had condemned to execution. Though past photographs may have been remembered or kept, this deliberate and systematic alteration to all of history in the public mind is seen as one of the central themes of Stalinism and totalitarianism.

The content of school textbooks is often the issue of debate, since their target audience is young people, and the term "whitewashing" is the one commonly used to refer to selective removal of critical or damaging evidence or comment. The reporting of military atrocities in history is extremely controversial, as in the case of the Nanking Massacre, the Holocaust (or Holocaust denial), and the Winter Soldier Investigation of the Vietnam War. The representation of every society's flaws or misconduct is typically downplayed in favor of a more nationalist, favorable or patriotic view.

Religious groups have at times attempted to block the teaching of evolution in publicly-funded schools as it contradicts their religious beliefs or have argued that they are being censored if not allowed to teach creationism. The teaching of sexual education in school and the inclusion of information about sexual health and contraceptive practices in school textbooks is another area where suppression of information occurs.

In the context of secondary-school education, the way facts and history are presented greatly influences the interpretation of contemporary thought, opinion and socialization. One argument for censoring the type of information disseminated is based on the inappropriate quality of such material for the young. The use of the "inappropriate" distinction is in itself controversial, as it can lead to a slippery slope enforcing wider and more politically-motivated censorship. Some artists such as Frank Zappa helped in the protest against censorship. Although they usually failed, they did put up an argument against the censorship of other material.

An example of such censorship is, ironically, Fahrenheit 451. The book was themed against censorship, but changed heavily. A Ballantine Books version which is the version used by most school classes[2] contained approximately 75 separate edits, omissions, and changes from the original Bradbury manuscript.[clarify]

[How to reference and link to summary or text]

Scientific studies may be suppressed or falsified because they undermine sponsors' commercial, political or other interests or because they fail to support researchers' ideological goals. Examples include, failing to publish a study which shows that a new drug is harmful, or truthfully publishing the benefits of a treatment while failing to describe harmful side-effects. Scientific research may also be suppressed or altered to support a political agenda. In the United States some government scientists, including NASA climatologist Drew Shindell, have reported governmental pressure to alter their statements regarding climate change.[3]

In Victorian England, portrayal of public officials, among other things, was forbidden. The Lord Chamberlain, an official responsible for censoring plays, created a scandal in 1873 by banning The Happy Land for its portrayal of Prime Minister William Gladstone and two other ministers in his cabinet. In response, Marie Litton, the manager of the theatre where it was performed, agreed to amend it to a censored version - and printed a script with the censored lines in all capital letters to make the censorship easier to spot.[4]

American musicians such as Frank Zappa have repeatedly protested against censorship in music and pushed for more freedom of expression. In 1986, Zappa appeared on CNN's Crossfire to protest censorship of lyrics in rock music, saying that harm will be done or unrest caused if controversial information, lyrics, or other messages are promulgated.

In countries like Sudan, Afghanistan and China, violations of musicians rights to freedom of expression are commonplace. In the USA and Algeria, lobbying groups have succeeded in keeping popular music off the concert stage, and out of the media and retail. In ex-Yugoslavia musicians are often pawns in political dramas, and the possibility of free expression has been adversely affected.

Music censorship has been implemented by states, religions, educational systems, families, retailers and lobbying groups and in most cases they violate international conventions of human rights.[5]

Copy approval is the right to read and amend an article, usually an interview, before publication. Many publications refuse to give copy approval but it is increasingly becoming common practice when dealing with publicity anxious celebrities.[6] Picture approval is the right given to an individual to choose which photos will be published and which will not. Robert Redford is well known for insisting upon picture approval.[7] Writer approval is when writers are chosen based on whether they will write flattering articles or not. Hollywood publicist Pat Kingsley is known for banning certain writers who wrote undesirably about one of her clients from interviewing any of her other clients.[7]

Censorship is regarded among a majority of academics in the Western world as a typical feature of dictatorships and other authoritarian political systems. Democratic nations are represented, especially among Western government, academic and media commentators, as having somewhat less institutionalized censorship, and as instead promoting the importance of freedom of speech. The former Soviet Union maintained a particularly extensive program of state-imposed censorship. The main organ for official censorship in the Soviet Union was the Chief Agency for Protection of Military and State Secrets generally known as the Glavlit, its Russian acronym. The Glavlit handled censorship matters arising from domestic writings of just about any kind even beer and vodka labels. Glavlit censorship personnel were present in every large Soviet publishing house or newspaper; the agency employed some 70,000 censors to review information before it was disseminated by publishing houses, editorial offices, and broadcasting studios. No mass medium escaped Glavlit's control. All press agencies and radio and television stations had Glavlit representatives on their editorial staffs.

Censored pre-press proof of two articles from "Noticias da Amadora", a Portuguese newspaper, 1970.

Some thinkers understand censorship to include other attempts to suppress points of view or the exploitation of negative propaganda, media manipulation, spin, disinformation or "free speech zones." These methods tend to work by disseminating preferred information, by relegating open discourse to marginal forums, and by preventing other ideas from obtaining a receptive audience.

Sometimes, a specific and unique information whose very existence is barely known to the public, is kept in a subtle, near-censorship situation, being regarded as subversive or inconvenient. Michel Foucaults 1978 text Sexual Morality and the Law (later republished as "The Danger of Child Sexuality"), for instance - originally published as La loi de la pudeur [literally, the law of decency], defends the decriminalization of statutory rape and the abolition of age of consent laws,[8] and as of July 2006, is almost totally invisible throughout the internet, both in English and French, and does not appear even on Foucault-specialized websites.

Suppression of access to the means of dissemination of ideas can function as a form of censorship. Such suppression has been alleged to arise from the policies of governmental bodies, such as the FDA and FCC in the United States of America, the CRTC in Canada, newspapers that refuse to run commentary the publisher disagrees with, lecture halls that refuse to rent themselves out to a particular speaker, and individuals who refuse to finance such a lecture. The omission of selected voices in the content of stories also serves to limit the spread of ideas, and is often called censorship. Such omission can result, for example, from persistent failure or refusal by media organizations to contact criminal defendants (relying solely on official sources for explanations of crime). Censorship has been alleged to occur in such media policies as blurring the boundaries between hard news and news commentary, and in the appointment of allegedly biased commentators, such as a former government attorney, to serve as anchors of programs labeled as hard news but comprising primarily commentary.

The focusing of news stories to exclude questions that might be of interest to some audience segments, such as the avoidance of reporting cumulative casualty rates among citizens of a nation that is the target or site of a foreign war, or the values of natural methods in the prevention, treatment, and curing of disease, is often described as a form of censorship. Favorable representation in news or information services of preferred products or services, such as reporting on leisure travel and comparative values of various machines instead of on leisure activities such as arts, crafts or gardening has been described by some as a means of censoring ideas about the latter in favor of the former.

Self-censorship: Imposed on the media in a free market by market/cultural forces rather than a censoring authority. This occurs when it is more profitable for the media to give a biased view.

In this form of censorship, any information about existence of censorship and the legal basis of the censorship is censored. Rules of censoring were classified. Removed texts or phrases were not marked.[clarify]

[How to reference and link to summary or text]

In this form of censorship, censors rewrite texts, giving these texts secret co-authors.[clarify]

[How to reference and link to summary or text]

Under US law, the First Amendment protects free speech and freedom of the press to some degree. Radio broadcasts are under constant scrutiny. This amendment does not mention many things, one being obscenity (a term usually applied to sexual material), but the common interpretation ignores this aspect using the argument that there is no social value deemed applicable to it. This applies only to the government and government entities; private corporations are under no such restriction.

Main article: Censorship of maps

Google Earth censors places which may be of special security concern. The following is a selection of such concerns:

Censorship in the Internet - In January 2007, a Brazilian Supreme Court judge issued an order to Brasil Telecom and Telefonica preventing public access to an intimate video of model Daniela Cicarelli and her boyfriend Renato Malzonithe on the YouTube site. Cicarelli and Malzoni had sued YouTube the previous year and got an injunction for the removal of the video, but it was still appearing. YouTube staff were eventually able to prevent the video from appearing on their site.[9]

Wikipedia itself is unavailable to Internet servers in certain countries, such as Iran, China, and North Korea, due to Internet censorship. [10]

Censorship of nudity

View original post here:
Censorship | Psychology Wiki | Fandom