Mediaboss Marketing

Rachel Zuckerman, Guest Opinion 6:34 p.m. CT May 19, 2017

Guest Opinion(Photo: Press-Citizen)Buy Photo

Journalists have been distraught since the 2017 presidential campaign. We are struggling with how to deal with fake news, increased calls for censorship, and negotiating what freedom of the press looks like in the digital age.

These conflicts are all important topics that must be debated. As journalists, we should be introspective about our role moving forward. However, while we negotiate the appropriate level of censorship or the best way to report on President Donald Trumps latest tweet, we miss the bigger picture.

Where are the critical discussions happening around education and media literacy?

Only about 1 in 3 American adults had a bachelors degree or higher in 2015, according to census data. Nate Silver's FiveThirtyEight identified education, not income or other demographic factors, as the largest gap between Trump and Hillary Clinton voters. Clinton overwhelmingly outperformed Trump in counties where most people had at least a four-year degree.

The Trump campaigns fear-mongering and emotional appeals likely resonated more among people with lower educational levels than Clintons policy-oriented message. Trumps appeal also contributed to his ability to sow distrust in the media among his less educated base.

Yet, journalists have still arrived at a place where we debate semantics do we call false statements lies or falsehoods? Concurrent debates about censorship emerge. Is it beneficial to the public to censor hate speech and fake news that could perpetuate violence? Some journalists may feel the need to self-censor to avoid the criticism of a politically charged president.

As journalists, we fail to address societal problems when we become too self-centered. While we focus on how journalists should do their jobs better, we miss reporting on the fact that many of these issues would be mitigated with increased education and informed news consumption.

The editor-in-chief of The Daily Iowan, Lily Abromeit, agrees.

The reason fake news is such a problem is because people believe it, she said. I'm kind of starting to think that people don't really understand how to read a news article and what to look for to understand if it is legitimate.

A 2016 study from Stanford confirms Abromeits analysis. The research found that students at almost all grade levels cannot recognize fake news online.

Therefore, rather than disputing the limits of censorship, our time would be better spent thinking about how to integrate media literacy training into the classroom in addition to making education more accessible to Americans. Increased rates of educational attainment would equip more of the U.S. population with the critical thinking skills necessary to navigate our complex modern media landscape.

In an era of fake news and alternative facts, journalists must be diligent. We should question how to do our jobs better, but we should also press the public to demand education for the millions of Americans who have not received sufficient opportunities.

I realize it actually isn't probably very easy. But still important enough to be worthwhile, Abromeit said.

Rachel Zuckerman is a recent journalism and political science graduate from the University of Iowa who also served as student body president.

Read or Share this story: http://icp-c.com/2rAKlKy

See the rest here:
Fight 'fake news' with education, not censorship - Iowa City Press Citizen

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

Facebooks growth is slowing. It needs new markets and new audiences, which is why it is making a big push into foreign countries. However, some of these countries arent happy with the idea of letting their citizens have access to free-speech friendly platforms, and impose conditions on Facebooks operations within their borders.

So, does Zuckerbergs stated commitment to free speech trump the companys need to enter markets controlled by authoritarian, censorious governments? Readers can examine the following five examples, and judge for themselves.

1. China

Facebook was banned from China following riots in 2009 inrmqi and revelations that the Xinjiang independence activists behind the riots used the social network to organize. Facebook has been desperate to re-enter Chinas massive market ever since.

Mark Zuckerberghas met with Chinese president Xi Jinpingas well as Chinese propaganda chief Liu Yunshan. The Facebook CEO has even learned Mandarin and delivered speeches (albeit clumsy ones, according to Quartz) in the language during his multiple trips to China. According to reports, Zuckerberg even asked the Chinese president to name his baby during a meeting at the White House, although the president refused.

But Facebook has done more than cosy up to Chinese officials. According to reports, they are also building a censorship tool to block banned news sources in China from users timelines. Several Facebook employees have quit in protest at the development of the tool, which will reportedly give third parties like ISPs and governments the power to suppress posts.

Then again, Facebook is competing with domestic Chinese social networks, which pride themselves on blocking what they call fake news

2. Turkey

Turkey frequently censors its citizens on the internet. During the coup attempt against President Erdogan last year, all social media was blacked out across the country.Just last month, Turkey blocked access to Wikipedia.

Facebook has been working with Turkey to censor Kurdish militia in northern Syria. Although these groups are largely credited with rolling back the frontiers of the Islamic State, they are considered terrorists by Turkey, an extension of the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), that has staged attacks inside the country. Turkey is even accused of allowing ISIS fighters to cross its southern border to fight the Kurds.

A document leaked in 2012 revealed even more censorship on behalf of Turkey: according to guidelines on IP blocks and international compliance given to an external Facebook contractor, moderators were told to consider a wide range of Turkey-critical content to be an abuse standards violation. These included attacks on Kemal Ataturk, the founder of modern Turkey, maps of Kurdistan, images depicting the burning of the Turkish flag, and any content related to Abdullah Ocalan, the most influential leader of the Kurdish independence movement.

3. Pakistan

Pakistan, also known astheIslamic Republicof Pakistan, is currently undertaking a massive crackdown against what it describes as social media blasphemy. The state recently sent out a text message to millions of Pakistanis urging them to report their fellow citizens if they suspect them of blasphemous posting, effectively encouraging a citizen-led religious Stasi.

Much of the citizenry will be happy to oblige. Indeed, some Pakistaniswould like to go beyond simply reporting blasphemers:

Pakistan has asked Facebook for help identifying blasphemers on social media even those outside the country, so it can pursue their extradition.Facebook has not denied complying with the request, instead saying thatthe companyreviews all government requests carefully, with the goal of protecting the privacy and rights of our users.'

What is known is that Facebook has dispatched a delegation to Pakistanto address the governments concerns. Moreover,government officials have claimed that the company has helped them remove 85 of blasphemous material on Facebook.This would make Facebook complicit in Pakistans determination to quash religious dissent from its citizens, which includes a potential death penalty for the crime of blasphemy.

4. Russia

The media is determined to find evidence of collusion between President Trump and Russia, but there is considerably more evidence to be found of Facebook doing the bidding of the Russian government, which is frightening the social network by threatening to ban it from the country.

The pressure seems to have paid off in 2014, Facebook blocked a page supporting Alexei Navalny, described by theWashington Postas Putins biggest critic.

5. Germany and the European Union

Not all authoritarian countries are non-western. In response to the migrant crisis and the subsequent crime and terrorism wave sweeping Europe, Germany has taken a keen interest in scrubbing criticism of their catastrophic mass migration policies from social media.German police have even raided homes over alleged Facebook hate speech, and one couple was taken to court and sentenced for criticizing mass migration on the platform.

In September 2015, German chancellor Angela Merkel was overheardasking Mark Zuckerberg if he was working on clamping down against allegedly hateful content on the platform, to which Zuckerberg replied yeah. The German government has also threatened to fine Facebook if it does not clamp down on fake news, while the European Union has threatened non-legislative action if social networks like Facebook and YouTube do not tackle hate speech on their platforms.

Zuckerberg was true to his word. Following his overheard discussion with Merkel, Facebook has signed up to an E.U. pledge to suppress illegal hate speech and use their power to promote counter-narratives. Facebook also launched its own Initiative for Civil Courage Online, a Europe-wide campaign to clamp down on alleged hate speech during the migrant crisis. In just one month alone in September 2016, Facebook deleted over 100,000 posts in Germany for containing hate a figure that was attacked by the German government as too low.

Mark Zuckerberg is a strong supporter of Angela Merkels refugee policies, and has called on the U.S. to follow their lead.

You can follow Allum Bokhari on Twitterandadd him on Facebook.Email tips and suggestions toabokhari@breitbart.com.

Go here to see the original:
5 Authoritarian Regimes That Shape Facebook's Censorship Policies - Breitbart News

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

AAP had said that if an advertisement appears to be communal or obscene, then the government needs to take action against the person as per the law in existence.

In a democracy there cannot be pre-censorship, the Delhi High Court told the AAP government regarding its policy on display of advertisements on auto rickshaws on Thursday.

In a democracy it (pre-censorship) should not be done. What is the need for pre-censorship or prohibition of any political advertisement? How can you do it? A citizen can be political, a justices S Ravindra Bhat and Pratibha M Singh said.

AAPhad said that if an advertisement appears to be communal or obscene, then the government needs to take action against the person as per the law in existence.

The Delhi government, meanwhile, told the court that it is coming out with a new policy regarding display of advertisement on public service vehicles (PSVs) including auto rickshaws in which the prohibition against political ads would be removed. However, they also said that pre-censorship was required to which the court did not agree.

The bench listed the matter for hearing on August 9 giving time to the government to place its policy before the court.

It was hearing a PIL by filed by some auto unions against the then Delhi governments August 2014 policy on display of advertisements on PSVs, particularly the bar on political ads and the provision allowing pre-censorship.

The high court had in 2015 reserved its verdict in the matter, but had taken it up again last year as it wanted to know whether the government on its own would address the issues raised by the petitioners. However, since July 2016, the Delhi government had been seeking more time on each date for placing its revised advertisement policy before the court.

Earlier in September 2014, the high court in an order had raised three questions - whether political advertisements should be allowed on PSVs, the need for pre-censorship, and whether ads ought to be allowed only for vehicles having GPS and GPRS systems.

In June 2013, the then Delhi government had banned advertisements on PSVs after auto rickshaws started sporting AAP posters in the run-up to Delhi assembly elections. Thereafter, the high court had stayed the ban.

In May 2014, the city government had informed the court that it was in the process of finalising the general guidelines for allowing advertisements on PSVs and was awaiting approval of the Lt Governor.

On August 1, 2014, the government had placed before the court its latest guidelines for display of advertisements on PSVs, as per which ads containing political, ethnic, religious or sectarian text would not be permitted.

The policy also stated that advertisements cannot be displayed without prior approval of municipal bodies and would be allowed only for vehicles which have installed GPS/GPRS systems and was challenged in the PIL.

Continue reading here:
There cannot be pre-censorship in a democracy: Delhi HC - Hindustan Times

Hassan Rouhani does the rounds at the Tehran book fair.

Human rights watchdogs repeatedly shame Iran as one of the worlds worst offenders against freedom of expression, a harsh censor with little compunction about cracking down on critics with direct methods such as prior restraint and violent means of repression. But Iran, like other states around the world, is increasingly using other, more unorthodox ways of controlling speech what might be called indirect censorship.

Instead of the classic methods of removing content wholesale or blocking access to it, indirect censorship methods make producing or accessing undesirable ideas and information costly, technically difficult or legally risky. They often do so via unrelated laws, or by bypassing weak or nonexistent protective regulations. Deployed by both governments and private actors, these methods often dont fall under conventional definitions of censorship, and are therefore often not condemned as such.

The Iranian government is using indirect censorship partly out of geopolitical necessity. Tehran clearly wants to improve relations with the West, but the countrys domestic human rights situation is a major obstacle and its attitudes to freedom of speech are a particular sticking point. Since the government is hardly inclined to fundamentally change its ways, it has come up with a typically neoliberal solution: to transfer responsibility for enforcing censorship to the private sector.

In a speech at Tehrans 2016 International Book Fair, president Hassan Rouhani proposed that the ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance hand its job of censoring books and cultural products to an association of writers and publishers. His government promoted this idea as an initiative to relax book censorship, and it was broadly accepted as such by the Western media. But because there are few clear regulations regarding censorship and a huge range of sensitive subjects, it would more likely have the opposite effect.

The plan is currently in its pilot stage, and if it becomes operational, the government will free itself from direct responsibility for book censorship. It would be left to publishers and writers themselves to enforce vague red lines, including upon themselves, lest they fall foul of a judiciary capable of seizing books after publication and inflicting paralysing financial damage.

This would inculcate a conservative culture of self-censorship, with writers and publishers desperate to avoid unbearable financial or legal consequences taking an even more cautious and strict approach than the government itself.

Using unrelated laws to put pressure on media and to silence the dissidents is a typical method of indirect censorship. In Iran, defamation and insult lawsuits are an effective instrument with which to punish critics, and have a powerful and chilling effect on the media. And the way defamation laws are currently interpreted by the court means they can easily be used to restrict freedom of expression.

The Iranian legal system hosts two major approaches to dealing with defamation cases. The first, dominant until the Islamic Penal Code was introduced in 1983, considers that when someone attributes a specific crime to someone else, the accusations must be adjudicated by a court, and that if the accused is acquitted and considers themselves defamed, they may take their defamer to court in turn.

The other approach, which began to take hold in 1983, also allows someone claiming defamation to take their alleged defamer to court, but puts the burden of proof on the accuser. This violates the principle of presumption of innocence, and it puts particular pressure on investigative journalists who rely on anonymous or secret sources.

Worse still, according to an additional clause in the Islamic Penal Codes article 697, allegedly defamatory statements can be punishable even when they are proven justified and true. This provision makes a useful pretext to crack down on any whistleblower or investigative journalist who reveals defensible evidence of the governments corruption to the public.

A notorious case of this sort kicked off recently when the Iranian website Memari News published a set of official reports by the General Inspection Office that indicated that the Tehran Municipality had illegally transferred properties to a number of its high-ranking officers. Memaris editor-in-chief, Yashar Soltani, was soon arrested and charged with defamation and gathering classified information with the intent to harm national security.

Even though the General Inspection Office confirmed the credibility of the documents and that the municipality was involved in the illegal transfer of public properties, Soltani remains on bail with his case open, and still stands accused of harbouring a hidden political agenda.

For now, the Iranian government is still using the same harsh methods of direct censorship for which it has long been known blocking critical websites, for instance, or arresting government critics. But as it increasingly turns to more indirect methods, it is doing a better job of evading the scrutiny of the human rights watchdogs whove justifiably criticised it for so long.

Read the original here:
Iran is using indirect censorship methods to avoid international criticism - The Conversation UK