Mediaboss Marketing

Clay Calvert Professor and Brechner Eminent Scholar in Mass Communication, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL This post is hosted on the Huffington Post's Contributor platform. Contributors control their own work and post freely to our site. If you need to flag this entry as abusive, send us an email.

The aftermath of Donald J. Trump's stunning victory over Hillary Clinton brought with it much handwringing in news media circles and on social media platforms about the dangers of fake news. Some blame fake news for causing Clinton's defeat, with the erstwhile candidate herself calling it "an epidemic."

But theres a major paradox when it comes to peoples beliefs about fake news.

Specifically, many of us tend to believe that we can spot fake news -- we won't be fooled by it -- but others out there, who are more naive and less media savvy than us, surely will be duped.

For instance, a December 2016 survey conducted by the Pew Research Center found that most Americans

Yet despite the fact that some 84% of those surveyed were either very or somewhat confident in their own ability to spot fake news, 64% of the same people "say fabricated news stories cause a great deal of confusion about the basic facts of current issues and events. This sense is shared widely across incomes, education levels, partisan affiliations and most other demographic characteristics."

In other words, "I'm no fool, but others are!"

If that's truly the case, then why are we so worried about fake news? A few high-profile incidents like the Pizzagate shooting perhaps have caused undue panic.

The notion that "I'm no fool, but others are" is, in fact, consistent with what communication scholars call the third-person effect. As W. Phillips Davison, the theory's founder, summed it up in a 1983 article

The danger here, as I explain in a new article published in the Wake Forest Law Review Online, is that individuals who exhibit signs of the third-person effect are also prone to call for censorship of media content in the name of protecting others. This, of course, raises serious First Amendment concerns regarding free speech. In other words, the third-person effect has both a perceptual aspect (what we believe about the influence of messages) and a behavioral component (censorship).

For example, a scholarly study on support for censorship of rap music found that those surveyed

Ultimately, consideration of the third-person effect might help to tamp down some of the rampant frets and fears about fake news. And if it does something more than that, as I argue in my article, the third-person effect "should give lawmakers serious reason to take a thoughtful and deliberate pause before proposing any bills aimed at the censorship of fake news."

Remedies of educating people about how to spot fake news and publicly shaming fake news websites are far better alternatives than governmental censorship.

Read the original here:
Fake News, Censorship & the Third-Person Effect: You Can't Fool Me, Only Others! - Huffington Post

Wrestling Rumors

Impact Is Being Forced Into Some Strange Censorship Tonight Wrestling Rumors Normally when you hear censorship, you think violence or sexual content. Maybe some profanity, or a if we're in a dystopia, a restraint against political opinions. You don't generally expect an entire person to be censored. But that's exactly what's ... and more »

Excerpt from:
Impact Is Being Forced Into Some Strange Censorship Tonight - Wrestling Rumors

Jonathan Nez | Published 17 hours ago

THE ISSUE: The UC Berkeley College Republicans invited Milo Yiannopoulos to speak on campus. Protests erupted in response, leading to the event being canceled. The violent protest came from a non-student organization, but the event inspired substantial debate over free speech on campus. You can read the other sidehere.

Our disagreement is really about what free speech is and what its limits are. On one side, you have an alt-right figure whose views are pretty extreme. He has called feminism toxic, attacked transgenderism and labeled campus rape culture a myth. His views should never be normalized because they enable hate. On the other side, you have a liberal university culture. To these students, Milos words are emotionally traumatic, and by extension, they serve as an assault on their person in a way that warrantsbanishment.

While I am aware of my privilege and empathetic to those Milo belittles, violence is still not justified. No one has the right to live free of content that offends them. The victim card is not one that supersedes someone elses right to speak. What you do have a right to do is use your freedom of speech to fight back. You can organize a peaceful protest, engage in discourse with those you disagree with and publicly condemn organizations that support speakers whose beliefs you find repugnant. Attacking others and causing over $100,000 in property damage are not included in those rights.

People often conflate my support of Milos right to speak with support for his views; this is not the case. I disagree with all of his views, with the exception of those on free speech. Taking away freedoms sets a dangerous precedent that can be hard to undo. When you allow people to believe opposing views violate a nonexistent right, they will believe that censorship is not only justified, but also the only solution to the disagreement. Creating such an unhealthy culture of discourse with suppression is precariously fascist, which is why I believe we should err on the side of freedom. Milo sucks, but censorship is worse.

More here:
Viewpoints: Err on the side of freedom, rather than censorship - The Daily Tar Heel

spikeds annual Free Speech University Rankings (FSUR) was released last week, to the usual cacophony of irritation from those on the receiving end of a Red ranking. Chief among the perpetually ticked-off, of course, was president of the National Union of Students (NUS), Malia Bouattia.

The NUS always frets about the FSUR, because it collects in one place all the bans and regulations students unions inflict upon their members. Not only did Bouattia pen a ripsote to the FSUR in the Huffington Post the day before its 2017 findings came out, she also attempted another take-down in the Independent a few days later.

In the latter, Bouattia claims that she can demonstrate expertly that the project is flawed, suggesting that what spiked doesnt understand is that students want to extend, not suppress, free expression. Free speech is universal, she says, but it is not limitless. To extend it to everyone means sacrificing some of our rights, preventing those who would suppress some peoples free expression from having theirs. In other words, you need to ban your way to free speech.

This is pretty mind-bending logic, even if it is by now sadly familiar. It speaks volumes that the NUS and universities feel it is their right to decide who should and shouldnt have their universal rights suspended. Whats more, the NUSs ban on those it deems to be fascist under its longstanding No Platform policy is really an expression of contempt for students, not far-right speakers.

What the NUS doesnt understand is that allowing your opponents the right to speak doesnt render you mute. One person speaking doesnt prevent the other from answering. This is what is so important about free speech. Believing in free speech means trusting people to defeat backward ideas in open debate. The NUS simply doesnt think students are up to it.

Read the original here:
Campus censorship is a big deal - Spiked

Censorship is the act or practice of suppressing the speech or public communication which is considered objectionable, harmful and sensitive, by a government, media outlet or other controlling bodies. This public content is censored for many reasons that the active bodies believe are immoral. Some reasons include: controlling obscenities, pornography, hate speeches, protecting young children, to promote or restrict political or religious views or even to protect the national security of a country.

Types of Censorship:

Almost everything at some point could be placed underneath a category of censorship. Depending on where people[E1] are located and who or what is going on in your nation or even community, your public media on the television, Internet, radio, music, movies and books could be censored. There are dozens of different forms of censorship implemented everyday, including all the following:

Moral Censorship- the removal of materials that is considered obscene or morally unacceptable. For example, pornography is usually censored from the public and even prosecuted if it involves young minors.

Political Censorship- This is a form of censorship by the government that occurs when information is [E2]withhold from their citizens[E3], mostly used to prevent hateful expressions.

Book Censorship- The censorship of novels is either implicated nationally or by state[E4]. So, if a community finds a book to be inappropriate, they can have the book removed from public and school libraries. Such books include The Harry Potter series, Animal Farm, the Goosebumps series, The Perks of Being a Wallflower, and To Kill A Mockingbird[E5].

Films- All movies released for public viewing in theaters are censored in some way or another. The usual censored items include pornography and obscenities, up to a certain age. Other movies are censored due to racial or political correctness.

Music- Moral authorities are determined to find what behavior is acceptable for individuals in todays society. Most cases of musical censorship involve lyrics which deal with drugs, violence and sexual topics.

Internet- The extent of Internet censorship varies from country to country. Many countries, like the Untied States have little to no Internet censorship, while others limit basic new information from their citizens. Many times the Internet[E6] in these countries will be censored after elections, protests and riots.

Effects of Censorship

Many people agree that some things need to be censored. While others are outraged at the thought of any individuals work being censored. Many times things that are being viewed or heard by larger masses of people should be censored for the sole fact that you do not know who is in that group of people.

I think it is fine to censor T.V. because it is something that all the public can use, including kids, and parents cant always control what shows come up, grade Kalie Jurries said.

Exposing underage children to inappropriate and vulgar content can have negative effects on a child. Adults have a much easier time choosing what to watch, and are able to work around inappropriate work.

I filter[E7] by choosing not to watch television at certain times or certain channels, librarian Joanne Willis said.

Their ways of thinking and understanding are not always able to understand adult content.

While many believe television should be censored, many feel the complete opposite about the Internet and printable material like books.

No, I do not think the Internet should be censored. If[E8] people cant handle the content of the Internet[E9], maybe they should not be on it. Everyone on the Internet should be old enough to deal with those things, Jurries said.

The Internet is a very useful tool in todays society, and just like any other great tools in life, there will be people who abuse it.

Access at certain age levels or times should be controlled. Example[E10]: access to sexually explicit internet materials should not be allowed at the high school level or in an office environment where it would/could be offensive to coworkers, said Willis.

Pros and Cons of Censorship

Censorship is all about perspective. Whether you are the over the top strict parent or the care free, young kid who wants to know everyone. Censorship will always be a heated debate, both sides have their pros and cons. Religious conflicts often times can be avoided by the censorship of certain material that people deem insulting or offensive. Censorship can be used to prevent politically motivated propaganda. Plagiarism can be prevented. It prevents companies from spreading inaccurate or exaggerated claims about their products or other companies.

Freedom of speech is compromised. Media giants can push their agendas under the censorship. it hinders upon the freedom of the press. It shelters people from things that they need to know about. Censorship in books, plays, and movies may effect the overall feeling and meaning of the writing.

Go here to see the original:
Censorship does both harm, good - waterloo.k12.ia.us