Daily Archives: April 9, 2020

Patricia forgot her censorship as the spirit of the explorer rose in her.

No: she had heard too much of it; it made you almost wish for a Censorship of the Press.

The Duc wondered what a censorship would let pass if there were one.

The newsletters, of course, might be under the censorship of Rome and Naples.

The discovery of a new spot on the sun is evidently a case for the censorship.

I call the censorship chaotic because of the chaos in its administration.

He got the impression that she put off all censorship from either her feeling or her expression.

A few voices, however, were raised in favour of a censorship.

I wish to claim no censorship over the style and diction of your letters.

How absurd, how inadequate this all is we see from the existence of the Censorship on Drama.

More:
Censorship Synonyms, Censorship Antonyms | Thesaurus.com

Censorship In Schools And The Effects On Our Children Censorship in schools is a complicated situation because there are many variables involved that can impact the way children learn and the way schools serve to educate. Censorship in schools usually exists in the form of the removal or manipulation of materials or learning processes. These materials might range from that which officials and parents have generally decided is inappropriate for our children, such as nudity, to teaching subjects that some find objectionable, such as evolution versus creationism. For the most part, censorship in Americas schools tends to focus on social and religious issues, with many materials called into question as controversial. In other countries, politics would join religion in center stage for censorship, with criticism of the government censored as well. Instead of the government, however, our censorship often comes in the form of concerned parents who do not want their children exposed to a worldview other than their own. A particularly popular topic in schools today is book censorship.

Learning about Darwin might be construed as offensive because of the possible conflict with the religious beliefs of the parents. Sexual education is watered down until it is practically worthless because parents might be offended at sexual references in school, and classic books like The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn are being banned in some areas because they have racial references that might offend some people.

The Effects of Censorship

While the attempt to keep children pure for as long as possible is admirable, it takes the form of leaving gaping holes in their education, if not academically, then about life.

Censorship in schools can also lead to a narrow worldview with holes in the cultural and international education of our children. If a child does not know from literary examples that African Americans were ever abused in our society, then how will those same children understand the implications of marches or rallies for black rights in modern society, or the struggles that people of color still go through to be treated as equals in all ways? Additionally, our children, if restricted to an education that supports their familys religion, will have no frame of reference to understand other religions, other cultures, and other beliefs.

While parents may be tempted to shelter their children from issues that they find unfavorable or offensive, they may be restricting their childs ability to grow and learn at the same time. These restrictive worldviews are the seeds of bigotry, with the implication being that anyone who believes differently from you must be foolish or misinformed.

Censorship in schools seems to come from a desire to ensure that our children grow up making the choices and following the beliefs that we desire for them by removing any other options. This may ensure that those children conform with our beliefs in the short run, but the risk is that they will react with hostility to those same ideas years later when they are exposed to other opinions.

Many would argue that a gay child who is not exposed to information about homosexuality may behave in a way that he is told is proper at first. Eventually, he will hear about homosexuality from someone and will be all the more upset at his former enforced ignorance of the subject, yet no less likely to act on his desires from then on. This is a matter of opinion and not of solid fact, but it is one that should be taken into account when we think about the potential effects of censorship in schools.

The Snowball Effect

Additionally, censorship in schools tends to snowball when warring factions of parents take the battle of wills to the classroom with book banning.

There are many cases throughout censorship history that involve the removal of one or two books or forms of teaching to appease one group of parents, only to have another set of censorship opportunities requested by another group. The old adage you can't please everyone certainly rings true in this case, as a veritable snowball effect is a common danger of censorship in schools.

Practical Considerations

Another difficulty in monitoring censorship is that it is against the nature of concerned parents to think that they are committing this act.

In Conclusion

Schools should be upheld asstandards of education and should be able to prepare students for life in an open world. If schools continue to succumb to the desires of special interest groups, they run the risk of closing minds and leaving children in the dark when it comes to various important social issues. The impact of censorship in schools is significant in light of the way of the world and in light of the ever-changing social climate.

How Would You React in a Crisis?

Read the original here:
Censorship In Schools And The Effects On Our Children

Artists removing work from an exhibition (or having it removed for them) is a pointed and often political gestureand part of a lineage covering many decades to the present. Last year, eight artists called for their work to be removed from the Whitney Biennial in protest of the chair of the museums board. Since then, Phil Collins and Ali Yass pulled out of a MoMA PS1 show about the Gulf Wars, and a group of artists removed their art from the Aichi Triennale in Japan over claims of censorship. Meanwhile, a video by Xandra Ibarra was removed from a show of Chicanx performance art in Texas earlier this year after local politicians deemed it obscene.

Removals such as these have historical precedents. Below is a guide to some of the most notable artworks that have been removedeither by force or by choiceover the past 50 or so years.

Takis pulls work from Museum of Modern Art(1969)The Machine as Seen at the End of the Mechanical Age, Pontus Hultns 1968 group show at MoMA, has been considered a landmark exhibition for its interest in technology. But the show is also major for what happened around itthe removal of an artwork by the Greek artist Takis. Toward the end of the shows run, Takis picked up a sculpture of his that was on view in the exhibition, claiming that the museum had not consulted him before installing it, and moved it into MoMAs courtyard. He described the removal as a symbolic action intended to open up conversation between artists and upper-ranking museum staff. After discussion with MoMAs director, the work was officially taken out of the exhibition for good.

Robert Morris closes show at the Whitney Museum(1970)Robert Morris removed not just one artwork but an entire show as debate surrounding the Vietnam War raged in America. Many in the New York art scene tried to figure out what role artists could play in protest, and Morris became the leader of an antiwar movement that swept the citys art worldand even resulted in a widespread strike that saw museums and galleries close. As part of his efforts, Morris shuttered his solo exhibition at the Whitney in an gesture, he said at the time, meant to underscore the need I and others feel to shift priorities at this time from an making and viewing to unified action within the art community against the intensifying conditions of repression, war and racism in this country.

Daniel Buren sculpture taken down at the Guggenheim(1971)Many artists have dramatically transformed the rotunda of the Guggenheim Museum in New York, but none has courted so much scandal as Daniel Buren. His artistic intervention in the spacea striped drape titled Around the Corner that hung from the ceiling and extended almost all the way downdidnt seem controversial. But some artists who were exhibiting in its midst (in a now-defunct recurring survey known as the Guggenheim International) felt differently. In an effort led by Dan Flavin and Donald Judd, five artists claimed that Burens art obstructed views of Frank Lloyd Wrights sloping architectureand their own work. They called for it to be deinstalled, and after they got what they wanted, feted art historian Douglas Crimp (then a curator at the museum) resigned because of the fracas.

Ulay moves Hitlers favorite painting(1976)Sometimes removal can be both a form of protest and an artwork in itself. For a protest action titled Irritation There is a Criminal Touch to Art,performance artist Ulay seized his attention on the 1837 Carl Spitzweg painting The Poor Poet: a quaint image of a writer counting out the meters of his verse in a cramped attic that was also Adolf Hitlers favorite artwork (he even owned a copy of it). Ulay chose not to let Germany forget that fact by marching into the Neue Nationalgalerie in Berlin, taking the work of the wall, and bringing it to the home of a Turkish immigrant elsewhere in the city. Ulay returned the painting 30 hours later, and the temporary theft was documented by his partner Marina Abramovi.

Richard Serras Tilted Arc deinstalled (1989)From its initial installation in 1981, Richard Serras Tilted Arca 120-foot-long arc crafted with Corten steel in Lower Manhattans Foley Plazawas meant to lead to an intriguing reorientation of a viewers understanding of a picturesque location. Not everyone saw it that way, howeverand after howls from the public, a jury voted in favor of taking down the enormous mass of 73 tons of steel that were unceremoniously hauled away to a government-owned parking lot in Brooklyn.

Adrian Piper pulls out of Conceptualism survey in L.A. (1995)In 1995, the Museum of Contemporary Art Los Angeles staged 19651975: Reconsidering the Object of Art, a major survey focused loosely on the evolution of Conceptualism. But the proceedings were marred by controversy when one of the sponsors was revealed: Philip Morris, the cigarette company that owns Marlboro. The artists in the show claimed not to have been notified in advance, and Adrian Piper asked MOCA to pull her work from the show and replace it with Ashes to Ashes (1995), a piece focused on her parents struggles withand, ultimately, deaths fromcancer that may have been caused by smoking. When the museum declined, she withdrew from the show entirely.

Tania Bruguera installation shuttered at the Havana Biennial (2000)Tania Bruguera is no stranger to controversy, having regularly staged boundary-pushing performances that have raised the ire of officials in her home country of Cuba. Originally staged in a fortress used to house political prisoners in the 1950s, her installation Untitled (Havana, 2000) was a darkened space in which viewers could see barely visible nude performers who appeared to be slapping their bodies and video footage of Fidel Castro as they walked across a mat of sugarcane. Brugeruas consideration of the state of the body under oppressive regimes was closed by authorities hours after opening. Since then, it has been acquired by MoMA, which restaged it in 2018.

Adrian Piper yanks video from black performance art exhibition (2013)Eighteen years after her MOCA removal, Piper pulled work from Radical Presence: Black Performance in Contemporary Art, an exhibition spread across NYUs Grey Art Gallery and the Studio Museum in Harlem. Pipers work appeared in the NYU part, where she was presenting documentation of her past performances as the Mythic Beinga male alter ego she assumed to test gender and racial norms. Piper said she felt limited by the shows purview and suggested that curator Valerie Cassel Oliver organize multi-ethnic exhibitions that give American audiences the rare opportunity to measure directly the groundbreaking achievements of African American artists against those of their peers in the art world at large.

Yams Collective drops out of the Whitney Biennial (2014)Amid outrage over a work by the white male artist Joe Scanlan, who got black female performers to play a fictional character known as Donelle Woolford, the Yams Collective (also known by the name HOWDOYOUSAYYAMINAFRICAN?) pulled their work from the Whitney Biennial in 2014. We felt that the representation of an established academic white man posing as a privileged African-American woman is problematic, even if he tries to hide it in an avatars mystique, one of the collectives members told Hyperallergic at the time.

Shanghai officials strike Ai Weiwei from survey (2014)Ai Weiwei has frequently accused governments and museum figures of censorship in ways that have affected his standing in his home country of China. In 2014, days before the government-operated Power Station of Art in Shanghai was to stage an exhibition devoted to the winners of collector Uli Siggs Chinese Contemporary Art Award, officials in the city yanked Ais workincluding his famed Sunflower Seeds installationand dropped his name from the artist list. At the time, Sigg said, We dont understand but we must accept that his works will not be in there.

Animals pulled from Chinese art show in New York (2017)The Guggenheim Museum faced a widespread outcry when several historically important artworks featuring live animals went on view in a survey of Chinese art. The controversial pieces included Huang Yong Pings Theater of the World, featuring a see-through case in which insects and amphibians preyed upon one another; photo documentation of Xu Bings A Case Study of Transference, in which pigs were inked with Chinese characters; and a Sun Yuan and Peng Yu video that involved dogs on treadmills. Animal-rights groups widely decried the works, and after an online petition garnered tens of thousands of signatures, the museum pulled themleading some to wonder whether the protesters properly understood the cultural context for the art on view.

Olu Oguibe obelisk taken down in Germany(2018)A giant obelisk dedicated to immigrants by Nigerian-born Olu Oguibe was one of the most celebrated offerings at the 2017 edition of Documentait even won the artist the exhibitions top prize. But after the city of Kassel formalized plans to install the work, the work, titled Monument to Strangers and Refugees, was targeted by right-wing politicians who raised doubts about its pro-refugee message and the price of its installation. The monument was removedbut then, just two weeks later, reinstated.

10 artists pull out of the Aichi Triennale in Japan (2019)Almost from its beginning, the Aichi Triennale began generating controversy when officials made the decision to remove a show-within-a-show titled After Freedom of Expression? That exhibition featured a sculpture by Kim Seo-kyung and Kim Eun-sung that referred to the history of ianfuAsian women who were forced into sexual slavery by the Japanese Imperial Army. And when it was taken off view, 10 artistsincluding Pedro Reyes, Tania Bruguera, Minouk Lim, and Claudia Martnez Garaypulled their own works from the triennial, claiming that the removal of the ianfu piece was a violation of its makers freedom of expression. Ultimately, officials relentedand the ianfu work was reinstated along with all the other works that been taken away.

Read the original:
13 Notable Removals of ArtworkThrough Censorship, Protest, and More - ARTnews

The progressive media organization Free Press thinks President Donald Trump is spreading dangerous misinformation during his televised press briefings on the government's coronavirus response. So it petitioned federal regulators to make broadcasters either stop airing them or "put those lies in context with disclaimers noting that they may be untrue and are unverified."

It was an odd demand. If Free Press think the president is abusing his authority, the group probably shouldn't be asking his administration to police how people cover the president's pronouncements. Seems like the sort of request that could backfire.

Thankfully, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) rejected the petition on Monday, sending a stern rebuke to anyone who thinks censorship is a valid response to problematic speech.

"The federal government will notand never shouldinvestigate broadcasters for their editorial judgments simply because a special interest group is angry at the views being expressed on the air as well as those expressing them," said FCC Chairman Ajit Pai in a statement. "In short, we will not censor the news."

Free Press based its argument for FCC intervention on public health, reasoning that Trumpas well as certain right-wing media personalities, like Rush Limbaughhad given false information that could lead people to make unsound medical decisions. The petition specifically cited the president's praise for the anti-malaria drug hydroxychloroquine, which is unproven as a remedy for COVID-19.

It's true that the FCC has some power to prevent the dissemination of false information. But federal law wisely places important limits on the agency, and for obvious reasons. No one should want regulators to have broad discretionary power to suppress speech that they subjectively believe is contrary to the public interest. This would inevitably lead to politically motivated censorship of speech that criticizes government actors.

In rejecting the petition, FCC General Counsel Thomas Johnson Jr. cogently explained that the FCC can take action against broadcasters only if they knew the information being broadcast was false, if they knew it would cause substantial harm, andif the information actually did cause substantial harm. Johnson pointed out that Free Press's demand for censorship fails on all three counts:

At this moment, broadcasters face the challenge of covering a rapidly-evolving, national, and international health crisis, in which new informationmuch of it medical or technical in nature and therefore difficult to corroborate or refute in real timeis continually revealed, vetted, and verified or dismissed. In addition, we note that the President and members of the White House Coronavirus Task Force, including public-health professionals, have held daily press conferences in which they exhaustively answer critical questions from the press. Under such circumstances, it is implausible, if not absurd, to suggest that broadcasters knowingly deceived the public by airing these press conferences or other statements by the President about COVID-19. Moreover, there is a strong argument that broadcasters are serving the public interest when they air live coverage of important news events, such as briefings by the President, the White House Coronavirus Task Force, and state governors, during this national emergency.

The impulse to punish broadcasters for letting people hear what their government officials have to say for themselves is bizarre, and it's a relief to see the FCC take the obvious position that the First Amendment prohibits such censorship. Media outlets can choose whether they want to air Trump's remarks on COVID-19or anyone else's. The government doesn't get to make this decision for them.

Continue reading here:
A Progressive Media Group Demanded Censorship of Trump's Coronavirus Press Briefings. The FCC Said No. - Reason

People waiting to be tested for coronavirus outside a hospital in Sarajevo, Photo: EPA/Fehim Demir

The rights organisation Transparency International, TI, in Bosnia and Herzegovina has called on Zeljka Cvijanovic, President of the Serb-led entity, Republika Srpska, to withdraw a decree banning the spread of panic and disorder during a state of emergency, saying that the Bosnias constitution does not allow the entities to suspend the right to freedom of expression and opinion.

In Republika Srpska, a decree with the force of law prohibiting the spread of panic and disorder during a state of emergency came into force on Tuesday.

The decree, which follows the introduction of the state of emergency in the entity, stipulates fines of 500 to 4,500 euros for individuals and companies that spread panic and fake news through the media and social networks. Opposition parties in the RS describe the regulation as controversial.

The Board of Directors of the Association of Bosnian Journalists has meanwhile called on both Bosnian entities to ensure unhindered access to information and decisions regarding the COVID-19 epidemic in a safe and free manner, without imposing any restrictions, censorship or restrictions on journalists.

Such an approach calls for the urgent withdrawal of decisions and regulations with legal force concerning the restriction of freedom of expression and opinion in the media and on social networks, as well as the abolition of the power of individuals, police and other security agencies to censor the media and citizens, with rapid investigations or the imposition of very high fines, as in Republika Srpska, the Association said in a press release.

The current RS decree is almost identical to the earlier ruling banning panic and fake news that the RS government adopted on March 19.

One of the first individuals fined for violating the decree is a medical doctor, Maja Stojic Dragojevic, who is also a member of the Presidency of the largest opposition party in the RS, the Serbian Democratic Party, SDS. She was fined for writing on Facebook that there were not enough ventilators, beds, or intensive care services in the RS, and for claiming that the RS was unprepared for what is to come.

The Association of Bosnian Journalists has also warned that the government of Bosnias other entity, the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, through its Ministry of the Interior and cyber-crime units, had begun monitoring information on social networks, and that five criminal proceedings had since been instituted for allegedly spreading false information and panic.

Regardless of the emergency, it is against all democratic values to impose institutional censorship and restrictions on freedom of expression and information and to give broad authority to individuals engaged in crisis staffs or police and security agencies to interpret and regulate journalistic rights and media freedoms according to their standards, the association said.

The Journalists Association has said it will invite international organisations and European institutions for the protection of freedom of expression to respond to the censorship of information about COVID-19 in Bosnia.

The Council of Europes Commissioner for Human Rights, Dunja Mijatovic, recently said measures to combat misinformation should not be abused to hinder media freedom. She warned that freedom of the media was being suppressed in several countries under the pretext of combating misinformation about the coronavirus.

See the rest here:
Bosnia Trying to Censor Information About Pandemic, Journalists Say - Balkan Insight

People wearing masks, attend a vigil for Chinese doctor Li Wenliang, in Hong Kong, February7, 2020.

For authoritarian-minded leaders, the coronavirus crisis is offering a convenient pretext to silence critics and consolidate power. Censorship in China and elsewhere has fed the pandemic, helping to turn a potentially containable threat into a global calamity. The health crisis will inevitably subside, but autocratic governments dangerous expansion of power may be one of the pandemics most enduring legacies.

In times of crisis, peoples health depends at minimum on free access to timely, accurate information. The Chinese government illustrated the disastrous consequence of ignoring that reality. When doctors in Wuhan tried to sound the alarm in December about the new coronavirus, authorities silenced and reprimanded them. The failure to heed their warnings gave COVID-19 a devastating three-week head start. As millions of travelers left or passed through Wuhan, the virus spread across China and around the world.

Even now, the Chinese government is placing its political goals above public health. It claims that the coronavirus has been tamed but wont allow independent verification. It is expelling journalists from several leading US publications, including those that have produced incisive reporting, and has detained independent Chinese reporters who venture to Wuhan. Meanwhile, Beijing is pushing wild conspiracy theories about the origin of the virus, hoping to deflect attention from the tragic results of its early cover-up.

Others are following Chinas example. In Thailand, Cambodia, Venezuela, Bangladesh, and Turkey, governments are detaining journalists, opposition activists, healthcare workers, and anyone else who dares to criticize the official response to the coronavirus. Needless to say, ignorance-is-bliss is not an effective public health strategy.

When independent media is silenced, governments are able to promote self-serving propaganda rather than facts. Egypts President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, for example, downplayed the coronavirus threat for weeks, apparently wanting to avoid harming Egypts tourist industry. His government expelled a Guardian correspondent and warned a New York Times journalist after their articles questioned government figures on the number of coronavirus cases.

The government of Turkeys President Recep Tayyip Erdogan implausibly denies that there are any COVID-19 cases in its prisons, and a prosecutor is investigating a member of parliamenthimself a doctorwho says that a seventy-year-old inmate and a member of the prison staff have tested positive. Thailands Prime Minister Gen Prayut Chan-ocha warned journalists to report on government press conferences only and not to interview medical personnel in the field.

Of course, a free media is not a certain antidote. Responsible government is also needed. US President Donald Trump initially called the coronavirus a hoax. Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro called the virus a fantasy and preventive measures hysterical. Before belatedly telling people to stay home, Mexican President Andrs Manuel Lpez Obrador ostentatiously held rallies, and hugged, kissed, and shook hands with supporters. But at least a free media can highlight such irresponsibility; a silenced media allows it to proceed unchallenged.

Recognizing that the public is more willing to accept government power grabs in times of crisis, some leaders see the coronavirus as an opportunity not only to censor criticism but also to undermine checks and balances on their power. Much as the war on terrorism was used to justify certain long-lasting restrictions on civil liberties, so the fight against the coronavirus threatens longer-term damage to democratic rule.

Although Hungary has reported Covid-19 infections only in the hundreds to date, Prime Minister Viktor Orbn used his partys parliamentary majority to secure an indefinite state of emergency that enables him to rule by decree and imprison for up to five years any journalist who disseminates news that is deemed false. Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte has also awarded himself emergency powers to silence fake news.

As Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu faces corruption charges, his justice minister cited the coronavirus to suspend courts for most cases, as did a close parliamentary ally as he attempted to prevent the oppositions new majority from ousting him as Knesset speakera move that the Israeli Supreme Court said undermin[ed] the foundations of the democratic process. The Trump administration has cited the coronavirus to discourage requests under the Freedom of Information Act, suddenly insisting they be made by only traditional mail, in spite of the greater public health safety of electronic communication.

Some governments are breathing a sigh of relief that the coronavirus has provided a convenient reason to limit political demonstrations. The Algerian government has halted regular protests seeking genuine democratic reform that have been under way for more than a year. The Russian government has stopped even single-person protests against Vladimir Putins plans to rip up term limits on his presidency. The Indian governments recently announced three-week lockdown conveniently ends the running protests against Prime Minister Narendra Modis anti-Muslim citizenship policies. It remains to be seen whether such restrictions outlive the coronavirus threat.

Other governments are using the coronavirus to intensify digital surveillance. China has deepened and extended the surveillance state that is most developed in Xinjiang, where it was used to identify some of the one million Uighur and other Turkic Muslims for detention and forced indoctrination. South Korea has broadcast detailed and highly revealing information about peoples movements to anyone who might have had contact with them. Israels government has cited the coronavirus to authorize its Shin Bet internal security agency to use vast amounts of location-tracking data from the cellphones of ordinary Israelis. In Moscow, Russia is installing one of the worlds largest surveillance camera systems equipped with facial recognition technology. As occurred after September 11, 2001, it may be difficult to put the surveillance genie back in the bottle after the crisis fades.

There is no question these are extraordinary times. International human rights law permits restrictions on liberty in times of national emergency that are necessary and proportionate. But we should be very wary of leaders who exploit this crisis to serve their political ends. They are jeopardizing both democracy and our health.

View original post here:
How Authoritarians Are Exploiting the COVID-19 Crisis to Grab Power - Human Rights Watch

An emergency physician in Bellingham, Washington, Ming Lin used his personal Facebook account to claim that patients and staff lacked the necessary personal protective equipment (PPE) in his hospital. Having made public his grievances with his employer's handling of the covid-19 pandemic, he was fired soon after.

Lin's case is an ominous example. We cannot punish doctors for speaking out during this pandemic. They have a perspective that we need badly now - bringing back first-person knowledge of the worst extremes of a still-building crisis.

Until recently, it was difficult for physicians to share their experiences in newspapers and other publications, unless they could contort their own perspectives into the confines of a constantly mutating news cycle. As it did to so many facets of life, the coronavirus pandemic changed that. Suddenly, news outlets are actively seeking input from physicians and nurses. It should be an ideal time for these fellows to publish and lead. And it would be, if only their employers weren't getting in the way.

On the day that Lin first claimed he was fired, I sent a group of doctors that I work with in my capacity as a facilitator for the OpED Project a link to a CNN form that asked clinicians to share their experiences. In less than 10 minutes, my email was met with another from a hospital administrator, saying "[The hospital] is asking that you NOT share your stories with the media per an email that went out yesterday."

Soon after, a message arrived from the hospital's press office explaining the prohibition: "The format that these kinds of submissions would take inherently make things look more chaotic than they actually are," it read, adding, "We wouldn't want to create the impression that we are detracting from patient care in order to shoot these."

On March 11, another physician connected with my program posted an innocuous mention of a lack of tests and a picture of herself at work; the post was shared more than 1,800 times. She messaged me later saying "turned down interviews w ABC nightly news and Good morning America bc is scrutiny from [the hospital]," because her posts had angered "some important people." She didn't say exactly what irked them, but the only part of her post that would have had anything to do with her employer was the fact that it didn't have enough supplies, which aligned with Lin's complaints.

Similar issues seem to be playing out elsewhere. Fortune magazine and Bloomberg News have both reported that NYU Langone Medical Center in New York has forbidden staff from contacting the media without permission under threat of termination. A number of physicians have complained that they can't speak to the media for fear of being fired.

Protecting patient privacy is a must. So is treating patients; health-care providers shouldn't prioritize media appearances over medical appointments. But after working with health-care professionals during this crisis to facilitate their inclusion in the news, I don't think there's much risk to privacy or patients themselves. From what I've witnessed in working with them, my fellows are committed professionals, and they know that, in this unprecedented crisis, patient care includes public advocacy, minus the personal details.

We need to confront what this media management is really about. Esther Choo, an emergency physician at Oregon Health and Science University, said on CNN this past weekend that much of this is simply hospitals "not wanting to be upfront about how things aren't going well inside their walls." That sounds a lot like an attempt at self-preservation by corporate entities.

That's not to say that all hospitals have something to hide. Indeed, a shortage of PPE isn't an oversight on the facility's part; they are victims to failed leadership by the federal government. And it is true, of course, that we need clinicians doing on clinical duty, not getting ready for their close-up, though all the doctors I know put their professional responsibilities first.

But as the virus spreads, so do health-care providers' job descriptions; they're being asked to fill out clinical rosters in specialties they're not used to. It's not always clear whether this added media responsibility is one of whistleblower or citizen journalist but I don't think that matters. All that matters is that they be allowed to do it without fear of repercussions.

For safety and privacy reasons, journalists can't embed themselves in emergency department bays. The reporting of physicians and nurses is essential. In fact, it might be what saves us. That one Facebook post written by the doctor who declined all of those invitations to speak on national news shows convinced a local politician to activate state agencies in Massachusetts. Another published an op-ed in which he drew on his clinical experience in the hospital to explain how the United States could avoid becoming like Italy. Manufacturers and experts contacted him, inquiring how they could help. I suspect that his employer will eventually tout him as one of the heroes who helped solve the ventilator shortage, as will those of Lin and all the other physicians in the news - if they allow their employees to speak.

Not every doctor or nurse who's had a media appearance has been quieted or threatened. But I fear that many of those who've been allowed to speak have been encouraged to do so out of an interest in branding, rather than from a desire to provide real information.

Some may argue that these physicians should take their lumps if they don't follow their employers' orders. And there's some truth to that: When your job and health insurance are in play, sometimes it's wise to walk a safe path. But this is not one of those times - and they shouldn't have to put themselves in professional jeopardy to help inform us when they're already in the line of fire. And that means it's on their own employers to let them speak up. Rendering clinicians inconsequential during a worldwide pandemic is the worst thing they can do.

View post:
Hospitals are censoring doctors. That endangers the rest of us. - Bryan-College Station Eagle