Daily Archives: January 5, 2024

Kelly is a former librarian and a long-time blogger at STACKED. She's the editor/author of (DON'T) CALL ME CRAZY: 33 VOICES START THE CONVERSATION ABOUT MENTAL HEALTH and the editor/author of HERE WE ARE: FEMINISM FOR THE REAL WORLD. Her next book, BODY TALK, will publish in Fall 2020. Follow her on Instagram @heykellyjensen.

View All posts by Kelly Jensen

This is the first in a series of posts that will offer insights and calls to action based on the results of three recent surveys conducted by Book Riot and the EveryLibrary Institute. The surveys explored parental perceptions of public libraries, parental perceptions of librarians, and parental perceptions of school libraries.

We know the results of these surveys are a study in tension. Where parents agreed with big picture ideas across all three surveys, 94% said they feel their child is safe at the library it was some of the more granular topics where we saw conflicting responses. It is important to talk about those, including the fact that there are parents who believe library workers should be prosecuted for the materials they offer in the collection and that many believe there needs to be more barriers to material access in place for their children. But rather than focus on those as threats, perhaps theyre better framed as opportunities. These areas of contention are places where librarians, who are overwhelmingly perceived as trustworthy and worthy of respect, can harness those perceptions to combat mis-, dis-, and malinformation about what they do.

Lets take heart here. The vast majority of parents believe the following things about libraries and library workers:

More:

When it comes to the materials available in the library:

On the topic of parental rights:

Taking heart with this data is important. In a time when library workers are beleaguered by rhetoric from the far-right and are the most likely to be handling book banning issues, it is important to remember the vast majority of parents trust and respect librarians. Where tensions or conflicting ideas emerge is where there is opportunity to educate and challenge mis- and disinformation about the roles and responsibilities of librarians and libraries.

Note that you might need to adapt or modify these ideas based on the laws and policies in your own jurisdiction.

Many library workers already do this, but it bears emphasis. If most parents do not know how librarians select materials for the collection (81% of parents in the school library survey and 53% in the public libraries survey), then offer them an answer. Create a one-sheet or short video explaining the process, including the sort of review sources used in making decisions and why those review sources are used. If youre in a school, explain that materials in the collection both serve the curriculum and meet the recreational needs of student readers. This means meeting the needs of all students in a building, from the youngest to the most senior. Demystify the process and put this information in readily accessible places. Your website is great, and if you are in a school where you can get printed materials into a take-home folder, use that to your advantage. Talk with your boards, too it is possible that board members do not know how the process of selecting library materials works, either, especially if they are new to their role. Offer to give a short presentation at one of the meetings; this will be especially useful for the historical record, as it will be included in meeting minutes and any video repository if recorded.

This also helps inform patrons about why librarians are the most qualified to make collection selections. While librarians ranked as most qualified to choose materials both in public and in school libraries (rating a 3.6 on a 5-point scale, with 5 being most qualified), a small percentage also believed that librarians should be prosecuted for the materials available (25% in public libraries and 16% in school libraries) even if they do not know how those materials are selected.

Parents might still say they do not know how librarians select materials for the collection, but youve done your work. Putting this information out there is transparency and further bolsters your perception as trustworthy. You arent, nor have you ever, tried to hide what youre doing because there is nothing TO hide.

Chances are that you already do, but where and how can you make your presence more visible? This goes more for the school librarians than the public, but it is valuable for both. Only 41% of parents state they have met their school librarian. Where and how can you reach another 41%?

This feels like library 101, but if theres anything that several years of book banning have shown, its that parents do not know there is a list of every book available in the library a frequent call from uninformed parental rights activists (the survey findings are that 67% of parents believe this should exist). Its the library catalog. While you might spend time teaching students how to use it, do you have a handy guide on your website for parents? What might be basic knowledge to you, though, is not to those who are being led by false narratives. Put a guide to using the catalog in an easy-to-find place, and if nothing else, youll have given yourself a point or two for transparency.

The ideal time to update your collection development and management policies was when challenges to books began to rise. The second best time is now, especially given that book banners are taking advantage of bad policies to get hundreds of titles removed at a time. Make these policies robust, explaining the kinds of materials you collect; if you have the opportunity, include information as to why you collect diverse materials, too. The data might not change the minds of those who are committed to a white, cishet christofascist agenda, but it might be eye-opening to others. For example, when you note in your policy that your collection is inclusive of a range of gender and sexual identities, include the statistic that one-quarter of US teens openly identify as LGBTQ+, per the CDC. More, PEW Research notes that only slightly more than half of todays teenagers are non-Hispanic white. One in four of todays teens in the US are Hispanic, 14% are Black, 6% are Asian, and 5% are bi- or multi-racial. Nearly 1/4 of Generation Z are the children of immigrants, and 66% live in households with married parents. This information should not be necessary to state your librarys commitment to inclusion, but it offers information to further support the decisions made by staff.

Use the language being used right now in your collection policies: note that parents always have the right to determine what their children access. If you have opt-out policies for your library, include or link to those; if you dont, emphasize that parents are responsible for having these conversations with their children. They say so themselves! Mention in your policies that you do not remove the right of all children to access materials based on the beliefs of a few. Instead, it is up to parents to set those limits for their own children.

Data show that 43% of parents report knowing their library has a collection development policy, and the same percentage report knowing how to locate it. A slightly higher percentage, 56%, know how to file a complaint about a book they believe to be inappropriate. Once you have updated your policy and created a robust form for book challenges, make it easy to find. You might not like having your challenge policy readily available, but the more you make it findable, not only are you more transparent, but you build trust, too, through being open so that patrons can voice their feelings about the collection. This right to petition goes hand-in-hand with the right to read, and libraries, as upholders of the First Amendment rights of all, should not shy away from it.

Book banners are loud, well-funded, and connected to those perceived to have a lot of power. That is real, and at times, it is unrelenting.

But its also true that those voices are the minority. You have the majority behind you and your work.

With the holidays and school breaks, this list is shorter than usual.

More here:
Data Overwhelmingly Supports Libraries and Library Workers: Book Censorship News, January 5, 2024 - Book Riot

According to innumerable media reports, kids these days dont properly understand or value free speech. The spate of illiberal currents and identitarian blowups in recent years can be blamed on the arrival of Gen Z on college campuses and, later, the workplace.

Except that they cant. Members of Gen Z may indeed hold importantly different perspectives on risk, conflict and identity compared with previous cohorts. However, these differences are not the cause of the Great Awokening and the struggles over status and power that have accompanied it. For that, we have to look to adults these days.

For example, the radical shifts in media discourse, focusing intensely on identity-based discrimination and prejudice, began after 2011 when the oldest members of Gen Z (born in 1997) were only 14. Obviously, they werent working as journalists or in editorial roles deciding what gets published. Nor were they the primary audience that media companies and advertisers were trying to reach.

Protests also increased in 2011, exemplified by the rise of the Occupy Wall Street movement. However, more than 65 per cent of Occupy protesters were 30 years or older at the time (theyd be over 40 today). Subsequent studies looking at the post-2015 #Resistance marches (the Womens March, the March for Science, the March for Racial Justice) put the average age of demonstrators at 38-49.

Likewise, teenagers and tweens couldnt possibly have been responsible for the dramatic shifts in academic culture, administration and research since 2011. People generally dont even begin publishing in academic journals until at least their mid-twenties, and more senior scholars in their forties and fifties typically determine what gets through.

The ideas associated with the Great Awokening have been circulating for decades, developed largely by mid-career professionals, imposed on institutional policies and educational curricula by bureaucrats and implemented by teachers from K-12 through college, pushed on Gen Z during some of their most formative years (largely to their detriment, research suggests, to the extent that young people internalised these messages at all).

Recent rules micromanaging student interactions or encouraging students to report their peers and professors for any perceived offence were likewise developed and imposed by adults, mostly before Gen Z set foot on college campuses and well before they began to comprise a majority of undergrads (around 2017).

Nor was Gen Z responsible for most decisions over the past decade to terminate employees with little to no due process based on social media outrage and unsubstantiated accusations or for defying prevailing orthodoxies or committing unintentional social faux pas. Although young people often participated in these outrage campaigns, senior management ultimately made the decisions to let people go. And financial considerations are typically far more central to such decisions than concerns about what young people think or say.

Similar realities hold for trends in censorship and self-censorship in science. Yes, as colleagues and I illustrate in a new study in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), censorship seems to have grown worse in recent years. However, its often driven by scientists rather than students.

Sometimes academics self-censor to protect themselves not just because theyre concerned about preserving their jobs, but also out of a desire to be liked and included within their disciplines and institutions, or because they dont wish to create problems for their advisees (at the hands of intolerant professors and other gatekeepers).

Other times, scholars attempt to suppress their own or others findings because they view them as incorrect, misleading or potentially dangerous. Sometimes scientists try to squash public discussion of contentious issues for fear that it undermines public trust or scientific authority or provides ammunition for perceived bad actors. As mid-career professionals grew more focused on social justice after 2011, they probably also grew more likely to censor and self-censor in pursuit of these prosocial ends.

This reality has been obscured, in part, because professors often use students as foot soldiers in their censorious campaigns for instance, by trying to cultivate complaints against colleagues they hope to purge, or by firing up students to demonstrate in the service of their pet causes.

According to data by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), roughly 45 per cent of attempts to punish US scholars for their teaching, research or speech are driven by students often egged on by professors or others. While this is a lot, its also the case that most (55 per cent) of the time faculty face disciplinary action, the campaigns are led by colleagues, administrators or outside actors. Other forms of censorship (such as politically biased publication and institutional review board decisions) are driven almost exclusively by academics, not students.

Again, it might be true that Gen Z has idiosyncratic beliefs about free speech, but thats not why knowledge economy institutions are so messed up. They were on a negative trajectory already and seem to be turning a corner now, even as Gen Z are enrolling in ever-growing numbers.

The kids are alright. Its the adults you have to worry about.

Musa al-Gharbi is a sociologist and assistant professor in the School of Communication and Journalism at Stony Brook University and a research fellow at Heterodox Academy.

Go here to see the original:
Blame adults these days for censorship - Times Higher Education

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Iranians could pay up to 34% more for the internet in 2024 as providers get the green light from the government to increase their tariffs.

Deemed as a move to balance persistent high levels of inflation, many commentators fear that less affordable internet rates could exacerbate ongoing issues with online censorship while discouraging citizens from accessing digital services.

Authorities have long been attempting to control the information users can and cannot accessespecially during times of protests. As a result, Iranians have turned en masse to VPN services as a way to bypass restrictions. More expensive internet rates seem to be yet another way to limit people's online activities.

"In an environment of political unrest and regular protests, reliable and affordable internet is crucial for maintaining social connections and staying informed, making this new barrier to connect to the internet all the more devastating," Lina Survila, spokeswoman for VPN provider Surfshark, told me.

Tehran is infamous for heavily restricting the internetSurfshark counted 55 instances since 2015. However, this trend considerably intensified at the end of 2022 when a wave of protests erupted, following the news that a 22-year-old Iranian woman had died in the custody of Iran's morality police for allegedly violating strict hijab rules.

It's very likely this increase in internet tariffs is an attempt to put online access out of reach for many Iranians

Authorities began by throttling internet connections andrestricted access to Instagram and WhatsAppas a means to silence protesters.

Weekly disruptions to internet connectivity have also been enforced during Friday prayers in the Zahedan region ever since, making Iran by far the biggest perpetrator of internet shutdowns in 2023.

While a virtual private network (VPN) cannot help during periods of total internet shutdown, it's a very useful tool for accessing restricted social media platforms and other blocked sites. It spoofs users' IP addresses, while encrypting internet connections for better privacy.

Put simply, VPNs make government imposed restrictions ineffectiveand that's something which doesn't go down well with authorities.

We already mention how technology acts as both an oppressor and liberator in Iran. A spike in internet prices certainly falls into the first category.

On this point, Survila said: "Its very likely that thisincrease in internet tariffsis an attempt to put online access out of reach for many Iranians.Surfsharksinternet divide studyhas shown that the internet already tends to be unaffordable in lower-income countries (including Iran). This price surge threatens to exacerbate the issue."

To make things worse, Iran's internet infrastructure is also considered one of the worst across the globe. In a detailed report the Tehran Electronic Commerce Association described it as being in a "critical state." The government has even previously shared plans for creating a national internet, echoing what China has with its infamous Great Firewall.

This time, concerns also came from the political benches.

As Iran International reported, the former Communications Minister Mohammad-Javad Azari-Jahromi said: "The result of the price hike is apparently clear; the end of this spiral will lead to securing the economic interests of satellite internet providers and widening the [political] gap between the people and the government."

Originally posted here:
Iran's internet price rises, and so does the fear of greater censorship - TechRadar

MAJOR European governments systematic censorship and repression of solidarity with the Palestinians has been revealed in a new damning report, with some states associating peaceful activism with terrorism.

The briefing by Cage International, released on Thursday, analyses state policies in Austria, Denmark, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain and Britain in relation to Israels military campaign in Gaza and calls for a ceasefire.

European governments have adopted a unified stance in response to the genocidal bombardment of Gaza by Israel, the campaign and advocacy group said.

This involves the condemnation of the Palestinian peoples right to resistance and self-determination and unequivocal support for Israel.

As a result, there is active repression of support and solidarity movements for Palestine, the reportwarned.

The report highlighted how European governments are conflating pro-Palestinian activism with support for terrorism, as seen in decisions by the French and German authorities to ban pro-Palestine demonstrations.

In France, the ban was overturned by the Court of Cassation following a widespread backlash, but it remains in force in Germany.

Similar policies are also in place in Austria, Denmark, Spain and the Netherlands.

Alongside the ban, the French Ministry of Justice issued a guideline that forms of support for Palestine should be regarded as backing for terrorism, which led to raids and arrests.

Cage International also reported that right-wing parties are using the issue to attack immigration, threatening the already vulnerable lives of migrants, asylum-seekers and refugees.

In Spain, the far-right Vox party urged the government to suspend applications for Spanish nationality and residency and prohibit migrants from countries of Islamic culture from entering the country.

Cage International said that political, diplomatic, and military backing for Israel persists among these European states, further fuelling the mass murder of innocent Palestinian lives.

Managing director Muhammad Rabbani said: Across Europe, a discernible pattern of systematic repression is emerging.

Governments have been actively seeking to curb public solidarity with Palestine.

This effort has manifested in numerous arrests, prosecutions and even the outright banning of legitimate civil society organisations.

Overall, it appears these policies of intimidation have failed to achieve their intended goal.

Mr Rabbani said that the public outcry against Israels actions and sympathy for the Palestinian cause are now at unprecedentedlevels.

Following its findings,Cage International is to publish a toolkit on how to resist crackdowns and continue to show solidarity with Palestine.

Read more here:
Report highlights censorship and repression of Palestine solidarity across Europe - Morning Star Online

Happy New Year I hope

Entering a new year typically encourages us to reflect on the past 12 months and consider the impact of what is likely to happen in the next 12. Depressingly, 2023 was yet another year marked by authoritarians clamping down on freedom of expression and harnessing the power of digital technology to persecute, harass and undermine those who challenge them.

Not only did the tyrants, despots and their allies attempt to again crack down on any seemingly independent thought within their own territories, several also sought to weaponise the legal system at home and abroad through the use of SLAPPs. Several EU member states, especially the Republic of Ireland, as well as the United Kingdom have found themselves at the centre of these legal attacks on freedom of expression.

SLAPPs werent the only threat to freedom of expression in 2023 though from the crackdown on protesters in Iran, to the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, the continuing repressive actions of Putin and Lukashenka, the end of freedom of expression in Hong Kong, the increasingly restrictions imposed by Modi, the latest war in the Middle East and the ongoing attacks on journalists in South America.

My depressing list could go on and on. However, we desperately need to find some hope in the world, so Index on Censorship ended 2023 with our campaign entitled Moments of Freedom, highlighting the good in the world so lets carry on with that optimism. A new year brings new beginnings after all. So lets focus on the new moments of light which will hopefully touch our lives this year.

Half the worlds population will go to the polls this year. Thats an extraordinary four billion people. Each with their own aspirations for their families, hopes for their country and dreams of a more secure world.

As a politician it should come as no surprise to anyone that I love elections. The best campaigns are politics at their purest, when the needs and aspirations of the electorate should be centre stage. Elections provide a moment when values are on the line. How people want to be governed, what rights they wish to advance and how they hold the powerful to account. These are all actioned through the ballot box.

There are elections taking place in countries significant for Index because of their likely impact on freedom of expression and the impact the results may have on the current internationally agreed norms, including Taiwan, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, South Africa, Russia, Brazil, the European Union, the USA and the United Kingdom. And given current events we can only hope for elections in Israel to be added to the list. The list goes on with each election posing different questions and the results having a different impact on the current world order.

Many other human rights organisations will talk about the importance of these elections for international stability, and rightly so. At Index we will focus on what these elections mean for the dissidents, journalists, artists and academics. Our unique network of reporters and commentators around the world will allow us to bring you the hidden stories taking place and will highlight the threats and opportunities each result poses to freedom of expression. As with 2023, 2024 will be a year where Index hands a megaphone to dissidents so their voice is amplified.

The rallying cry for 2024 must be: Your freedom needs you! If you are one of the four billion remember that your ballot is the shield against would-be despots and tyrants. It is the ultimate democratic duty and responsibility and the consequences go far beyond your immediate neighbourhood so use it and use it wisely.

See the original post here:
2024, the year that four billion go the polls - Index on Censorship

Government Internet censorship is a permanent fact of life in some countries, but there are many more countries that impose Internet blocks in response to specific events. A new report says that happened on 196 occasions last year, with hundreds of millions of people affected

Some governments impose permanent restrictions on full Internet access. The biggest culprit here is China, which blocks access to a wide range of services, including:

The so-called Great Firewall of China also imposes blocks on content containing specific keywords. This includes the names of government leaders, political protests, the Tiananmen Square Massacre, and more.

But the annual report published by VPN review site Top10VPN looks instead at occasions when governments impose temporary shutdowns or blocks.

The latest report shows that there were 196 major self-imposed internet outages in 2023, across a total of 25 countries.

Iraq was the biggest offender, with a total of 66 shutdowns last year. Manipur, India, had the longest shutdown, totalling more than 5,000 hours.

Unsurprisingly, social network X topped the list of platform-specific blocks. Both news and commentary on political events and protests spread quickly on the platform, and repressive governments responded with blocks totalling 10,683 hours. Instagram, TikTok, and Facebook were also targeted.

Messaging services were also hit. These are commonly used to coordinate protests, and to circulate new the government doesnt want known. WhatsApp, Telegram, and Signal were all affected.

The reasons for these blocks is not hard to guess: wars and other conflicts, military coups, protests, and elections where repressive governments aim to block reports of election interference.

When a government wants to block Internet access while pretending not to, extreme throttling is used where bandwidth is reduced to such a degree that the Internet becomes effectively unusable. This is a common tactic for governments aiming to stop the circulation of videos, including live-streaming from protests.

Protocol blocking is used when governments want to shut down certain apps, or categories of apps. Here, they block specific TCP/IP ports used by messaging apps, for example.

In addition to the obvious human rights violations involved, the site says that the economic cost is significant.

Government internet outages in 25 countries lasting over 79,000 hours cost the global economy $9.01 billion in 2023.

Photo:FlyD/Unsplash

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

See original here:
Government Internet censorship was imposed 196 times last year - 9to5Mac

Tom Smothers died last week, on the day after Christmas. The comedian and folk musician was 86. He died of causes related to cancer. Smothers and his brother Dick performed as a duo for some 60 years. Their act ostensibly centered on performing folk songs, but they developed ahumorous patterrooted in sibling rivalry early on in their joint career, which established them as acomedy act.

In the late 1960s, Tom Smothers demonstrated an anti-establishment streak, in relation not only to the Vietnam War but other social issues, which led CBS executives, in April 1969, to cancelThe Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour, a popular and influential prime-time weekly program, at the end of its third season. Although they eventually prevailed in a lawsuit against the television network, the brothers never regained their position in the national limelight. They demonstrated principle and paid the economic and career price.

In light of the various efforts at present to suppress widespread opposition to the policies of both parties, and in particular protests against the homicidal Israeli onslaught in Gaza, funded and fully endorsed by the White House, it is worth recalling that a willingness to launch fierce attacks on freedom of speech and democratic rights runs freely in the veins of the American ruling elite. The threat that a message of resistance to official policy will reach broad layers of the population has always especially terrified the powers that be in the US. At various points in the 20thcentury, and now in the 21st, the government, in close alliance with big business, has launched vicious campaigns against performers and other figures who defy what is proclaimed to be the national consensus.

Tom (born 1937) and Dick Smothers (born 1938) at first glance would seem to have been unlikely candidates for political iconoclasm.

Their father, a career soldier, was killed in the last days of World War II, while a prisoner of war of the Japanese, apparently by friendly fire. His POW ship was mistakenly bombed by Allied pilots en route from the Philippines to Korea. Their mother, according to author David Bianculli, inDangerously Funny: The Uncensored Story of The Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour,was in and out of rehab and state hospitals, leaving her children with others as she tried, with little success, to conquer her alcoholism. The family (including a sister) lived in southern California.

The brothers began performing together as a duo in 1960. Their influences were Burl Ives, the Kingston Trio, the Limeliters and other relatively innocuous acts. They intended to be straightforward folk singers, but feared they lacked the necessary musical skills. What eventually made them different was Toms nervous, obviously fictitious introductions to various songs, his generally mischievous or sometimes frightened demeanor, and the conflicts that inevitably arose between the brothers. They discovered an ability to improvise, and the naturalness of the comic friction between them rapidly attracted audiences.

Repeated appearances onThe Jack Paar Show(officiallyThe Tonight Show), starting in January 1961, made them nationally prominent figures. ANew York Timesreview in 1961 observed that Toms foolery reflects the speech pattern of a frightened tenth-grader giving a memorized talk at a Kiwanis meeting, while Dicks cherubic look suggests that he may have just won a Boy Scout merit badge for bass-playing.

The brothers were featured in a situation comedy,The Smothers Brothers Show, which lasted only one season, 1965-66, on CBS. Tom fought with executives of the production company.

He was determined to wield more creative control in the brothers next television venture, a variety series,The Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour, which was aired on Sunday nights at 9:00 p.m. starting in February 1967, against one of the most popular programs on network television, the long-running Western,Bonanza.

The shows 71 episodes appeared in the midst of highly explosive political and social events, including major inner-city riots; the assassinations of Martin Luther King Jr. and Robert F. Kennedy; the eruption of mass protests against the Vietnam War and the various bloody battles and campaigns of that conflict, including the Tet Offensive; the decision by Lyndon B. Johnson not to run again for the presidency; the brutal police attacks on protesters at the 1968 Democratic National Convention; and many others. Globally, of course, this was a period of upheaval with revolutionary implications, in Western Europe, Latin America and elsewhere.

To their credit, the Smothers Brothers, unlike most of the television personalities of the time, had the audacity to bring many of these events, and individuals with something to say about them, onto their program.

A number of controversial decisions led to a state of almost continuous warfare with CBS executives. One of the most memorable was the decision to invite veteran left-wing folk singer Pete Seeger to perform during the second season of theComedy Hour. Seeger had been blacklisted on prime time US television for 17 years after being listed inRed Channels, which identified individuals and organizations it claimed had affiliations with, or sympathy for, the Communist Party. This publication (byCounterattackmagazine, the newsletter of facts to combat Communism, started by three former FBI agents) fed the communist witch hunts and gave ammunition to Republican senator Joseph McCarthy from Wisconsin (Dangerously Funny).

Not only was Seeger scheduled to appear, but he planned to sing his new composition, Waist Deep in the Big Muddy, a song, although set in World War II, that was an obvious reference to the ongoing Vietnam War and the role of Lyndon Johnson in prosecuting it. As David Bianculli explains, The sixth and final stanza was the one that made CBS brass the most apoplectic. Every time I read the papers, Seeger sang, that old feeling comes onwere waist deep in the Big Muddy, and the big fool says to push on. Seeger was singing this five weeks after Johnson had committed more troops to Vietnam, and CBS found it unacceptable. CBS excised the song from the show, on a night when more than one in five US households tuned in to see Seeger sing.

Five months later, in February 1968, Seeger returned to the program, sang Waist Deep in the Big Muddy, and CBS raised no objections. As Bianculli notes, Tom Smothers had kept up a steady campaign against the act of censorship, but attitudes toward the Vietnam War, including attitudes within sections of the media and political establishment, had shifted. Also on CBS, only two days after Seegers second appearance, longtime news anchor Walter Cronkite appeared in a special and argued that it seems now more certain than ever that the bloody experience of Vietnam is to end in a stalemate and that more troops would not affect the probable outcome.

The Smothers Brothers also aroused the ire of CBS by opening their third season, in September 1968, with an appearance by Harry Belafonte, another veteran radical performer, with his own history of association with the Communist Party, or its artistic periphery. In one of his segments on the program, Belafonte sang a calypso medley built around Dont Stop the Carnival, written originally about the frenzied madness of a Mardi Gras celebration, but with new lyrics added to refer to the Democratic National Convention [one month earlier]as footage from the convention, and of police dragging and arresting protesters outside the hall, is projected behind him. Chicago Mayor Richard Daley was clearly shown in clips that were, to put it lightly, not at all flattering (Dangerously Funny).

CBS officials on both the West and East Coast were adamant in their refusal to broadcast the number. A bitter conflict between Tom Smothers and the CBS hierarchy erupted. The season premiere was broadcast without the Belafonte Carnival sequence. Adding insult to injury, CBS sold some five minutes of the space created by their censorship to the Republican Party as a campaign spot for presidential candidate Richard Nixon.

Conflicts between the brothers, Tom in particular, and CBS raged throughout the third and final season. Continued and sustained criticism of the Vietnam quagmire, mockery of religion (featuring comic David Steinberg), attacks on police brutality, references to interracial relationships, double entendres about drug use and sexuality and, as a new feature, the skewering of Nixon (including an Arthurian-era tale, Bianculli comments, with Sir Richard of Nixon, also known as Tricky Dicky, that probably put the Smothers Brothers on Nixons radar), all of this only added fuel to the fire.

The Smothers Brothers also made an effort to present music which young people were listening to. Among the groups and individuals who appeared on the program were George Harrison, Buffalo Springfield, Cream, the Who, Donovan, the Doors, Janis Ian, Jefferson Airplane, Peter, Paul and Mary, Steppenwolf, Simon and Garfunkel, Ray Charles and Ike and Tina Turner.

An appeal from David North: Donate to the WSWS today

Watch the video message from WSWS International Editorial Board Chairman David North.

An appearance by folk singer Joan Baez produced another bitter dispute between Tom Smothers and corporate headquarters. Baez introduced a song by explaining that it was dedicated to her husband, David Harris, who was going to be going to prison, probably in June, and hell be there for three years. The reason he was going, she continued, is because he refused to have anything to do with the draft, or selective service, or whatever you want to call itmilitarism in general.

CBS, under newly installed president Robert Wood, butchered Baezs appearance, cutting out her explanation of the reasons for Harris being sentenced to prison.

In the end, on April 4, 1969, CBS used the fact that the Smothers brothers had not provided executives and affiliates a videotape version of an upcoming show in time for them to make changes and cuts as an excuse for firing them. Murray Kempton in theNew York Post, Bianculli writes, saluted the bravery of the brothers in bringing on guests Pete Seeger and Joan Baez, and quoted Toms self-effacing but accurate assessment of the blandness of 1960s television: We stand out, Kempton quoted Tom as saying, because nothing else is being said. Wed be moderates anywhere else.

The political and social stakes were high. The urban riots, mass protests over Vietnam and unrest on college campuses and a major strike wave in major industries, in addition to the specter of revolution in France and other parts of the world, terrified the American ruling class. It should be remembered that the Smothers Brothers and their social commentary, in a different technological and media universe, were being viewed by between 30 to 35 million people a week. The show was one of the top five American television series most watched by people under 35. The satirical and other attacks, moderate as they may have been, were unacceptable.

Bianculli acknowledges that there is no smoking gun connecting the White House to the demise of the Smothers Brothers program, but there is considerable circumstantial evidence, including Nixons general vindictiveness, his drawing up of an enemies list and his determination to eliminate critics in artistic and academic circles.

In 1973, Bianculli points out, Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein of theWashington Postexposed the fact that a former New York City policeman had been hired to conduct more than 20 secret probes between 1969 and 1971 ordered by the White House and instigated by Watergate co-conspirators H.R. Haldeman and John Ehrlichman. One of the targets was the Smothers Brothers.

Tom Smothers refused to back down in face of the effort to suppress the series. He never apologized or exhibited repentance. He and his brother continued to perform as a duo for decades. In December 2022, the brothers announced that they would tour in 2023.

On a 1988 reunion show, they sang, to the tune of Those Were the Days, new lyrics written for the occasion by Mason Williams: Once upon a time we were on TV / Every Sunday night we knocked em dead / We stirred up trouble, so the network fired us / I guess that it was something that we said / Those were the days, my friends...

In 2008, Steve Martinone of the writers on the brothersComedy Hourpresented Tom Smothers with an Emmy award for writing on the 1968-69 series. (Smothers had excluded his name from the list of writers submitted for the award that year because he was afraid it was too volatile.)

Smothers told the audience, clearly referring to the Bush administration and the Iraq war, Its hard for me to stay silent when I keep hearing that peace is only attainable through warand theres nothing more scary than watching ignorance in action. I dedicate this Emmy, he continued, to all people who feel compelled to speak out, and are not afraid to speak to power, and wont shut up, and refuse to be silenced.

The World Socialist Web Site is the voice of the working class and the leadership of the international socialist movement. We rely entirely on the support of our readers. Please donate today!

Here is the original post:
Comedian and musician Tom Smothers dies at 86: A victim of government and corporate censorship in the late 1960s - WSWS

The artist selected to represent Poland at the 2024 Venice Biennale last year says that the new Polish governments decision to cancel his project at the worlds most prestigious exhibition is an act of censorship.

Ignacy Czwartos was selected by the previous administration led by the right-wing party Law and Justice (PiS). But in a statement issued on 29 December the ministry, under new prime Minister Donald Tusk, called off Czwartoss project.

Czwartos tells The Art Newspaper that his exhibition proposal Polish Practice in Tragedy. Between Germany and Russiawas initially selected in an open competition. On 31 October, Polands Ministry of Culture announced that it would indeed present an exhibition by Czwartos at the countrys national pavilion at the Biennale.

The announcement came at a time when Poland was waiting to see what form its next government would take, following a general election on 15 October. Czwartos was recommended by a jury convened by Warsaws Zachta National Gallery of Art.

PiS emergedas the largest party in the October election but failed to win a majority; Donald Tusk has subsequently formed a new centrist coalition government. Tusk was previously prime minister of Poland between 2007 and 2014, later becoming European Council president.

The selection took place in accordance with the legal procedures. The verdict of the competition jury was accepted by the Minister of Culture and National Heritage. The contract between me and Zachta Gallery, the institution responsible for the realisation of the exhibition has been signed, Czwartos adds.

Nevertheless, on 29 December, I received the information that the new Minister of Culture and National Heritage, Bartomiej Sienkiewicz, had stopped the project. No reasons were given to justify the decision and, what is more, this decision is contrary to the regulations in force. I perceive it as censorship. The ministry was contacted for comment.

The Polish ministry of culture said in an online statement that after analysing the competition procedures for the exhibition and after [gathering] the opinions and voices of the communities, accepted the decision not to implement the project [Polish Practice in Tragedy. Between Germany and Russia]." Poland will now be represented by Open Group, a collective that includes Yuriy Biley, Pavlo Kovach, and Anton Varga.

A spokesperson for Zacheta tells us: As per the regulations, Sienkiewicz has given the go-ahead to the back-up exhibition project, Repeat after Me, submitted by curator Marta Czy and featuring Open Group. Zachta National Gallery of Art will remain responsible for organising and producing the exhibition, as well as fully overseeing the Polish Pavilion in Venice.

In a proposal document submitted to the Biennale, Czwartoss exhibition,Polish Practice in Tragedy. Between Germany and Russia, was described as a profound reflection by a contemporary Polish artist on the tragic history of the 20th century.

Czwartos says: My project, through a set of paintings and objects, presents Polish experience of the clash between two totalitarianisms: Soviet communism and German National Socialism. The project refers also to the present day, above all to Putin's brutal attack in Ukraine. It is not an anti-European project at all, but rather it refers to the forces that had destroyed Europe in the past and today.

However, Czwartoss project faced a backlash from critics last year who said it was too closely aligned with the agenda of the Law and Justice (PiS) party. Those criticising Czwartos nomination included some former Zachta staff and three members of the museums jury: Jagna Domalska, Joanna Warsza and Karolina Zibiska-Lewandowska.

They told The Art Newspaper: To us the decision to select Ignacy Czwartos seems like a tragic Endspiel after eight years of right-wing rule... we regret that after the most open, welcoming, transnational and complex art of Magorzata Mirga-Tas [who represented Poland at the 2022 Biennale], we move to the most narrow-minded, ideologically paranoid and shameful position.

Read more here:
Polish pavilion selection at Venice Biennale gets political as rejected artist cries censorship - Art Newspaper

This past Friday, an op-ed was published in The Wall Street Journal by former Israeli prime minister Naftali Bennett in which he revealed two operations carried out by Israel in Iran in 2022: an attack on an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) base in Iran and the assassination of a senior Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) commander.

The one problem: The article was never approved by the IDF Military Censor, the unit responsible for the censoring of information that, if published, may be harmful to Israels security.

Bennett wrote, After Iran launched two failed UAV attacks on Israel in February 2022, Israel destroyed a UAV base on Iranian soil. In March 2022, Irans terror unit attempted to kill Israeli tourists in Turkey and failed. Shortly thereafter, the commander of that very unit was assassinated in the center of Tehran.

Israeli media revealed shortly after Bennetts article was released that, despite revealing sensitive information, the former prime minister did not seek permission from the censor before he filed his op-ed.

In response to the criticism, Bennett said, The problem with Iran is not the publication of the moves we made against it that were already known in the past, but that Iran attacks us through Hamas and Hezbollah and even the Houthis, and the governments of the past decade talk and speak, but do not exact a painful price from the leaders of Iran.

In other words, Bennett attempted to shift the blame from himself, without responding directly to criticism, to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

While much can be said in the way of criticism of actions in terms of Israeli security carried out by Netanyahu and his governments especially the present one this was not the context to do so. This was the context to confess to having made an error at a time, not only of war, but of peak tensions with Iran.

A similar situation had occurred in February 2020 when Yisrael Beytenu leader Avigdor Liberman revealed that then-Mossad chief Yossi Cohen and then-IDF Southern Command head Maj.-Gen. Herzi Halevi met with top Qatari officials to work on a deal with Hamas. This news was under gag order by the censor.

That being said, there is cause for concern over the modus operandi being practiced at the Military Censor.

On a regular basis, publications within themselves find their articles shot down, while other publications have the same exact story approved for publishing.

The Journalists Union of Israel sent a letter to Military Chief Censor Kobi Mandelblit last month saying that it had recorded three recent cases in which reports by one news outlet were rejected, while the same reports were approved for other outlets.

We understand that in a security situation, certainly in wartime, it is vital to maintain national security, and the censor is one of the tools that help in maintaining this, the union said, but the accumulation of three cases within a few days raises the suspicion that there is a preference for one media outlet over others.

In one such case in August, KAN was allowed to publish that security forces had thwarted an Iranian weapons smuggling attempt into Israel from Jordan in July while all other news outlets were told this was under gag order.

Haaretz revealed a month ago that Mandelblit was being pressured by Netanyahu to block reports without national security justification, some of which related to private matters concerning the prime minister and his wife. Mandelblit disqualified the report per request, claiming that it was for the security of the couple.

This came shortly after Netanyahu attempted to pass a law that would make it illegal for the censor to approve publication of leaked cabinet meeting conversations. He claimed that the leaks endangered national security, despite the majority of the conversations being arguments between coalition members, demonstrating fissures in the emergency government.

The censor, at a time of war more than ever, is crucial for preventing security information leaks that could put Israelis in harms way. That being said, recent reports demonstrate that the ability to reject news reports is being used and abused, both for political gain and by giving preferential treatment to one publication over another.

This hurts both the medias ability to report the news and the publics right to know it.

Here is the original post:
Wartime censorship is necessary, but must be responsible - editorial - The Jerusalem Post