Latest news with #mediaCensorship
Telegraph
03-07-2025
- Politics
- Telegraph
Taliban bans political debate in free speech crackdown
The Taliban has banned all political debate in Afghanistan's media in a latest crackdown on free speech. Under the rules, which will deepen the fears of a full return to the regime's repressive past, Afghan media organisations must obtain prior approval from the newly formed Political Program Oversight Committee to publish or air political content. 'Analysis must be approved by the official oversight committee before airing or publication,' the new policy says. The committee will monitor all political content, conduct legal reviews, issue regular reports, and enforce sanctions against non-compliant media outlets, according to the framework issued by the Taliban's Ministry of Information and Culture. The rules – framed as Management of Political Programs in Afghanistan – apply to all types of political content published in print, broadcast, digital or social media. 'Recommendations or critiques directed at officials must be respectful, within legal frameworks, and free from defamation or distortion. Analysis must be evidence-based and not rely on unofficial sources,' reads the latest guidelines. The Taliban warned analysts against presenting views that go against the Taliban's official policies and said they will hold hosts and producers responsible for any content that does not align with them. Analysts must also hold identification cards issued by the Taliban's Directorate of Broadcast Affairs and are barred from expressing any views that contradict official Taliban policy. Guest speakers, even from a pre-approved list, require individual approval before every show. 'All analysis must be in accordance with Sharia law, the principles of the Islamic Emirate, and applicable national laws. No content should be anti-Islamic Emirate,' the Taliban said, warning the media that their licences will be revoked if they violate the new regulations. 'Deeply concerned by the Taliban's latest attempt to weaponise the media for political control,' said Lotfullah Najafizada, an Afghan journalist. 'This detailed, five-chapter policy leaves virtually no room for free press.' The Taliban said the policy aims to improve the quality of political analysis, uphold sharia principles, promote national unity and prevent harmful propaganda. 'It will serve as an effective system for managing political media content in Afghanistan,' it said. On Aug 17 2021, following the Taliban's shock takeover of Kabul, the regime's spokesman Zabiullah Mujahid, who had been a shadowy figure for years, sought to portray the group as more moderate and progressive than when they imposed a brutal rule in the late 1990s. He said the Taliban had evolved and that there would be a 'difference when it comes to the actions we are going to take' compared with 20 years ago, while saying the new regime would protect the rights of women and the media. In reality, the Taliban has regressed. Since taken power, it has enforced a strict version of Sharia, severely curbing free speech and women's rights. Public flogging and stoning to death for adultery are common. Women face strict dress codes, bans on education beyond sixth grade, and exclusion from work. The regime has steadily dismantled independent media by shutting media houses, banning women journalists, and detaining media workers.
The Guardian
02-07-2025
- Entertainment
- The Guardian
More than 400 media figures urge BBC board to remove Robbie Gibb over Gaza
More than 400 stars and media figures including Miriam Margolyes, Alexei Sayle, Juliet Stevenson and Mike Leigh have signed a letter to BBC management calling for the removal of a board member, Robbie Gibb, over claims of conflict of interest regarding the Middle East. The signatories also include 111 BBC journalists and Zawe Ashton, Khalid Abdalla, Shola Mos-Shogbamimu and the historian William Dalrymple, who express 'concerns over opaque editorial decisions and censorship at the BBC on the reporting of Israel/Palestine'. Delivered on the eve of Channel 4's airing of the documentary Gaza: Doctors Under Attack, which the BBC commissioned but shelved as it said it 'risked creating a perception of partiality', the letter alleges the decision to drop the film 'demonstrates, once again, that the BBC is not reporting 'without fear or favour' when it comes to Israel'. It also accuses the BBC of being 'crippled by the fear of being perceived as critical of the Israeli government' and claims the 'inconsistent manner in which guidance is applied draws into focus the role of Gibb, on the BBC Board and BBC's editorial standards committee' as 'we are concerned that an individual with close ties to the Jewish Chronicle … has a say in the BBC's editorial decisions in any capacity, including the decision not to broadcast Gaza: Medics Under Fire'. Gibb, Theresa May's former spin doctor and a former head of the BBC's Westminster political team, led the consortium that bought the Jewish Chronicle in 2020 and, up until August 2024, was a director of Jewish Chronicle Media. The letter, organised by a group of BBC insiders, says: 'For many of us, our efforts have been frustrated by opaque decisions made at senior levels of the BBC without discussion or explanation. Our failures impact audiences. 'As an organisation we have not offered any significant analysis of the UK government's involvement in the war on Palestinians. We have failed to report on weapons sales or their legal implications. These stories have instead been broken by the BBC's competitors.' The statement alleges Gibb has a 'conflict of interest' which 'highlights a double standard for BBC content makers who have themselves experienced censorship in the name of 'impartiality'.' It adds: 'In some instances staff have been accused of having an agenda because they have posted news articles critical of the Israeli government on their social media. By comparison, Gibb remains in an influential post with little transparency regarding his decisions despite his ideological leanings being well known. We can no longer ask license fee payers to overlook Gibbs's ideological allegiances.' The letter concludes: 'We, the undersigned BBC staff, freelancers and industry figures are extremely concerned that the BBC's reporting on Israel and Palestine continues to fall short of the standards our audiences expect. We believe the role of Robbie Gibb, both on the board, and as part of the editorial standards committee, is untenable. We call on the BBC to do better for our audiences and recommit to our values of impartiality, honesty and reporting without fear or favour.' Owing to their fear of repercussions, the 111 BBC journalists signed anonymously. A BBC spokesperson said: 'Robust discussions amongst our editorial teams about our journalism are an essential part of the editorial process. We have ongoing discussions about coverage and listen to feedback from staff and we think these conversations are best had internally. 'Regarding our coverage of Gaza, the BBC is fully committed to covering the conflict impartially and has produced powerful coverage from the region. Alongside breaking news, ongoing analysis, and investigations, we have produced award winning documentaries such as Life and Death in Gaza, and Gaza 101.'
Forbes
06-06-2025
- Business
- Forbes
How Foreign Governments Control Entertainment Content
Censored! Many foreign countries have laws that purport to endorse free speech principles, but the governments in power often find a myriad of ways to suppress entertainment content they don't like. Here is a summary of the subtle (and not so subtle) techniques they use: Licensing. One technique to influence content is through the grant or revocation of government licenses, such as national broadcast or internet licenses or even local city licenses to operate a theater. These licenses often hinge on a number of subjective factors that have nothing to do with the content, but it is rather easy for the government to expressly or implicitly threaten to grant or, more importantly, revoke a license if the government doesn't like the content being shown. Withholding Funding. One simple way a foreign government can exert control over content is to withhold any funding to any company that isn't following the government's script, since many companies receive government subsidies in one form or the other, and media companies in particular may receive significant revenue from government advertising. Withholding Access. Companies that show content that is not approved by the foreign government might be denied access to information or interviews that are provided to their competitors, giving companies that behave a competitive advantage. Economic Pressure. Many foreign media companies are owned by oligarchs that have their fingers in various pies, and the government can easily make life difficult or helpful for the oligarchs through (a) the control of government contracts and grants or (b) implementing tax and other laws that favor 'good' companies and punish 'bad' ones. These oligarchs usually cozy up to the government for profit, and the content they permit always reflects it. Censorship. Foreign governments often rely on stretched interpretation of laws regulating content, censoring content the government deems defamatory, fraudulent, biased, or supporting terrorist activities. Government Controlled Content. Foreign governments often own national public broadcast or news networks, which they can flood with pro-government propaganda. Tax. There is always the time-honored technique of tax audits of misbehaving companies or individuals, including criminal prosecution if needed. Smear Campaigns. Foreign governments often engage in smear campaigns against anyone that does not toe the line, subjecting them to public excoriation and private surveillance. Chilling Effect. Foreign governments often rely on the chilling effect accomplished by coming down hard on a few companies using any of the tactics mentioned above and making sure the others get the message. It doesn't take long before everyone else is looking over their shoulder wondering 'who's next?' or 'what other nasty thing could this government think of doing?' The net result is that governments in foreign countries that espouse free speech principles can, if they want, achieve almost the same control over content that is achieved in unapologetically totalitarian systems.
The Guardian
30-05-2025
- Business
- The Guardian
Hanoi bans The Economist's issue featuring Vietnam's leader on its cover, reports say
The latest print edition of the Economist, which features Vietnam's top leader on its cover, has been banned in the country, the latest instance of media censorship in the communist, one-party state. The magazine carried an image of the Communist party General Secretary To Lam with stars on his eyes, alongside the headline 'The man with a plan for Vietnam', with an article carrying the subheading: 'A Communist party hard man has to rescue Asia's great success story'. Vietnam has transformed over recent decades into a manufacturing powerhouse, and was one of Asia's fastest growing economies last year. However, its export-reliant economy, which is heavily dependent on sending goods to the US, faces the threat of a 46% tariff announced early this year by Donald Trump. Noting the need for Vietnam to transform its economic strategy, the Economist article stated: 'If Mr Lam fails, Vietnam will muddle on as a low-value-added production centre that missed its moment', adding that reforms could, on the other hand, 'propel 100m Vietnamese into the developed world, creating another Asian growth engine'. Reports by both Reuters and Bloomberg quoted unnamed distributors who said they could not obtain copies of the magazine or that it had been banned. An unnamed executive at distributor Ngay Moi told Reuters they had been ordered to 'tear off' the cover and article about Lam, adding: 'Later, we were ordered not to sell it at all.' An employee at a second distributor, Global Book Corporation, also told Reuters Vietnam's ministry in charge of public information had banned the edition. Vietnam's ministry of foreign affairs and the Economist did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Earlier this month, Vietnamese authorities ordered telecom providers to block the messaging app Telegram, accusing it of failing to cooperate with efforts to crack down on crime. An internal document reported by Reuters said that many Telegram groups 'with tens of thousands of participants were created by opposition and reactionary subjects spreading anti-government documents'. Vietnam has little tolerance for dissent and maintains a tight control on the media, with press freedom group Reporters sans Frontières ranking it as among the worst in the world for media freedoms - at 173 place out of an index of 180 countries. The group describes Vietnam as 'one of the world's biggest prisons for journalists'. Aleksandra Bielakowska, Advocacy Officer for RSF said the decision to ban distribution of the Economist reflected the continued repression of press freedom in the country. 'It is clear that the Vietnamese authorities consider a free press a challenge to its one-party rule, and will do anything in its power to silence independent voices,' Bielakowska said, citing the case of journalist Pham Doan Trang, who has been detained for nearly five years by the regime. 'While Vietnamese authorities seek rapprochement with democracies to boost its economy, the international community as a whole must seize this opportunity to put human rights and freedom of the press on the frontline of its negotiations,' she added.
