Many British politicians would doubtless rejoice at the news that Andrew Marr, Emily Maitlis, and Andrew Neil were to leave their jobs almost simultaneously.
That is the fate that has befallen what could loosely be described as their counterparts in Japan – Ichiro Furutachi, Hiroko Kuniya and Shigetada Kishii – three respected broadcasters with a reputation for asking tough questions.
Their imminent departure from evening news programmes is not just a loss to their profession; critics say they were forced out as part of a crackdown on media dissent by an increasingly intolerant prime minister, Shinzo Abe, and his supporters.
Only last week, the internal affairs minister, Sanae Takaichi, sent a clear message to media organisations. Broadcasters that repeatedly failed to show "fairness" in their political coverage, despite official warnings, could be taken off the air, she told MPs.
Under broadcast laws, the internal affairs minister has the power to suspend broadcasting that does not maintain political neutrality.
Additional coverage at LibertyBlitzkrieg.com.
(Score: 2) by martyb on Monday February 22 2016, @03:36AM
Though this story references Japan and the UK, it leads me to wonder how things are in the rest of the world. The USA has the First Amendment [wikipedia.org] which guarantees freedom of the press. It is easy to take this for granted, but stories like this one cause me stop for a moment and reflect on just how important a protection it is. SoylentNews was founded and incorporated in pursuit of providing a forum for open discussion. We have had over 300,000 comments posted to this site over the past two years. I find it sad that these journalists, in service to their community, have lost their jobs in their pursuit of the truth.
Wit is intellect, dancing.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 22 2016, @02:03PM
One the one hand you are right. On the other hand it is just as likely to happen here, even if the means are different. Consolidation of media and turning news into a sideshow with two asshats arguing back and forth the same talking points while the "journalist" serves as a referee is no better.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Monday February 22 2016, @02:27PM
Correct. Your constitution "guarantees" a lot of stuff but how much of that has been completely ignored or overridden by recent governments, with the public too apathetic and/or powerless to enforce it?
Sometimes it seems like all constitutional debate in the US is diverted into gun control, allowing all sorts of constitutional violations to slip past unchallenged. If I was the conspiracy theory type, I might comment on just how convenient that would be for the Powers That Be.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Thexalon on Monday February 22 2016, @02:30PM
That sort of thing does indeed happen in the United States. A couple of cases:
There's another problem that's also pretty obvious: Most political reporters depend on inside anonymous sources. Those same sources effectively control that reporters' career, because they can either feed those reporters accurate information to build their careers, inaccurate information to diminish their careers, or cut off access to end their careers. And you can be damn sure that reporters factor that in to what they write or say.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 22 2016, @03:42PM
To me MSNBC is a lot like Fox. So not surprising he was let go if Obama didn't like him. For America I think they have gotten around the 1st amendment by making all news opinion pieces. Freedom to say anything that means nothing.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Non Sequor on Tuesday February 23 2016, @01:36AM
The Jane Akre and Steve Wilson story is a bit more complicated than that. There's no smoking gun for adverse human health effects from rBGH and the bans in Canada and the EU are on the basis of documented adverse effects on cow health. The FDA approved rBGH on the basis that even though it causes demonstrable health problems in the animals themselves, there is a lack of demonstrable effects on the milk.
From what I understand, they were not publishing new evidence of adverse effects of rBGH, but rather they were building a piece based on an existing body of criticism of rBGH, which as noted above lacks a human health smoking gun. Akre and Wilson's opinion was that the pro-rBGH sources are not credible and that adding them to the story would undermine a message they felt was important.
The local news station management, after being made aware that they would be sued if the story that was being prepared at that time was aired, did not feel confident in Akre and Wilson's assessment of the credibility of the various sources that were available. They went through 8 months of trying to get the piece moderated to the point where they weren't going to be sued.
Additionally, the appellate court's ruling noted that most of the claims by Akre and Wilson had been defeated at a lower court. The only claim which had been decided in their favor was that they had been terminated in retaliation for a threat to report the station to the FCC for news distortion. The appellate court ruling was not based on evaluating the soundness of the remaining claim but rather on whether or not informal FCC guidance on news distortion was within scope for a Florida whistle blower law. The court found that the whistle blower law was intentionally constructed to pertain to violations of formally adopted rules. I haven't read the lower court opinion, but I wouldn't take it for granted that the lower court finding in favor of the plaintiff on that claim included an evaluation of whether or not the station management distorted the story. The jury may have decided that claim on the basis of finding that the threat of reporting to the FCC was what triggered the termination. The validity or invalidity of the accusation of news distortion may not have been a consideration in that decision. That would be consistent with the rest of the claims being dismissed and only a claim with a simpler legal construction being decided for the plaintiff.
Now, all that said, there are some sinister elements in play here, but they are much more subtle than the storyline of "evil corporation stifles do-gooder journalists". What's sinister here is that a whitewash piece that shows only the pro-rBGH side could be published much more easily and with much less threat of legal action than a piece that only shows the anti-rBGH side. One side is enabled to make bolder public claims than the other. You can't see that asymmetry in the system from any one story, but this case demonstrates that it exists on average across multiple stories.
Write your congressman. Tell him he sucks.
(Score: 5, Touché) by theluggage on Monday February 22 2016, @03:16PM
The USA has the First Amendment [wikipedia.org] which guarantees freedom of the press.
Last time I looked, the US constitution prevents the government from passing any law that inhibits the freedom of the press. It says nothing about forbidding media barons from having vested interests and firing employees that don't toe the company line (I mean, they're not the government so whatever they do must be ok and any attempt to prevent them abusing their power is pinko commie evil, right?)
"Who watches the watchers?" is a paradox - "we do!" is not a valid answer.
(Score: 2) by naubol on Monday February 22 2016, @06:43PM
Exactly! You can go beyond this and start baiting incendiary stories in order to capture the media's attention and reduce the chances that people will think about what you don't want them to think about. Opportunistic bigotry is a huge problem. The people lighting these fires don't honestly care.
I'm hopeful that the rise of more distributed means of communication via the internet, the new media, are able to find purchase in the larger market and supplant much of the typical opinion making over time. So, I am not sure that the 1st amendment isn't alive and well in this medium.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Monday February 22 2016, @09:29PM
I mean, they're not the government so whatever they do must be ok and any attempt to prevent them abusing their power is pinko commie evil, right?
I know you're trying to be sarcastic, but legally, yes that is correct. And historically, yellow journalism has been with the US for longer than there's been a US.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by legont on Monday February 22 2016, @03:42PM
Russian constitution puts it like this (and not in an amendment, mind you)
Article 29.
Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought and speech.
Propaganda or campaigning inciting social, racial, national or religious hatred and strife is impermissible. The propaganda of social, racial, national, religious or language superiority is forbidden.
No one may be coerced into expressing one's views and convictions or into renouncing them.
Everyone shall have the right to seek, get, transfer, produce and disseminate information by any lawful means. The list of information constituting the state secret shall be established by the federal law.
The freedom of the mass media shall be guaranteed. Censorship shall be prohibited.
http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/russian/const/ch2.html [bucknell.edu]
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 22 2016, @04:03PM
Very nice and informative.
Many times I see on this site and others that x/y/z can't happen in the US because of the constitution. I guess most constitutions look very nice with well intended content.
But the US is the only country I know of that is actively violating the Geneva conventions on human rights, on a daily basis, with full democratic government support. That should ring a warning bell to all US citizens.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday February 22 2016, @09:40PM
But the US is the only country I know of that is actively violating the Geneva conventions on human rights, on a daily basis, with full democratic government support.
Which isn't saying much since a) you don't sound like you know much, b) violation covers a wide scale - murdering millions of civilians or not meeting dress code, and c) the Geneva Conventions are brutal on parties who don't follow the Geneva Conventions (namely, there is reciprocity - you don't have to honor most of the provisions of the Conventions for a foe who isn't complying with the Conventions).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 25 2016, @04:51AM
c) the Geneva Conventions are brutal on parties who don't follow the Geneva Conventions (namely, there is reciprocity - you don't have to honor most of the provisions of the Conventions for a foe who isn't complying with the Conventions).
That's not very principled. Someone who advocates for government censorship should still have their free speech rights respected. People who advocate for mass surveillance should still have their privacy rights respected. And so on.
Instead of lowering yourself to their level, you should take the opportunity to show that you are better than they are.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday February 29 2016, @12:25PM
That's not very principled. Someone who advocates for government censorship should still have their free speech rights respected. People who advocate for mass surveillance should still have their privacy rights respected. And so on.
And people who kill innocents either directly or by hiding among innocents should be allowed to continue to kill? The difference here is that it's not advocacy. The proper analogy would start with someone who is imposing censorship or mass surveillance so heinous that there's international law against it.
Instead of lowering yourself to their level, you should take the opportunity to show that you are better than they are.
Principle doesn't stop the behavior.
(Score: 3, Informative) by tibman on Monday February 22 2016, @04:53PM
Where's the part that excludes lesbian/gay people? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Russia [wikipedia.org]
Maybe Russia is fighting against the gay agenda or something?
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 2) by Refugee from beyond on Monday February 22 2016, @05:34PM
Article 19 guarantess equality. Currently, it is just a paper, though. Worse than that, if you try to raise awareness you are more than likely to be declared extremist or something.
Instantly better soylentnews: replace background on article and comment titles with #973131.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Monday February 22 2016, @11:26PM
Article 29 guarantees nothing, because the second sentence destroys the rest.
You are free to hold your own thoughts.
You are also required to hold your tongue.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 22 2016, @10:06PM
The prohibitions against "propaganda" quoted in the grandparent post are, I surmise, the basis of Russia's policy against pro-gay speech. In the English translation, they seem very broad.
(Score: 2) by BradTheGeek on Monday February 22 2016, @06:45PM
Tell that to Pussy Riot
(Score: 2) by naubol on Monday February 22 2016, @06:45PM
Unless you want to talk publically about homosexuality and then you're a criminal. Propaganda can clearly mean whatever they want it to mean and thus provide an avenue for censoring what you like.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 22 2016, @09:55PM
Wow. Islam is just completely fucked then. No wonder they don't try to take over Russia
(Score: 2) by legont on Tuesday February 23 2016, @03:31AM
Funny you said that. Here is video of Muslims praying on the streets in Moscow https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1Kqh8cTi34 [youtube.com]
Here is Putin inaugurating the biggest mosque in Europe; again in Moscow http://www.haaretz.com/world-news/1.677188 [haaretz.com] (in a very interesting company, given recent developments)
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday February 22 2016, @11:38PM
Propaganda or campaigning inciting social, racial, national or religious hatred and strife is impermissible. The propaganda of social, racial, national, religious or language superiority is forbidden.
So their constitution guarantees freedom of speech, except speech that they don't like.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Monday February 22 2016, @10:39PM
Well, in exchange for that freedom, there are a lot of people thinking there should be some requirement for objectivity. Otherwise the press becomes LESS than useless, because it begins to damage discourse.
The rub is trying to find some way to judge objectivity and truth, without empowering the government to do that.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday February 22 2016, @11:45PM
Well, in exchange for that freedom
There is no "in exchange for" in the first amendment. It's not a 'We'll give you these rights if you do these things...' type of thing.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Tuesday February 23 2016, @01:38AM
I would have thought my comment made it crystal clear that a government solution wasn't wanted.
However, you assume there is no leverage. Yet we LICENSE TV stations, and we lease public broadcast spectrum (for large sums of money) to TV stations with the expectation that they will adhere to some standards and regulations.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Tuesday February 23 2016, @03:21AM
However, you assume there is no leverage. Yet we LICENSE TV stations, and we lease public broadcast spectrum (for large sums of money) to TV stations with the expectation that they will adhere to some standards and regulations.
I don't assume that. I'm well aware that the government violates the constitution.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by davester666 on Tuesday February 23 2016, @06:41AM
Sorry, the US may have the first amendment, but politicians still manage to do a good job of controlling reporters.
You do a hit on a politicians [Senate/Congress/President] where you ask them a pointed, embarrassing question? If you are younger than Dan Rather, you can count on not getting the chance to do that again, to that person or to any other politician again. White House press room, bad question, doh, you don't get to ask any more questions. Ever. You want a one-on-one interview with a politician. Submit all your questions 3 weeks in advance. They have spent a lot of time, money and effort to make sure reporters have a very limited ability to ask questions the politician doesn't want asked.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 22 2016, @02:08PM
Shinzo Abe - Aleksandar Vucic of Japan!
(Score: 4, Insightful) by SanityCheck on Monday February 22 2016, @02:23PM
I thought he was kinda like their Regan: "pushing some sort of a made-up economic strategy that kinda-works but not really and won't be discovered to be a total failure till decades from now by which time he is immortalized in so many people's minds it won't matter to them."
(Score: 2) by VLM on Monday February 22 2016, @05:39PM
pushing some sort of a made-up economic strategy that kinda-works but not really
Yes exactly last dying gasp of Keynesian economics. It was the nearly utterly dominant economic theory from the great depression till "now-ish". No one believes it anymore but there's too much history and political capital tied up on belief to just drop it. Kinda like the last days of communist rule in USSR.
It had a good run for awhile, but its obsolete having failed, and there's nothing dominant to replace it right now (more of a collapse than a coup).
Some of the replacements have their own baggage of course. Think of Mises, who is obviously more correct than Keynes, but comes with a pretty hefty pile of libertarian political baggage.
(Score: 5, Touché) by NotSanguine on Monday February 22 2016, @06:45PM
Yes exactly last dying gasp of Keynesian economics. It was the nearly utterly dominant economic theory from the great depression till "now-ish". No one believes it anymore but there's too much history and political capital tied up on belief to just drop it. Kinda like the last days of communist rule in USSR.
Actually, he was referring to the fiasco now called "Supply-side economics" which was pushed by the likes of Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman and Robert Mundell as the "anti-Keynesian solution."
I know you really love your narrative, and it's sad that it isn't true. I'm sorry.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by VLM on Monday February 22 2016, @08:54PM
Maybe a good way to describe Abeonomics is until (if?) it starts to work, its everything nobody likes. I'm sure if it worked it would be everything everyone likes.
It does smell a bit of "we don't know what to do so we'll just flail around randomly"
but there is at least a component of broken window fallacy style stimulus spending in his economic free style break dancing routine.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday February 23 2016, @06:57AM
Actually, he was referring to the fiasco now called "Supply-side economics" which was pushed by the likes of Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman and Robert Mundell as the "anti-Keynesian solution."
What fiasco? Substantial economic growth did follow the two US examples (tax cuts in 1981 and early 2000s). Further, Japanese policy from the end of the Second World War through the recession of 1990 was very solidly supply-side oriented. And that was enough to grow Japan's economy to the second largest at the time.
I know you really love your narrative, and it's sad that it isn't true. I'm sorry.
You do realize Keynesian spending was part of the Abe platform?
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Monday February 22 2016, @06:38PM
I thought he was kinda like their Regan: "pushing some sort of a made-up economic strategy that kinda-works but not really and won't be discovered to be a total failure till decades from now by which time he is immortalized in so many people's minds it won't matter to them."
I assume you're talking about Ronny Raygun [wikipedia.org], rather than Donald Regan [wikipedia.org].
Even though Donald Regan was Secretary of The Treasury and pushed "Reaganomics," supply-side economics or trickle-down economics (take your pick of the appellations, it amounted to pissing on the poor), he most certainly wasn't "immortalized" for it.
I do take issue with your characterization, because it was obvious to me (and many others) as a teen in the early 80s that such a strategy was causing much more harm than good. In fact, I remember being really upset that I was too young to vote (by a month) in the 1984 election, because Ronny was such a piece of shit. Sadly, far too many people disagreed with me.
The fact that these [wikipedia.org] douchebags [wikipedia.org] were allowed to double, triple and quadruple-down on stupid in the ensuing decades still amazes me.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by VLM on Monday February 22 2016, @03:21PM
Most of the discussion has been legacy media, but nobody watches that filler anymore. That's kind of the point of clickbait and all that.
The interesting areas going forward are topics like twitters new political speech police, supposedly euro police are going door to door to intimidate and shake down people who write anything in social media that's negative about the migrant invasion.
You can expect more stuff like that going forward in the USA.
I suspect we're going to see a big "brave new world" push for soma. I suspect you'll soon see stuff being pushed very heavily that "Social media isn't for discussing politics, its only for family pictures and connections and other hugbox stuff".
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Monday February 22 2016, @03:31PM
> supposedly euro police are going door to door to intimidate and shake down people who write anything in social media that's negative about the migrant invasion.
Can't tell if serious. If so, you need to get out more.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 22 2016, @04:10PM
He probably heard it on Fox News, so it must be true.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by VLM on Monday February 22 2016, @05:27PM
LOL Deutsche Welle.
http://www.dw.com/en/online-anti-refugee-posts-lead-to-offline-visits-by-dutch-police/a-19005888 [dw.com]
Deutsche Welle is to Germany as VOA is to USA or BBC is to UK. Government funded propaganda mostly.
Like most national broadcasters (or at least some of them) their international coverage is excellent, but don't trust anything they say about home politics. So in this case they are a trustworthy source for news about every place on the planet but Germany, where they are completely full of BS. Luckily for news about Germany itself there's always BBC.
DW is my second favorite international broadcaster. I probably get most of my news in total from just looking at reuters.com. My favorite international broadcaster is RT, although they can't be taken entirely seriously they are a nice balance of real news and outright comical propaganda. They're like the Fox News of Russia, kinda.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Monday February 22 2016, @06:55PM
Aside from the (admitted) propaganda outlet Deutsche Welle, the only other references I see to your statement are from right-wing nutjob sites like:
http://usherald.com/police-arrest-man-anti-immigrant-facebook-comments/ [usherald.com]
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/01/27/you-tweet-a-lot-watch-your-tone-cops-threaten-dutch-man-for-opposing-govt-mass-migration-plans/ [breitbart.com]
http://www.barenakedislam.com/2016/01/28/dutch-police-threaten-citizens-with-sedition-for-posting-anti-muslim-migration-comments-on-social-media/ [barenakedislam.com]
And propaganda machines that want to destabilize Europe:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sputnik_%28news_agency%29 [wikipedia.org]
While those on the other side are saying completely different stuff:
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2015/07/07/neth-j07.html [wsws.org]
You're right not to get your news from a single source. Perhaps you might think about widening your circle of sources, friend.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by VLM on Monday February 22 2016, @09:02PM
LOL yes its not exactly great news for those pushing more more more, so its going to be all dailystormer / TRS type fellow travelers. I mean you can't seriously expect Sweden's ultra left media to do anything but censor a story like that. I'm surprised the German government permitted a story like that without censoring the heck out of it.
Getting a bit down in the weeds. Regardless if reality has an inherent right wing bias or not, or who has what biases against who, the way higher up issue is chilling effects and government monitoring and control of social media is a growing (bad) thing. Not much opposition to that opinion.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Monday February 22 2016, @09:17PM
Facts are facts. They have no bias.
How folks decide to use (or ignore or misrepresent) facts is often quite biased.
Which is why many folks have oft repeated this:
As a general rule, I seek to determine what the relevant facts are and make my judgements based upon those. This can be quite difficult, since people lie, misrepresent and gloss over things they don't like.
Which is why, as you correctly point out, that controlling the media (which generally censors itself in support of whatever biases they have) and censoring individual expression is quite dangerous.
I say let's have a real Marketplace of Ideas [wikipedia.org]. If we can, then in the end, the truth will out. Sadly, that often only comes after many are injured or destroyed, socially, economically and physically.
However, I'm not sure we have a better option.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 23 2016, @12:47AM
If you're a conservative, your days of being allowed on Twitter are numbered, if not already over. #FreeStacy
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Tuesday February 23 2016, @12:56AM
If you're a conservative, your days of being allowed on Twitter are numbered, if not already over. #FreeStacy
If you're on Twitter, your days of being a moron have and will likely be long.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr