Pakistani opposition parties have accused Prime Minister Imran Khan of intimidating broadcasters into a blackout on television coverage of his critics after several TV channels were briefly taken off-air and opposition protests and news conferences passed unreported.

Khan denies censoring the media, describing such accusations as "a joke" during a visit to Washington this month, but relations with the press and broadcasters have become increasingly strained since he took office nearly a year ago.

Fuelling the criticism, as Khan headed back from the United States last Wednesday a news conference by opposition leader Maryam Nawaz, which would normally be carried live on TV news stations, went unseen as broadcasters held back from coverage.

"Pakistan's media is facing the worst censorship," Nawaz told the news conference, which was broadcast on YouTube. "If any news channel tries to air our presser or rallies, it is threatened to go off air."

Media managers were reluctant to comment publicly when contacted by Reuters, but statements from industry bodies have complained about pressure on journalists and their employers.

Newsgroups have also been alarmed by proposals to establish special courts to hear cases relating to the media.

The All Pakistan Newspapers Society (APNS) described the proposal as institutionalised "arm-twisting".

"The media is already braving strong pressures in the form of press advices and measures of intimidation from ruling quarters which are tantamount to undeclared censorship," it said.

Khan's government dismisses the criticism and says it is dealing with the consequences of abuses by past administrations, who it says used lucrative government advertising business to buy favourable coverage.

His Pakistan Tehrik-e-Insaf (PTI) party earlier this month posted a series of tweets warning media houses and journalists that they should not "end up propagating (the) enemy's stance" in criticising the government.

Turbulent relations

Pakistan's press has had a turbulent relationship with successive governments and the powerful military over many years. Some in the media complained of a severe crackdown in the run-up to the 2018 general election that saw Khan's PTI party sweep to power.

Writers and bloggers say several cases of reporters being abducted and beaten, critical columnists being denied space, advertising business cut to media houses and sackings of unfavourable TV commentators have created a climate of fear and self-censorship.

The military and government have denied state agencies have been involved in any of those incidents. They also reject opposition accusations that the army colluded in bringing the PTI to power.

Nawaz's PML-N party says it is the main target of a renewed crackdown, which comes after it aired a video apparently showing one of the judges who convicted party founder and former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif last year on corruption charges saying he had been blackmailed to deliver a guilty verdict. The judge, who later denied the allegations, has since been sacked.

In recent weeks planned interviews with party leader Maryam Nawaz, Nawaz Sharif's daughter, have been pulled without explanation at the last minute, while her voice has been repeatedly muted mysteriously during interviews.

Geo News TV, the country's biggest private broadcaster, has suffered a series of problems since late July.

Coverage was abruptly suspended and its position on cable dials dropped from a favourable place at the top of the list to a slot near the bottom.

Geo TV's Managing Director Azhar Abbas said the broadcaster had received no warning or explanation and had not been notified of who had ordered the changes.

"The closure is without any prior notice to the organization by the regulatory authority or the government," he told Reuters. "We have made fervent attempts to reach out to ... the military media wing, but officials there also deny any involvement."

"Big brother"

Three other TV channels, 24 News, AbbTakk News and Capital TV, were shut down for one day after they gave Maryam Nawaz live coverage earlier this month.

"I was informed by management that they received instructions this couldn't be carried," said Najam Sethi, a 24 News anchor, who had scheduled an interview with Maryam.

"We, media owners and journalists alike, are in a state of siege. The pressure to control, manipulate, plant, tilt, block and propagate the news and analysis cycle comes from overt and covert civil-military platforms. Big brother isn't just watching anymore. He is cracking the whip and it's painful."

Ansar Naqvi, the station's director programming and current affairs, said Sethi was asked not to conduct the interview in line with a request from the country's broadcasting regulator.

"We have verbal instructions from the regulator to ban Maryam's coverage completely," he told Reuters, adding that there was no written directive.

Mohammad Tahir, spokesman for the state-run regulator Pakistan Electronic Media Authority (PEMRA), denied that it had issued instructions to broadcasters not to run interviews. Asked who pulled the interviews, he told Reuters: "We didn't."

The government's main spokesperson, Firdous Aashiq Awan, told a meeting of Pakistani newspaper editors in Karachi last week that the PEMRA was an independent body just doing its job. She did not comment on who was behind the blackouts.

The Pakistan Broadcast Association (PBA) has condemned the shutdowns, while the U.S.-based Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) said the blockage of Geo TV was "an unfortunate illustration of how widespread censorship has become in Pakistan".

Journalists' bodies in Pakistan have held demonstrations nationwide.

Reporters without Borders said in a statement last week that PEMRA, "takes its lead from the military establishment".

The military, which routinely denies accusations of interfering in civilian matters, said it would not respond to unspecified accusations.

In Washington, Khan dismissed concerns about media freedom, saying it was freer than the media in Britain.

"The criticism I have received from my own press, unprecedented," he said. "So, to say that there are curbs on Pakistan press is a joke."

Pakistani opposition parties have accused Prime Minister Imran Khan of intimidating broadcasters into a blackout on television coverage of his critics after several TV channels were briefly taken off-air and opposition protests and news conferences passed unreported.

Pakistani opposition parties have accused Prime Minister Imran Khan of intimidating broadcasters into a blackout on television coverage of his critics after several TV channels were briefly taken off-air and opposition protests and news conferences passed unreported. Khan denies censoring the media, describing such accusations as "a joke" during a visit to Washington this month, but relations with the press and broadcasters have become increasingly strained since he took office nearly a year ago. Fuelling the criticism, as Khan headed back from the United States last Wednesday a news conference by opposition leader Maryam Nawaz, which would normally be carried live on TV news stations, went unseen as broadcasters held back from coverage. "Pakistan's media is facing the worst censorship," Nawaz told the news conference, which was broadcast on YouTube. "If any news channel tries to air our presser or rallies, it is threatened to go off air." Media managers were reluctant to comment publicly when contacted by Reuters, but statements from industry bodies have complained about pressure on journalists and their employers. Newsgroups have also been alarmed by proposals to establish special courts to hear cases relating to the media. The All Pakistan Newspapers Society (APNS) described the proposal as institutionalised "arm-twisting". "The media is already braving strong pressures in the form of press advices and measures of intimidation from ruling quarters which are tantamount to undeclared censorship," it said. Khan's government dismisses the criticism and says it is dealing with the consequences of abuses by past administrations, who it says used lucrative government advertising business to buy favourable coverage. His Pakistan Tehrik-e-Insaf (PTI) party earlier this month posted a series of tweets warning media houses and journalists that they should not "end up propagating (the) enemy's stance" in criticising the government. Turbulent relations Pakistan's press has had a turbulent relationship with successive governments and the powerful military over many years. Some in the media complained of a severe crackdown in the run-up to the 2018 general election that saw Khan's PTI party sweep to power. Writers and bloggers say several cases of reporters being abducted and beaten, critical columnists being denied space, advertising business cut to media houses and sackings of unfavourable TV commentators have created a climate of fear and self-censorship. The military and government have denied state agencies have been involved in any of those incidents. They also reject opposition accusations that the army colluded in bringing the PTI to power. Nawaz's PML-N party says it is the main target of a renewed crackdown, which comes after it aired a video apparently showing one of the judges who convicted party founder and former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif last year on corruption charges saying he had been blackmailed to deliver a guilty verdict. The judge, who later denied the allegations, has since been sacked. In recent weeks planned interviews with party leader Maryam Nawaz, Nawaz Sharif's daughter, have been pulled without explanation at the last minute, while her voice has been repeatedly muted mysteriously during interviews. Geo News TV, the country's biggest private broadcaster, has suffered a series of problems since late July. Coverage was abruptly suspended and its position on cable dials dropped from a favourable place at the top of the list to a slot near the bottom. Geo TV's Managing Director Azhar Abbas said the broadcaster had received no warning or explanation and had not been notified of who had ordered the changes. "The closure is without any prior notice to the organization by the regulatory authority or the government," he told Reuters. "We have made fervent attempts to reach out to ... the military media wing, but officials there also deny any involvement." "Big brother" Three other TV channels, 24 News, AbbTakk News and Capital TV, were shut down for one day after they gave Maryam Nawaz live coverage earlier this month. "I was informed by management that they received instructions this couldn't be carried," said Najam Sethi, a 24 News anchor, who had scheduled an interview with Maryam. "We, media owners and journalists alike, are in a state of siege. The pressure to control, manipulate, plant, tilt, block and propagate the news and analysis cycle comes from overt and covert civil-military platforms. Big brother isn't just watching anymore. He is cracking the whip and it's painful." Ansar Naqvi, the station's director programming and current affairs, said Sethi was asked not to conduct the interview in line with a request from the country's broadcasting regulator. "We have verbal instructions from the regulator to ban Maryam's coverage completely," he told Reuters, adding that there was no written directive. Mohammad Tahir, spokesman for the state-run regulator Pakistan Electronic Media Authority (PEMRA), denied that it had issued instructions to broadcasters not to run interviews. Asked who pulled the interviews, he told Reuters: "We didn't." The government's main spokesperson, Firdous Aashiq Awan, told a meeting of Pakistani newspaper editors in Karachi last week that the PEMRA was an independent body just doing its job. She did not comment on who was behind the blackouts. The Pakistan Broadcast Association (PBA) has condemned the shutdowns, while the U.S.-based Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) said the blockage of Geo TV was "an unfortunate illustration of how widespread censorship has become in Pakistan". Journalists' bodies in Pakistan have held demonstrations nationwide. Reporters without Borders said in a statement last week that PEMRA, "takes its lead from the military establishment". The military, which routinely denies accusations of interfering in civilian matters, said it would not respond to unspecified accusations. In Washington, Khan dismissed concerns about media freedom, saying it was freer than the media in Britain. "The criticism I have received from my own press, unprecedented," he said. "So, to say that there are curbs on Pakistan press is a joke."

News TV blackouts in Pakistan draw fresh accusations of censorship

In Pakistan, press freedom is an oxymoron. It is surely guaranteed by the country's Constitution, but it doesn't seem to be implemented.

Voices of dissent have been muzzled time and again. Some picked up and tortured, some left to die.

Journalists have also been subjected to inquiries and their basic rights being taken away after being put on the exit control list. During the 1970s, when the then military dictator Zia-ul-Haq took over, journalists were arrested, whiplashed or faced treason cases. Their families were harassed but later let go.

Similarly, during the era of the former military dictator <a href="http://wionews.com/south-asia/pakistans-top-probe-agency-again-fails-to-explain-transactions-in-pervez-musharrafs-frozen-accounts-228077">General Pervez Musharraf</a>, when Emergency was imposed on November 3, 2007, the media was blacked out.

A blanket ban was put on media continuously for 111 days, regardless of their editorial stands.

Nearly 12 years on, not much has changed. In Imran Khan's 'Naya Pakistan', there is no room for criticism or dissent.

Last week, the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/asif-ali-zardaris-interview-taken-off-air-from-pakistani-tv-channel-232249">interview of former Pakistan President Asif Ali Zardari</a> was put off air under mysterious circumstances.

That wasn't the end. At least three television channels were taken off air and removed from cable services. What was common to the three was the fact that they had extensively covered the Opposition party Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz's (PML-N) rally, led by <a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/maryam-warns-of-hunger-strike-if-sharif-not-allowed-home-cooked-food-234205">Maryam Nawaz</a>, the daughter of jailed former prime minister Nawaz Sharif.

Observers say what makes the latest episodes of censorship different is the way they have been executed.

Earlier, there were instances of <a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/cfwij-urges-pakistan-government-to-ensure-safety-of-journalist-asma-shirazi-234039">journalists' families being harassed</a> but now the pressure is exerted on the organisations to let go of journalists who are seen to be critical.

The latest harassment tool is social media. Very recently, a Twitter trend with the hashtag #arrestantipakjournalists targeted journalists who were critical of the Imran Khan government.

Earlier, reporting against the powerful military was a self-imposed no-go area.

What has changed now is the extent of the no-go area. Criticism of the government is certainly included in the list of untouchable subjects.

So, is Pakistan's democratically elected government giving any freedom to the press? For the moment, the answer is no.

In Pakistan, press freedom is an oxymoron. It is surely guaranteed by the country's Constitution, but it doesn't seem to be implemented. Voices of dissent have been muzzled time and again.

In Pakistan, press freedom is an oxymoron. It is surely guaranteed by the country's Constitution, but it doesn't seem to be implemented. Voices of dissent have been muzzled time and again. Some picked up and tortured, some left to die. Journalists have also been subjected to inquiries and their basic rights being taken away after being put on the exit control list. During the 1970s, when the then military dictator Zia-ul-Haq took over, journalists were arrested, whiplashed or faced treason cases. Their families were harassed but later let go. Similarly, during the era of the former military dictator General Pervez Musharraf, when Emergency was imposed on November 3, 2007, the media was blacked out. A blanket ban was put on media continuously for 111 days, regardless of their editorial stands. Nearly 12 years on, not much has changed. In Imran Khan's 'Naya Pakistan', there is no room for criticism or dissent. Last week, the interview of former Pakistan President Asif Ali Zardari was put off air under mysterious circumstances. That wasn't the end. At least three television channels were taken off air and removed from cable services. What was common to the three was the fact that they had extensively covered the Opposition party Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz's (PML-N) rally, led by Maryam Nawaz, the daughter of jailed former prime minister Nawaz Sharif. Observers say what makes the latest episodes of censorship different is the way they have been executed. Earlier, there were instances of journalists' families being harassed but now the pressure is exerted on the organisations to let go of journalists who are seen to be critical. The latest harassment tool is social media. Very recently, a Twitter trend with the hashtag #arrestantipakjournalists targeted journalists who were critical of the Imran Khan government. Earlier, reporting against the powerful military was a self-imposed no-go area. What has changed now is the extent of the no-go area. Criticism of the government is certainly included in the list of untouchable subjects. So, is Pakistan's democratically elected government giving any freedom to the press? For the moment, the answer is no.

Press censorship continues unabated in Pakistan under Imran Khan

Pakistani authorities Wednesday vowed to carry out a "massive" crackdown targeting <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/pakistan-using-social-media-to-radicalise-kashmiri-youths-jk-police-chief-193786">hate speech and extremism on social media,</a> as a minister boasted arrests have already been made.&nbsp;

Officials in Pakistan are frequently accused of muzzling the media and targeting individuals critical of the country’s powerful military establishment and have blocked hundreds of websites and social media accounts over the years.

Information minister Fawad Chaudhry announced the government was setting up a new enforcement arm to regulate social media during a speech in the capital Islamabad.

"We made some arrests last week and by the will of Allah we are launching a massive crackdown against social media users spreading hate speech and violence," he said.

Self-censorship in the South Asia nation is widely believed to be rife at traditional news outlets.

"Our problem is that digital media is overtaking formal media so it is important for us to regulate this," Chaudhry added, saying: "Informal media is a greater problem than formal media.”

The announcement comes days after authorities arrested a journalist for allegedly posting defamatory content on social media.&nbsp;

And on Tuesday an opinion piece in the International New York Times criticising Pakistan's powerful army was censored by its local publisher and replaced by a blank space.

Activists and bloggers frequently report receiving warnings from Facebook and Twitter for posting unlawful content.

Local media also complained about pressure in the run-up to a general election in July to self-censor in favour of the eventual victor, cricketer-turned-prime-minister Imran Khan.

The Committee to Protect Journalists said the army had "quietly but effectively, set restrictions on reporting" in a report released September last year.

Pakistani authorities Wednesday vowed to carry out a "massive" crackdown targeting hate speech and extremism on social media, as a minister boasted arrests have already been made.

Pakistani authorities Wednesday vowed to carry out a "massive" crackdown targeting hate speech and extremism on social media, as a minister boasted arrests have already been made. Officials in Pakistan are frequently accused of muzzling the media and targeting individuals critical of the country’s powerful military establishment and have blocked hundreds of websites and social media accounts over the years. Information minister Fawad Chaudhry announced the government was setting up a new enforcement arm to regulate social media during a speech in the capital Islamabad. "We made some arrests last week and by the will of Allah we are launching a massive crackdown against social media users spreading hate speech and violence," he said. Self-censorship in the South Asia nation is widely believed to be rife at traditional news outlets. "Our problem is that digital media is overtaking formal media so it is important for us to regulate this," Chaudhry added, saying: "Informal media is a greater problem than formal media.” The announcement comes days after authorities arrested a journalist for allegedly posting defamatory content on social media. And on Tuesday an opinion piece in the International New York Times criticising Pakistan's powerful army was censored by its local publisher and replaced by a blank space. Activists and bloggers frequently report receiving warnings from Facebook and Twitter for posting unlawful content. Local media also complained about pressure in the run-up to a general election in July to self-censor in favour of the eventual victor, cricketer-turned-prime-minister Imran Khan. The Committee to Protect Journalists said the army had "quietly but effectively, set restrictions on reporting" in a report released September last year.

Pakistan announces 'massive' social media crackdown

A court in Vietnam has jailed a man for 14 years for attempting to overthrow the state, in cahoots with a group based in the United States, the Ministry of Public Security said on Wednesday.

Phan Van Binh, 47, was accused by the court of working for a California-based group called the Provisional National Government of Vietnam, which opposes the ruling Communist Party, the ministry said in a statement on its official news website.

"Binh's activities were serious violations of the law which undermined national unity, infringed upon national security, and went against the national interest," the ministry said, citing state prosecutors present at the one-day trial in the central province of Khanh Hoa.

Despite sweeping economic reform and increasing openness to social change, Vietnam's ruling Communist Party retains tight media censorship and does not tolerate criticism.

Binh uploaded posts to his Facebook account that "smeared the image of Ho Chi Minh, and the leaders of the party and the state", the ministry said in its statement, referring to the Vietnamese revolutionary leader and founding president.

Binh's Facebook posts "distorted the Party's history and guidance, and the state's policies and laws, with the aim of overthrowing the people's administration," the ministry said.

A Facebook spokeswoman declined to comment. Reuters was unable to identify and contact Binh's lawyers. Telephone calls to the court went unanswered.

The Provisional National Government of Vietnam, which is listed by the Ministry of Public Security as a "terrorist organisation", did not respond to a request for comment.

The organisation's leader, Dao Minh Quan, assigned Binh to recruit people into joining the group by using his telephone to show videos created by the organisation to his neighbours, the ministry said.

Facebook is widely used in Vietnam and serves as the main platform for dissidents. This month, Vietnam accused Facebook of violating a new cybersecurity law by allowing users to post anti-government comments.

A court in Vietnam has jailed a man for 14 years for attempting to overthrow the state, in cahoots with a group based in the United States, the Ministry of Public Security said on Wednesday.

A court in Vietnam has jailed a man for 14 years for attempting to overthrow the state, in cahoots with a group based in the United States, the Ministry of Public Security said on Wednesday. Phan Van Binh, 47, was accused by the court of working for a California-based group called the Provisional National Government of Vietnam, which opposes the ruling Communist Party, the ministry said in a statement on its official news website. "Binh's activities were serious violations of the law which undermined national unity, infringed upon national security, and went against the national interest," the ministry said, citing state prosecutors present at the one-day trial in the central province of Khanh Hoa. Despite sweeping economic reform and increasing openness to social change, Vietnam's ruling Communist Party retains tight media censorship and does not tolerate criticism. Binh uploaded posts to his Facebook account that "smeared the image of Ho Chi Minh, and the leaders of the party and the state", the ministry said in its statement, referring to the Vietnamese revolutionary leader and founding president. Binh's Facebook posts "distorted the Party's history and guidance, and the state's policies and laws, with the aim of overthrowing the people's administration," the ministry said. A Facebook spokeswoman declined to comment. Reuters was unable to identify and contact Binh's lawyers. Telephone calls to the court went unanswered. The Provisional National Government of Vietnam, which is listed by the Ministry of Public Security as a "terrorist organisation", did not respond to a request for comment. The organisation's leader, Dao Minh Quan, assigned Binh to recruit people into joining the group by using his telephone to show videos created by the organisation to his neighbours, the ministry said. Facebook is widely used in Vietnam and serves as the main platform for dissidents. This month, Vietnam accused Facebook of violating a new cybersecurity law by allowing users to post anti-government comments.

Vietnam jails man for 14 years for attempting to overthrow state

Netflix Inc and home-grown rival Hotstar plan to adopt self-regulation guidelines for content streamed on their platforms in India in an effort to prevent potential government censorship, sources familiar with the matter told Reuters. 
 
India has film and TV certification bodies that moderate <a href="http://www.wionews.com/life-fun/recommended-10-indian-documentaries-on-netflix-that-you-must-watch-15467">public content</a> but the country`s laws currently do not mandate any censorship of content on online streaming platforms. 
 
But global video streaming market leader, Netflix, was drawn into a legal battle last year after a complaint that its first Indian original series 'Sacred Games' insulted former prime minister and Congress leader Rajiv Gandhi. 
 
The battle raised concerns in the industry that the government could, at some point, look at regulating content on online streaming platforms.

A draft of an unofficial code that will be adopted by Netflix, Hotstar and other local players, seen by Reuters, said that the platforms would prohibit content that shows a child "engaged in real or simulated sexual activities", is disrespectful of India`s national flag or encourages "terrorism". 
 
Amazon Inc`s Prime Video will not sign the code, though it helped draft it, as the company does not want to act in the absence of government-mandated regulation, one of the sources said. 
 
Subho Ray, President of the Internet and Mobile Association of India, which drafted the code with industry consultation, said it would be made public on Thursday, and the final version would include changes when compared to the draft. 
 
Amazon Prime Video said in a statement it is assessing the situation but believes "the current laws are adequate". Netflix and Star India, the parent of Hotstar, did not respond to requests for comment. 
 
The draft code also said that companies which sign it will bar content "which deliberately and maliciously intends to outrage religious sentiments of any class, section or community." 
 
The companies will also internally appoint a person, team or department to receive and address any "consumer-related concerns and complaints", the draft document added. 
 
"It is a welcome move to form guidelines but in no manner should they be restrictive to expression or creative freedom," said Vikram Malhotra of production house Abundantia Entertainment, which has worked on an Amazon Prime show. 
 
The companies continue to face legal challenges. A local non-profit group, Justice For Rights Foundation, late last year filed a case against Amazon Prime Video, Netflix and Hotstar for showing sexually explicit content and demanding a regulator for online content, its founder Satyam Singh told Reuters.&nbsp; 
 
The case will next be heard in February.

Netflix Inc and home-grown rival Hotstar plan to adopt self-regulation guidelines for content streamed on their platforms in India in an effort to prevent potential government censorship, sources familiar with the matter told Reuters.

Netflix Inc and home-grown rival Hotstar plan to adopt self-regulation guidelines for content streamed on their platforms in India in an effort to prevent potential government censorship, sources familiar with the matter told Reuters. India has film and TV certification bodies that moderate public content but the country`s laws currently do not mandate any censorship of content on online streaming platforms. But global video streaming market leader, Netflix, was drawn into a legal battle last year after a complaint that its first Indian original series 'Sacred Games' insulted former prime minister and Congress leader Rajiv Gandhi. The battle raised concerns in the industry that the government could, at some point, look at regulating content on online streaming platforms. A draft of an unofficial code that will be adopted by Netflix, Hotstar and other local players, seen by Reuters, said that the platforms would prohibit content that shows a child "engaged in real or simulated sexual activities", is disrespectful of India`s national flag or encourages "terrorism". Amazon Inc`s Prime Video will not sign the code, though it helped draft it, as the company does not want to act in the absence of government-mandated regulation, one of the sources said. Subho Ray, President of the Internet and Mobile Association of India, which drafted the code with industry consultation, said it would be made public on Thursday, and the final version would include changes when compared to the draft. Amazon Prime Video said in a statement it is assessing the situation but believes "the current laws are adequate". Netflix and Star India, the parent of Hotstar, did not respond to requests for comment. The draft code also said that companies which sign it will bar content "which deliberately and maliciously intends to outrage religious sentiments of any class, section or community." The companies will also internally appoint a person, team or department to receive and address any "consumer-related concerns and complaints", the draft document added. "It is a welcome move to form guidelines but in no manner should they be restrictive to expression or creative freedom," said Vikram Malhotra of production house Abundantia Entertainment, which has worked on an Amazon Prime show. The companies continue to face legal challenges. A local non-profit group, Justice For Rights Foundation, late last year filed a case against Amazon Prime Video, Netflix and Hotstar for showing sexually explicit content and demanding a regulator for online content, its founder Satyam Singh told Reuters. The case will next be heard in February.

Netflix, Hotstar to self-censor content before govt does it: Sources

Over the last few days I&rsquo;ve seen with a sense of dismay a &lsquo;tu-tu main-main&rsquo;&nbsp;over NDTV censoring its journalists.&nbsp;One of NDTV&rsquo;s senior-most journalists and well-known faces, Sreenivasan Jain, on Tuesday, alleged that a report by him on loans given to companies owned by BJP chief Amit Shah&rsquo;s son Jay Shah was taken down from NDTV&rsquo;s website. This was done in the name of &#39;legal vetting&#39;&nbsp;he said in a detailed Facebook post.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false"><iframe allowtransparency="true" frameborder="0" height="307" scrolling="no" src="https://www.facebook.com/plugins/post.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Fsreenivasan.jain%2Fposts%2F711765419028812&amp;width=500" style="border:none;overflow:hidden" width="500"></iframe></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

Once the face of NDTV, Barkha Dutt also said many of her stories were axed. In a series of tweets, she said, &ldquo;yes, axing stories at NDTV not new. And I don&#39;t recall said ex colleagues standing up for freedom of press &amp; reporting when some of fought it&hellip;&rdquo;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Can share <a href="https://twitter.com/nitingokhale?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@nitingokhale</a> &amp; I were punished for speaking on censorship of our work:<a href="https://twitter.com/ndtv?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@ndtv</a> was hostile to us: we parted. We stuck to our stand <a href="https://t.co/nCDsrpKy6G">https://t.co/nCDsrpKy6G</a>
&mdash; barkha dutt (@BDUTT) <a href="https://twitter.com/BDUTT/status/920502848575758337?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 18, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

She also wrote a long explainer on Facebook too, where she said, &quot;Stories are censored in other newsrooms too but who else pretends to be this self-righteous and morally superior.&quot;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false"><iframe allowtransparency="true" frameborder="0" height="294" scrolling="no" src="https://www.facebook.com/plugins/post.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2FBarkhaDutt%2Fposts%2F1149648611835422&amp;width=500" style="border:none;overflow:hidden" width="500"></iframe></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

Nitin Gokhale, whose interview with the former Navy chief was also dropped, also tweeted on his similar experiences. The Twitter debate turned ugly when Sonia Verma Singh, NDTV&rsquo;s Editorial Director, questioned her former colleague on why he&rsquo;d allowed his son to intern in NDTV if he had such an axe to grind.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
You brought my son into it, not me. So you stooped low, not me. Good you realised. Debate on issue, not personality. <a href="https://t.co/lZ39GEHbQS">https://t.co/lZ39GEHbQS</a>
&mdash; Nitin A. Gokhale (@nitingokhale) <a href="https://twitter.com/nitingokhale/status/921014183583391745?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 19, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

Seeing the pile-on brigade&rsquo;s hullabaloo, Sreenivasan Jain seems to have called truce for the moments. He tweeted in solidarity with NDTV (they&rsquo;re still his employers) and said not many companies allow dissent from within. &ldquo;Had decided to not respond to noise around my statement - abuse, support, whatever. Journalists tell stories. They are not the story.&rdquo;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
But seeing how some are using this to pile on to NDTV, remember - can&#39;t think of too many org&#39;n&#39;s that allow public dissent from within.
&mdash; Sreenivasan Jain (@SreenivasanJain) <a href="https://twitter.com/SreenivasanJain/status/920588485290893312?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 18, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

What was genuinely upsetting was the barbs that flew back and forth were from people I&rsquo;d learnt a lot from and looked up to.&nbsp; I&rsquo;d been part of NDTV for over 7 years and had learnt much of my journalism there.

Why Target NDTV

In the middle of this Twitter war, my former boss, a director with NDTV and the managing editor for NDTV Convergence, the company&#39;s digital arm, wondered if some other websites have set up an&nbsp;NDTV beat. (I must say we haven&rsquo;t even though I&rsquo;m writing on it now.)

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
So many stories, such compulsive interest. Have other websites set up an <a href="https://twitter.com/ndtv?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@ndtv</a> beat? ????
&mdash; Suparna Singh (@Suparna_Singh) <a href="https://twitter.com/Suparna_Singh/status/920639731557265408?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 18, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

She also called out&nbsp;those&nbsp;who seem to have suddenly discovered &lsquo;their lost ethics&rsquo;.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
interesting to see some who&#39;ve shown up at Lost and Found today to reclaim their very righteous Sense of Ethics ??
&mdash; Suparna Singh (@Suparna_Singh) <a href="https://twitter.com/Suparna_Singh/status/920516513710395392?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 18, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

I tend to agree. That stories are dropped wasn&rsquo;t a eureka moment for anyone. Why such senior journalists chose to speak at a time they did is also something I won&rsquo;t comment on. But there remains the fact that many who knew about these stories being dropped did not speak up earlier and have suddenly found a voice.&nbsp;&nbsp;That said, journalists are after all not Martians - we all have bills to pay and if we chose to live with somethings that are uncomfortable, so be it. Some people couldn&rsquo;t&nbsp;and&nbsp;moved on, others grinned and bore it.&nbsp;

Maybe there are a few people who are favoured by the management. I&rsquo;m yet to work in a company that there aren&rsquo;t. And about glass ceilings -&nbsp;well, most English language media outfits favour those with public school education and perhaps a degree from Oxbridge or Columbia. That doesn&rsquo;t mean that those who are in decision-making roles are not competent or don&rsquo;t deserve to be there. Perhaps it simply boils down to basic language skills or the fact that they interviewed better.&nbsp;I wouldn&rsquo;t know. I didn&rsquo;t go to public school and am not armed with a foreign degree (not even then ones handed out by the Lajpat Nagar branches here in Delhi).

The charges of nepotism aren&rsquo;t then biggest problem here. The perception seems to be that an organization that seems to be fighting for the freedom of press when its owners are raided by the CBI is also sidestepping inconvenient stories -&nbsp;and it&rsquo;s this hypocrisy that has evinced such a response.&nbsp;

Are We Willing to Pay for News?

Has the ghost of media censorship, in many cases self-censorship, started tumbling out of the closet? Is press freedom dead? Much humbug is talked on this subject.&nbsp;

As a person who has worked in various media organizations over the past 17 years, there was no ghost -&nbsp;censorship is a reality. But that isn&rsquo;t a government or political party specific problem.&nbsp;From news agencies to TV channels to news websites, there was a side of the toast that was buttered and that&rsquo;s what you went for.&nbsp;

And there&rsquo;s basic economics at work here. For many publications, channels and websites -&nbsp;the smaller ones, at least -&nbsp;the government continues to be the largest source of advertising revenue. And to offend the government of the day would have a serious impact on bottom-lines. Protracted legal battles are expensive and in most cases, it is more economically viable to not run a story, or have it pulled off.&nbsp;

For larger media houses, it&rsquo;s definitely better with revenue streams that are diversified but that still means selling advertising, going out to corporates and perhaps not offending them to the extent that your revenues dry up.&nbsp;&nbsp;In case of dealing with political parties, it could simply be a matter of access - do a few negative stories and&nbsp;thesources who would call you with information would refuse to take your calls.

There are some subscription models for news&nbsp;that&nbsp;exist in India but those are few and far between. For most of the &lsquo;mainstream&rsquo; media, in an attempt to get to the numbers, which in turn ensure a minimum revenue to keep the business viable, coverage is routinely dumbed down and dense -&nbsp;in some cases, I fear, even biased.&nbsp;&nbsp;For here even supremely popular products are difficult to monetize.&nbsp;

Subscription based media is thriving&nbsp;in&nbsp;other parts of the world. Publications such as the New York Times and Wall Street Journal have seen their digital subscriptions swell manifold in the Trump presidency. This has perhaps lent them, not just the moral courage, but also the fiscal muscle to deal with a government that is at loggerheads with them.&nbsp;

If&nbsp;the average Indian reader wishes to be an informed citizen or learn about subjects that they care about and causes they want to mobilize on, they should start subscribing to news outlets based on the quality and depth of coverage. It would stop this mad rush for page views and ratings -&nbsp;headlines would be readable again and not a bunch of keywords and editors would be able to commission reporters to do the stories that are in the greatest public good. There would be no propensity to do &lsquo;paid news&rsquo; and no journalist or organization would need to pray at any altar save the reader.&nbsp;

Over the last few days I?ve seen with a sense of dismay a ?tu-tu main-main? over NDTV censoring its journalists.

Over the last few days I’ve seen with a sense of dismay a ‘tu-tu main-main’ over NDTV censoring its journalists. One of NDTV’s senior-most journalists and well-known faces, Sreenivasan Jain, on Tuesday, alleged that a report by him on loans given to companies owned by BJP chief Amit Shah’s son Jay Shah was taken down from NDTV’s website. This was done in the name of 'legal vetting' he said in a detailed Facebook post. × Once the face of NDTV, Barkha Dutt also said many of her stories were axed. In a series of tweets, she said, “yes, axing stories at NDTV not new. And I don't recall said ex colleagues standing up for freedom of press & reporting when some of fought it…” Can share @nitingokhale & I were punished for speaking on censorship of our work:@ndtv was hostile to us: we parted. We stuck to our stand https://t.co/nCDsrpKy6G — barkha dutt (@BDUTT) October 18, 2017 × She also wrote a long explainer on Facebook too, where she said, "Stories are censored in other newsrooms too but who else pretends to be this self-righteous and morally superior." × Nitin Gokhale, whose interview with the former Navy chief was also dropped, also tweeted on his similar experiences. The Twitter debate turned ugly when Sonia Verma Singh, NDTV’s Editorial Director, questioned her former colleague on why he’d allowed his son to intern in NDTV if he had such an axe to grind. You brought my son into it, not me. So you stooped low, not me. Good you realised. Debate on issue, not personality. https://t.co/lZ39GEHbQS — Nitin A. Gokhale (@nitingokhale) October 19, 2017 × Seeing the pile-on brigade’s hullabaloo, Sreenivasan Jain seems to have called truce for the moments. He tweeted in solidarity with NDTV (they’re still his employers) and said not many companies allow dissent from within. “Had decided to not respond to noise around my statement - abuse, support, whatever. Journalists tell stories. They are not the story.” But seeing how some are using this to pile on to NDTV, remember - can't think of too many org'n's that allow public dissent from within. — Sreenivasan Jain (@SreenivasanJain) October 18, 2017 × What was genuinely upsetting was the barbs that flew back and forth were from people I’d learnt a lot from and looked up to. I’d been part of NDTV for over 7 years and had learnt much of my journalism there. Why Target NDTV In the middle of this Twitter war, my former boss, a director with NDTV and the managing editor for NDTV Convergence, the company's digital arm, wondered if some other websites have set up an NDTV beat. (I must say we haven’t even though I’m writing on it now.) So many stories, such compulsive interest. Have other websites set up an @ndtv beat? ???? — Suparna Singh (@Suparna_Singh) October 18, 2017 × She also called out those who seem to have suddenly discovered ‘their lost ethics’. interesting to see some who've shown up at Lost and Found today to reclaim their very righteous Sense of Ethics ?? — Suparna Singh (@Suparna_Singh) October 18, 2017 × I tend to agree. That stories are dropped wasn’t a eureka moment for anyone. Why such senior journalists chose to speak at a time they did is also something I won’t comment on. But there remains the fact that many who knew about these stories being dropped did not speak up earlier and have suddenly found a voice. That said, journalists are after all not Martians - we all have bills to pay and if we chose to live with somethings that are uncomfortable, so be it. Some people couldn’t and moved on, others grinned and bore it. Maybe there are a few people who are favoured by the management. I’m yet to work in a company that there aren’t. And about glass ceilings - well, most English language media outfits favour those with public school education and perhaps a degree from Oxbridge or Columbia. That doesn’t mean that those who are in decision-making roles are not competent or don’t deserve to be there. Perhaps it simply boils down to basic language skills or the fact that they interviewed better. I wouldn’t know. I didn’t go to public school and am not armed with a foreign degree (not even then ones handed out by the Lajpat Nagar branches here in Delhi). The charges of nepotism aren’t then biggest problem here. The perception seems to be that an organization that seems to be fighting for the freedom of press when its owners are raided by the CBI is also sidestepping inconvenient stories - and it’s this hypocrisy that has evinced such a response. Are We Willing to Pay for News? Has the ghost of media censorship, in many cases self-censorship, started tumbling out of the closet? Is press freedom dead? Much humbug is talked on this subject. As a person who has worked in various media organizations over the past 17 years, there was no ghost - censorship is a reality. But that isn’t a government or political party specific problem. From news agencies to TV channels to news websites, there was a side of the toast that was buttered and that’s what you went for. And there’s basic economics at work here. For many publications, channels and websites - the smaller ones, at least - the government continues to be the largest source of advertising revenue. And to offend the government of the day would have a serious impact on bottom-lines. Protracted legal battles are expensive and in most cases, it is more economically viable to not run a story, or have it pulled off. For larger media houses, it’s definitely better with revenue streams that are diversified but that still means selling advertising, going out to corporates and perhaps not offending them to the extent that your revenues dry up. In case of dealing with political parties, it could simply be a matter of access - do a few negative stories and thesources who would call you with information would refuse to take your calls. There are some subscription models for news that exist in India but those are few and far between. For most of the ‘mainstream’ media, in an attempt to get to the numbers, which in turn ensure a minimum revenue to keep the business viable, coverage is routinely dumbed down and dense - in some cases, I fear, even biased. For here even supremely popular products are difficult to monetize. Subscription based media is thriving in other parts of the world. Publications such as the New York Times and Wall Street Journal have seen their digital subscriptions swell manifold in the Trump presidency. This has perhaps lent them, not just the moral courage, but also the fiscal muscle to deal with a government that is at loggerheads with them. If the average Indian reader wishes to be an informed citizen or learn about subjects that they care about and causes they want to mobilize on, they should start subscribing to news outlets based on the quality and depth of coverage. It would stop this mad rush for page views and ratings - headlines would be readable again and not a bunch of keywords and editors would be able to commission reporters to do the stories that are in the greatest public good. There would be no propensity to do ‘paid news’ and no journalist or organization would need to pray at any altar save the reader.

Don't mourn the loss of free media till you pay for your news

Egypt has banned 21 websites, including the main website of Qatar-based al Jazeera television, for &quot;supporting terrorism&quot;, state news agency MENA and security sources said on Wednesday.

Reuters tried to access five websites named by local Egyptian newspapers and broadcasters, including the Al Jazeera website, and found them all inaccessible.

There was no immediate official comment available. An official from the National Telecom Regulatory Authority could not confirm or deny the news, but said: &quot;So what if it is true? It should not be a problem.&quot;

MENA cited a senior security source as saying the websites, which also included some Egypt-focused websites hosted abroad such as Masr Al Arabiya that the government says are financed by Qatar, were blocked because they supported terrorism.

&quot;A senior security source said 21 websites have been blocked inside Egypt for having content that supports terrorism and extremism as well (as) publishing lies,&quot; MENA said.

The security source said legal action would be taken against the websites, MENA reported.

Two security sources told Reuters the websites were blocked for being affiliated with the outlawed Muslim Brotherhood or for being funded by Qatar.

Cairo accuses Qatar of supporting the Brotherhood, which was ousted from power in Egypt in 2013 when the military removed elected Islamist President Mohamed Mursi following mass protests against his rule.

However, Mada Masr, an Egyptian news website based inside the country which describes itself as progressive and has no Islamist or Qatari affiliations, was also inaccessible on Wednesday.

The Huffington Post&#39;s Arabic website also was inaccessible, although the international version was accessible.

Mada and the Huffington Post were not named by security sources - who said there were 21 websites but named only five - as part of the list of blocked websites.

The block follows similar actions taken earlier on Wednesday by Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates who got into a war of words with Qatar and blocked Al Jazeera and other websites.

Qatar said hackers had posted fake remarks by its emir against US&nbsp;foreign policy but the Saudi and UAE state-run media reported the comments anyway.

(Reuters)

The media censorship comes for allegedly 'having content that supports terrorism and extremism as well (as) publishing lies'

Egypt has banned 21 websites, including the main website of Qatar-based al Jazeera television, for "supporting terrorism", state news agency MENA and security sources said on Wednesday. Reuters tried to access five websites named by local Egyptian newspapers and broadcasters, including the Al Jazeera website, and found them all inaccessible. There was no immediate official comment available. An official from the National Telecom Regulatory Authority could not confirm or deny the news, but said: "So what if it is true? It should not be a problem." MENA cited a senior security source as saying the websites, which also included some Egypt-focused websites hosted abroad such as Masr Al Arabiya that the government says are financed by Qatar, were blocked because they supported terrorism. "A senior security source said 21 websites have been blocked inside Egypt for having content that supports terrorism and extremism as well (as) publishing lies," MENA said. The security source said legal action would be taken against the websites, MENA reported. Two security sources told Reuters the websites were blocked for being affiliated with the outlawed Muslim Brotherhood or for being funded by Qatar. Cairo accuses Qatar of supporting the Brotherhood, which was ousted from power in Egypt in 2013 when the military removed elected Islamist President Mohamed Mursi following mass protests against his rule. However, Mada Masr, an Egyptian news website based inside the country which describes itself as progressive and has no Islamist or Qatari affiliations, was also inaccessible on Wednesday. The Huffington Post's Arabic website also was inaccessible, although the international version was accessible. Mada and the Huffington Post were not named by security sources - who said there were 21 websites but named only five - as part of the list of blocked websites. The block follows similar actions taken earlier on Wednesday by Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates who got into a war of words with Qatar and blocked Al Jazeera and other websites. Qatar said hackers had posted fake remarks by its emir against US foreign policy but the Saudi and UAE state-run media reported the comments anyway. (Reuters)

Egypt blocks 21 websites, including Al Jazeera: State news agency

For the first time, a behind-the-scenes look at Facebook&#39;s&nbsp;policies and standards for what the social media giant will and will not publish&nbsp;has been accessed in a report by<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/may/21/revealed-facebook-internal-rulebook-sex-terrorism-violence" target="_blank"> The Guardian</a>.

The results show how complicated it is to reconcile the opposing needs to permit a wide variety of&nbsp;speech and images on the one hand, and to prohibit language that can be inflammatory, or give rise to violence or danger on the other.

The British publication&nbsp;cites&nbsp;leaked policy guidelines, which show how ethically difficult it can be to moderate a site used by two billion people.

The Guardian has seen more than 100 training manuals meant for Facebook employees, which give an outline of how the giant website moderates issues like violence, hate speech, terrorism, pornography, and self-harm.

Moderaters say they are so overwhelmed by the sheer bulk of posts that censorship decisions must be made in&nbsp;&quot;just&nbsp;10&nbsp;seconds&quot;. Reportedly, there are 6.5 million reports a week which relate to purely fake accounts.&nbsp;The site&nbsp;even has guidelines on match-fixing and&nbsp;cannabalism.&nbsp;

One source told The Guardian, &quot;Facebook cannot keep control of its content...It has grown too big, too quickly&quot;.

Moderating sexual content is seen as perhaps the most difficult challenge. But separating what constitutes a real threat from&nbsp;mere frustration expressed in dry, sarcastic but violent terms has proven difficult, and is often perplexing to users.

The report claims that remarks like &quot;Someone shoot Trump&quot; ought to be deleted, because as head of state he is in a protected category. But Facebook can find&nbsp;statements that many may find disturbing to be non-credible threats, like:&nbsp;&quot;To snap a bitch&#39;s neck, make sure to apply all your pressure to the middle of her throat&quot;.

Facebook is under&nbsp;pressure in the US and in Europe to be regulated in the same way as mainstream broadcasters and publishers.

(WION)

One source told the British news outlet, 'Facebook cannot keep control of its content...It has grown too big, too quickly'

For the first time, a behind-the-scenes look at Facebook's policies and standards for what the social media giant will and will not publish has been accessed in a report by The Guardian. The results show how complicated it is to reconcile the opposing needs to permit a wide variety of speech and images on the one hand, and to prohibit language that can be inflammatory, or give rise to violence or danger on the other. The British publication cites leaked policy guidelines, which show how ethically difficult it can be to moderate a site used by two billion people. The Guardian has seen more than 100 training manuals meant for Facebook employees, which give an outline of how the giant website moderates issues like violence, hate speech, terrorism, pornography, and self-harm. Moderaters say they are so overwhelmed by the sheer bulk of posts that censorship decisions must be made in "just 10 seconds". Reportedly, there are 6.5 million reports a week which relate to purely fake accounts. The site even has guidelines on match-fixing and cannabalism. One source told The Guardian, "Facebook cannot keep control of its content...It has grown too big, too quickly". Moderating sexual content is seen as perhaps the most difficult challenge. But separating what constitutes a real threat from mere frustration expressed in dry, sarcastic but violent terms has proven difficult, and is often perplexing to users. The report claims that remarks like "Someone shoot Trump" ought to be deleted, because as head of state he is in a protected category. But Facebook can find statements that many may find disturbing to be non-credible threats, like: "To snap a bitch's neck, make sure to apply all your pressure to the middle of her throat". Facebook is under pressure in the US and in Europe to be regulated in the same way as mainstream broadcasters and publishers. (WION)

Facebook's internal policies guiding moderators revealed for first time: The Guardian

Bangladesh police have raided the office of a news website and detained three journalists over a report on rumours the Prime Minister&#39;s son had died, an official said today, days after the country blocked dozens of news sites. 
 
Police conducted a five-hour search of the popular news portal banglamail24.com&#39;s Dhaka office yesterday evening, hours after the story appeared, and detained the executive editor and two other journalists. 
 
The portal reported rumours published on a Facebook page that Sajeeb Wazed Joy had died in a plane crash, but it made clear that they were false. 
 
&quot;We have picked them up for questioning about the news they have published,&quot; said Mufti Mahmud Khan, spokesman for the elite Rapid Action Battalion, which carried out the raid on the office. 
 
&quot;After the questioning ends, we will be able to tell you more about it.&quot; 
 
Phones at the banglamail24 office went unanswered today morning and the website had not been updated. 
 
The raid came days after the government sparked accusations of censorship when it shut down 32 online news services, citing &quot;objectionable content&quot;. 
 
The government has also banned live television coverage of Islamist extremist attacks in the wake of last month&#39;s deadly assault on a cafe in which 22 people were killed, including 18 foreigners. 
 
Prime Minister Shiekh Hasina publicly criticised the coverage of the attack and told private broadcasters to be more responsible. 
 
(AFP)

The portal reported rumours published on Facebook that Sajeeb Wazed Joy had died in a plane crash, but it made clear that they were false

Bangladesh police have raided the office of a news website and detained three journalists over a report on rumours the Prime Minister's son had died, an official said today, days after the country blocked dozens of news sites. Police conducted a five-hour search of the popular news portal banglamail24.com's Dhaka office yesterday evening, hours after the story appeared, and detained the executive editor and two other journalists. The portal reported rumours published on a Facebook page that Sajeeb Wazed Joy had died in a plane crash, but it made clear that they were false. "We have picked them up for questioning about the news they have published," said Mufti Mahmud Khan, spokesman for the elite Rapid Action Battalion, which carried out the raid on the office. "After the questioning ends, we will be able to tell you more about it." Phones at the banglamail24 office went unanswered today morning and the website had not been updated. The raid came days after the government sparked accusations of censorship when it shut down 32 online news services, citing "objectionable content". The government has also banned live television coverage of Islamist extremist attacks in the wake of last month's deadly assault on a cafe in which 22 people were killed, including 18 foreigners. Prime Minister Shiekh Hasina publicly criticised the coverage of the attack and told private broadcasters to be more responsible. (AFP)

Bangladesh police raid news website over 'false rumours' of PM's son's death, detain 3 journalists

A former editor of a Russian media group described how he and colleagues were pushed out over reporting that angered officials, in the first public account of the taming of Russia&#39;s last big news organisation willing to take on the Kremlin.&nbsp; 
 
In his first public comments since his dismissal along with two other top editors from RBC media group in May, Roman Badanin said that he and his colleagues were fired in the wake of a campaign of pressure on the group&#39;s billionaire owner that came to a head after they published a story on the &#39;Panama Papers&#39; leaks. 
 
Last week, RBC managers presented the replacement editors, recruited from state-owned news agency Tass, who told a tense meeting with staff that there would be limits on what and how they could report, according to someone who was present. 
 
RBCs owner Mikhail Prokhorov, a metals magnate who also owns the Brooklyn Nets US basketball team, had previously shielded its journalists. The group&#39;s news agency, newspaper and television station wrote stories about Putins friends and family, and other taboo subjects like the presence of Russian troops in Ukraine. But after the Panama Papers story in April, which was illustrated with a picture of Putin and alleged that a close childhood friend of the President had offshore accounts, the official pressure was turned up a notch. 
 
&quot;It was precisely after this, so Im told, that the problems started,&quot; said Badanin. Days after the story appeared, masked law-enforcement officers raided the headquarters of Prokhorovs holding company Onexim in what officials called a tax investigation. 
 
A short while after, the head of a utility company owned by Onexim group was arrested on suspicion of fraud. 
 
&quot;Apparently the build-up of attacks on the owner became very powerful,&quot; Badanin said. &quot;Listen: searches, criminal cases against the management of the company, demonstrations under their windows. Everything at the same time.&quot; 
 
&#39;People who don&#39;t like us&#39;&nbsp; 
 
Badanin said he had long been aware that officials were angry at RBCs reporting: messages had been passed to its Kremlin reporters and other journalists. A nationalist group led by a pro-Kremlin member of parliament staged several protests in front of the group&#39;s offices, accusing it of spreading pro-Western propaganda. &quot;Of course there are people in the Kremlin who dont like us, that is nothing new,&quot; said Badanin. 
 
Under Putin&#39;s 17-year rule, major television stations and newspapers have, one by one, come under the control of state firms or oligarchs loyal to the Kremlin, and their coverage has gone from combative to deferential. However, RBC under Prokhorovs ownership gained a reputation as the last big media company willing to write stories about the most sensitive issues. In the past two years it published articles on Putin&#39;s daughter and the business interests of Kirill Shamalov, who Reuters reported last year is Putins son-in-law. 
 
On May 13, the group announced that it was firing Badanin, the editor of its news agency, as well as group editor-in-chief Elizaveta Osetinskaya, and the editor of its daily newspaper Maxim Solyus. 
 
One of the aims of the sackings &quot;was that the editorial policy would become more cautious&quot;, Badanin said. 
 
Badanin said he had learned from executives in the media group that officials had, on occasion, called people close to the groups owners to ask to have some articles removed. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov denied this: &quot;Nobody, and they will confirm this, ever went to them (RBC) with a demand or a request to not publish anything, and certainly nothing was said to the owner. It is a gross exaggeration, an absolutely gross exaggeration.&quot; RBC declined to comment, as did Onexim, Prokhorovs holding group. 
 
By July 7, when RBC general director Nikolai Molibog presented the new editors recruited from Tass, Elizaveta Golikova and Igor Trosnikov, many journalists had already handed in their notice and others were considering their positions. 
 
Several journalists pressed the new bosses to say if there would be restrictions on what they could report to avoid angering the authorities. 
 
&quot;If someone thinks that you can (publish) whatever, just absolutely everything - thats not the case,&quot; Trosnikov said, according to a transcript of the staff meeting published by news site meduza.io and which was confirmed as authentic by the person present. &quot;I can&#39;t say to you that there are no restrictions at all. They exist. If someone believes there aren&#39;t any, they should write for themselves on Facebook.&quot; 
 
(Reuters)&nbsp;

Campaign of pressure peaked after publishing stories on 'Panama Papers' leaks. New editors have been recruited from state-owned agency Taas

A former editor of a Russian media group described how he and colleagues were pushed out over reporting that angered officials, in the first public account of the taming of Russia's last big news organisation willing to take on the Kremlin. In his first public comments since his dismissal along with two other top editors from RBC media group in May, Roman Badanin said that he and his colleagues were fired in the wake of a campaign of pressure on the group's billionaire owner that came to a head after they published a story on the 'Panama Papers' leaks. Last week, RBC managers presented the replacement editors, recruited from state-owned news agency Tass, who told a tense meeting with staff that there would be limits on what and how they could report, according to someone who was present. RBCs owner Mikhail Prokhorov, a metals magnate who also owns the Brooklyn Nets US basketball team, had previously shielded its journalists. The group's news agency, newspaper and television station wrote stories about Putins friends and family, and other taboo subjects like the presence of Russian troops in Ukraine. But after the Panama Papers story in April, which was illustrated with a picture of Putin and alleged that a close childhood friend of the President had offshore accounts, the official pressure was turned up a notch. "It was precisely after this, so Im told, that the problems started," said Badanin. Days after the story appeared, masked law-enforcement officers raided the headquarters of Prokhorovs holding company Onexim in what officials called a tax investigation. A short while after, the head of a utility company owned by Onexim group was arrested on suspicion of fraud. "Apparently the build-up of attacks on the owner became very powerful," Badanin said. "Listen: searches, criminal cases against the management of the company, demonstrations under their windows. Everything at the same time." 'People who don't like us' Badanin said he had long been aware that officials were angry at RBCs reporting: messages had been passed to its Kremlin reporters and other journalists. A nationalist group led by a pro-Kremlin member of parliament staged several protests in front of the group's offices, accusing it of spreading pro-Western propaganda. "Of course there are people in the Kremlin who dont like us, that is nothing new," said Badanin. Under Putin's 17-year rule, major television stations and newspapers have, one by one, come under the control of state firms or oligarchs loyal to the Kremlin, and their coverage has gone from combative to deferential. However, RBC under Prokhorovs ownership gained a reputation as the last big media company willing to write stories about the most sensitive issues. In the past two years it published articles on Putin's daughter and the business interests of Kirill Shamalov, who Reuters reported last year is Putins son-in-law. On May 13, the group announced that it was firing Badanin, the editor of its news agency, as well as group editor-in-chief Elizaveta Osetinskaya, and the editor of its daily newspaper Maxim Solyus. One of the aims of the sackings "was that the editorial policy would become more cautious", Badanin said. Badanin said he had learned from executives in the media group that officials had, on occasion, called people close to the groups owners to ask to have some articles removed. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov denied this: "Nobody, and they will confirm this, ever went to them (RBC) with a demand or a request to not publish anything, and certainly nothing was said to the owner. It is a gross exaggeration, an absolutely gross exaggeration." RBC declined to comment, as did Onexim, Prokhorovs holding group. By July 7, when RBC general director Nikolai Molibog presented the new editors recruited from Tass, Elizaveta Golikova and Igor Trosnikov, many journalists had already handed in their notice and others were considering their positions. Several journalists pressed the new bosses to say if there would be restrictions on what they could report to avoid angering the authorities. "If someone thinks that you can (publish) whatever, just absolutely everything - thats not the case," Trosnikov said, according to a transcript of the staff meeting published by news site meduza.io and which was confirmed as authentic by the person present. "I can't say to you that there are no restrictions at all. They exist. If someone believes there aren't any, they should write for themselves on Facebook." (Reuters)

Russian editor alleges he was fired for angering Kremlin

censorship

Censorship, News on Censorship, stories on Censorship, articles on Censorship, Censorship stories at Wion, Censorship news, Censorship latest news