One of the harshest acts of censorship since the&nbsp;Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 is&nbsp;the classification of Meduza, the largest Russian independent news site, as an "undesirable organisation." The parent company of Meduza, which is registered in Latvia, "threatens the foundations of constitutional order and the security of the Russian Federation," the prosecutor general of Russia claimed in a statement on Thursday (January 26), without providing any additional&nbsp;information.

The ruling says Meduza is prohibited from functioning in Russia, and anybody who "cooperates" or even posts a hyperlink to its online material risk receiving a six-year prison sentence.

The Kremlin's newest attempt to censor discussion about the conflict in Ukraine is the ban on Meduza. The public's ability to receive information on the war has been curtailed, effectively outlawing Russia's independent media.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/russia-ukraine-live-ukraine-army-claims-it-shot-47-of-55-russian-missiles-amid-wave-of-attacks-from-russia-556222">Russia-Ukraine war | Russian attacks across Ukraine kill 11, say emergency services</a>

The choice will probably make it significantly difficult for its reporters, the majority of whom are based in Latvia, to communicate with people in Russia, so limiting the website's audience. Despite the migration of thousands who opposed the war or sought to escape it, its readership of around 15 million people has mostly stayed in Russia. 
 
“We’d like to say that we’re not scared and we couldn’t care less about this new status — but that’s not true,” Meduza said in a statement. “We are scared for our readers. We are scared for&nbsp;the people who worked with Meduza for many years. We are scared for our loved ones and our friends.”

Also read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/opinions-blogs/only-in-america-an-epidemic-of-gun-violence-without-a-cure-556046">Only in America: An epidemic of gun violence without a cure</a>

"Nonetheless, we believe in what we do. We believe in freedom of speech. We believe in a democratic Russia. The bigger the pressure, the harder we will stand up to it,"&nbsp;Meduza added.&nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies)

WATCH WION LIVE HERE:

<iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe>

One of the harshest acts of censorship since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 is the classification of Meduza, the largest Russian independent news site, as an "undesirable organisation.

One of the harshest acts of censorship since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 is the classification of Meduza, the largest Russian independent news site, as an "undesirable organisation." The parent company of Meduza, which is registered in Latvia, "threatens the foundations of constitutional order and the security of the Russian Federation," the prosecutor general of Russia claimed in a statement on Thursday (January 26), without providing any additional information. The ruling says Meduza is prohibited from functioning in Russia, and anybody who "cooperates" or even posts a hyperlink to its online material risk receiving a six-year prison sentence. The Kremlin's newest attempt to censor discussion about the conflict in Ukraine is the ban on Meduza. The public's ability to receive information on the war has been curtailed, effectively outlawing Russia's independent media. Also read | Russia-Ukraine war | Russian attacks across Ukraine kill 11, say emergency services The choice will probably make it significantly difficult for its reporters, the majority of whom are based in Latvia, to communicate with people in Russia, so limiting the website's audience. Despite the migration of thousands who opposed the war or sought to escape it, its readership of around 15 million people has mostly stayed in Russia. “We’d like to say that we’re not scared and we couldn’t care less about this new status — but that’s not true,” Meduza said in a statement. “We are scared for our readers. We are scared for the people who worked with Meduza for many years. We are scared for our loved ones and our friends.” Also read | Only in America: An epidemic of gun violence without a cure "Nonetheless, we believe in what we do. We believe in freedom of speech. We believe in a democratic Russia. The bigger the pressure, the harder we will stand up to it," Meduza added. (With inputs from agencies) WATCH WION LIVE HERE:

Russia bans largest independent news website Meduza, calls it a 'security threat'

The media licence for Novaya Gazeta, one of the last independent news organisations still operating in Russia, was revoked on Monday, effectively prohibiting it from continuing to publish.

The publication was charged with failing to provide paperwork pertaining to a change in ownership in 2006 by Russia's media watchdog, Rozkomnadzor.

The judgement was described as "a political hit job, without the slightest legal basis," said editor-in-chief Dmitry Muratov in a statement made outside of court. Muratov won the Nobel Peace Prize for his work to uphold critical news reporting in <a href="https://www.wionews.com/sports/us-open-nick-kyrgios-knocks-defending-champion-daniil-medvedev-out-512947">Russia</a>. The document would appeal, he claimed.

Since its founding in 1993 with funding from late Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev's Nobel Peace Prize, Novaya Gazeta has been a pillar of the Russian media landscape. It has established itself as Russia's top investigative outlet even as&nbsp;press freedoms were gradually rolled back.

After receiving a warning for breaking recently approved legislation that strictly censored media coverage of the situation in Ukraine, it stopped operating in Russia in March.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/two-russian-embassy-staff-killed-in-kabul-bombing-confirms-moscow-513048">Two Russian embassy staff killed in Kabul bombing, confirms Moscow</a>

A second spin-off internet site in Europe has now been established by staff; nevertheless, <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/volodymyr-zelensky-claims-ukraine-takes-three-settlements-in-south-and-east-in-counter-offensive-512978">Russian</a> authorities have also prohibited its publishing.

Novaya Gazeta being stripped of its print licence is a further blow to press freedom in Russia, the United Nations said Monday.

"The judgement against Novaya Gazeta is yet another blow to the independence of Russian media," UN Human Rights Office spokeswoman Ravina Shamdasani said in a statement.

She added that press "activities have been further compromised by legal restrictions and increased state controls imposed following the Russian Federation's attack on Ukraine".

(With inputs from agencies)

Also WATCH |&nbsp;Europe Energy Crisis | Sweden, Finland step in to avert Lehman-like situation

<iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/europe-energy-crisis-sweden-finland-step-in-to-avert-lehman-like-situation-512979/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe>

The media licence for Novaya Gazeta, one of the last independent news organisations still operating in Russia, was revoked on Monday, effectively prohibiting it from continuing to publish.

The media licence for Novaya Gazeta, one of the last independent news organisations still operating in Russia, was revoked on Monday, effectively prohibiting it from continuing to publish. The publication was charged with failing to provide paperwork pertaining to a change in ownership in 2006 by Russia's media watchdog, Rozkomnadzor. The judgement was described as "a political hit job, without the slightest legal basis," said editor-in-chief Dmitry Muratov in a statement made outside of court. Muratov won the Nobel Peace Prize for his work to uphold critical news reporting in Russia. The document would appeal, he claimed. Since its founding in 1993 with funding from late Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev's Nobel Peace Prize, Novaya Gazeta has been a pillar of the Russian media landscape. It has established itself as Russia's top investigative outlet even as press freedoms were gradually rolled back. After receiving a warning for breaking recently approved legislation that strictly censored media coverage of the situation in Ukraine, it stopped operating in Russia in March. Also read | Two Russian embassy staff killed in Kabul bombing, confirms Moscow A second spin-off internet site in Europe has now been established by staff; nevertheless, Russian authorities have also prohibited its publishing. Novaya Gazeta being stripped of its print licence is a further blow to press freedom in Russia, the United Nations said Monday. "The judgement against Novaya Gazeta is yet another blow to the independence of Russian media," UN Human Rights Office spokeswoman Ravina Shamdasani said in a statement. She added that press "activities have been further compromised by legal restrictions and increased state controls imposed following the Russian Federation's attack on Ukraine". (With inputs from agencies) Also WATCH | Europe Energy Crisis | Sweden, Finland step in to avert Lehman-like situation

Russian court revokes independent newspaper Novaya Gazeta's license

As Australia is thinking of negotiating payments for news media companies, the search engine <a href="https://www.wionews.com/topics/google">Google</a> has threatened to remove its search engine in the country if the code is introduced.

Google believes the proposal by the Australian government sets a "dangerous precedent" as the code will be hiding — or worse, removing — news websites from search results of Australian locals in order to push news outlets to pay in order to be able to link news articles in search results.

However, this decision has not gone well with the search engines, especially Google. The internet giant has decided to pull down the entire function from Australia, under a sign of protest and disagreement with this decision.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/google-seals-content-payment-deal-with-french-news-publishers-358368">WATCH|</a>

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/google-seals-content-payment-deal-with-french-news-publishers-358368/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

"The principle of unrestricted linking between websites is fundamental to search and coupled with the unmanageable financial and operational risk is this version of the code were to become law, it would give us no real choice but to stop making Google Search available in Australia", said Mel Silva, Google's managing director.

She also added that while this is not a favourable move, the company is not left with much choice. "Withdrawing our services from Australia is the last thing that Google want to have happen, especially when there is another way forward," Silva said.

Google has also claimed that while they are thinking of taking this decision, the company is ready to strike deals with media companies and has already struck nearly 450 deals with a few media companies.

The decision was Google has not pleased the Senate as they feel this is almost like China threatening Australia's trade as a tit-for-tat against coronavirus. "It’s about breaking your bank account, that’s what this is about," said independent senator Rex Patrick. "It does not touch the internet and the way in which it works."

Prime Minister Scott Morrison, in response to Google's statement, said, "Australia makes our rules for things you can do in Australia. That’s done in our parliament. It’s done by our government. And that’s how things work here in Australia."&nbsp;

As Australia is thinking of negotiating payments for news media companies, the search engine Google has threatened to remove its search engine in the country if the code is introduced.

As Australia is thinking of negotiating payments for news media companies, the search engine Google has threatened to remove its search engine in the country if the code is introduced. Google believes the proposal by the Australian government sets a "dangerous precedent" as the code will be hiding — or worse, removing — news websites from search results of Australian locals in order to push news outlets to pay in order to be able to link news articles in search results. However, this decision has not gone well with the search engines, especially Google. The internet giant has decided to pull down the entire function from Australia, under a sign of protest and disagreement with this decision. WATCH| "The principle of unrestricted linking between websites is fundamental to search and coupled with the unmanageable financial and operational risk is this version of the code were to become law, it would give us no real choice but to stop making Google Search available in Australia", said Mel Silva, Google's managing director. She also added that while this is not a favourable move, the company is not left with much choice. "Withdrawing our services from Australia is the last thing that Google want to have happen, especially when there is another way forward," Silva said. Google has also claimed that while they are thinking of taking this decision, the company is ready to strike deals with media companies and has already struck nearly 450 deals with a few media companies. The decision was Google has not pleased the Senate as they feel this is almost like China threatening Australia's trade as a tit-for-tat against coronavirus. "It’s about breaking your bank account, that’s what this is about," said independent senator Rex Patrick. "It does not touch the internet and the way in which it works." Prime Minister Scott Morrison, in response to Google's statement, said, "Australia makes our rules for things you can do in Australia. That’s done in our parliament. It’s done by our government. And that’s how things work here in Australia."

Google threatens to halt 'search' feature in Australia over new media payment law; PM reacts

Today, we lament the loss of the media's credibility, but the fact is that it has often been questioned in the past too.

The line between News and propaganda is a fine one. When states target News outfits in a proxy battle, then it's time to revisit the rules.

Let's discuss how the media can tread this fine line in the age of nationalistic politics and trigger happy diplomacy? How can the media safeguard its Independence?

Is the media really independent or is it a handmaiden of political powers? Is it only corporate or government ownership that compromises the media? or do obvious political biases play a role?

There's a lot of ground to cover, as always we start with some figures - just 9 per cent of the world's population live in countries where journalists can operate freely and independently.

This is according to a report by reporters without borders, in the rest of the world, strongmen are rising and press freedoms are eroding.

Media outlets face an existential crisis - both in monetary and moral terms. It's a tough balancing act, if you don't question the powers that be, you're not doing your job.

But if you criticise them, you lose access or in extreme cases your licence to operate.&nbsp;

Two years ago, Thailand's Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha found a new way to dodge tricky questions from the press - he installed a cardboard cutout at a press conference.

Three years back, Czech president Milos Zeman waved a mock rifle at journalists - again at a press conference. Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte has a reputation of threatening and abusing journalists.

And who can forget this fiery exchange between US President Donald Trump and a CNN correspondent. The American government revoked his press credentials for quizzing Trump.

Jim Acosta won back access to the white house in court. It's a sign of the times - in the age of nationalism, leaders are more confrontational, they see the press as a party to political battles.

And they take on the press as they would take on the Opposition - political leanings, and not objectivity, dictate media coverage. And media outlets face the consequences of such compromises.

Attacking state-owned media is now a legitimate tool of diplomatic retaliation - America leads the world here. It first declared Russian state media as foreign agents, now it is targetting Chinese organisations. &nbsp;

The Trump administration says it is cracking down on propaganda machinery of rival states - there is some merit to that argument.

Around the world, the press has now begun to wear their political leanings on their sleeves. News stories turn into hit jobs or politically motivated campaigns.

It's becoming harder to distinguish news from comment, fact from fiction and reports from opinion. Governments are arming themselves with state media machinery to counter negative reportage and set the narrative.

In the age of social media, leaders have found ways to bypass the gatekeepers of mass media and communicate directly with the people.&nbsp;

Any story, opinion or thought that doesn't fit the official narrative is challenged - the result is stronger scrutiny of journalists and more barriers in their path.

These are challenging times for the global press and branding journalists as state agents is another low. 
 
&nbsp;

Today, we lament the loss of the media's credibility, but the fact is that it has often been questioned in the past too. The line between News and propaganda is a fine one.

Today, we lament the loss of the media's credibility, but the fact is that it has often been questioned in the past too. The line between News and propaganda is a fine one. When states target News outfits in a proxy battle, then it's time to revisit the rules. Let's discuss how the media can tread this fine line in the age of nationalistic politics and trigger happy diplomacy? How can the media safeguard its Independence? Is the media really independent or is it a handmaiden of political powers? Is it only corporate or government ownership that compromises the media? or do obvious political biases play a role? There's a lot of ground to cover, as always we start with some figures - just 9 per cent of the world's population live in countries where journalists can operate freely and independently. This is according to a report by reporters without borders, in the rest of the world, strongmen are rising and press freedoms are eroding. Media outlets face an existential crisis - both in monetary and moral terms. It's a tough balancing act, if you don't question the powers that be, you're not doing your job. But if you criticise them, you lose access or in extreme cases your licence to operate. Two years ago, Thailand's Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha found a new way to dodge tricky questions from the press - he installed a cardboard cutout at a press conference. Three years back, Czech president Milos Zeman waved a mock rifle at journalists - again at a press conference. Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte has a reputation of threatening and abusing journalists. And who can forget this fiery exchange between US President Donald Trump and a CNN correspondent. The American government revoked his press credentials for quizzing Trump. Jim Acosta won back access to the white house in court. It's a sign of the times - in the age of nationalism, leaders are more confrontational, they see the press as a party to political battles. And they take on the press as they would take on the Opposition - political leanings, and not objectivity, dictate media coverage. And media outlets face the consequences of such compromises. Attacking state-owned media is now a legitimate tool of diplomatic retaliation - America leads the world here. It first declared Russian state media as foreign agents, now it is targetting Chinese organisations. The Trump administration says it is cracking down on propaganda machinery of rival states - there is some merit to that argument. Around the world, the press has now begun to wear their political leanings on their sleeves. News stories turn into hit jobs or politically motivated campaigns. It's becoming harder to distinguish news from comment, fact from fiction and reports from opinion. Governments are arming themselves with state media machinery to counter negative reportage and set the narrative. In the age of social media, leaders have found ways to bypass the gatekeepers of mass media and communicate directly with the people. Any story, opinion or thought that doesn't fit the official narrative is challenged - the result is stronger scrutiny of journalists and more barriers in their path. These are challenging times for the global press and branding journalists as state agents is another low.

WION Edit: Attacking the media, a tool for diplomatic retaliation?

Yesterday the White House officially released a list of 78 terrorist attacks&nbsp;carried out by Islamic State (IS) supporters--in the US&nbsp;and abroad, between September 2014 to December 2016--claiming that these attacks were not&nbsp;reported, or were&nbsp;under-reported, in the media. Why did the White House publish such a document?

The list was&nbsp;distributed hours after Trump&nbsp;had accused the media of downplaying terrorist attacks, <a href="http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/318190-cnn-gets-wh-list-of-terror-attacks-media-ignored" target="_blank">The Hill</a> reports.&nbsp;&quot;And in many cases, the very, very dishonest press doesn&#39;t want to report it,&quot; Trump said. He&nbsp;suggested that the media buried stories of terrorist&nbsp;attacks for ulterior motives. &quot;They have their own reasons, and you understand that,&quot; he said, without providing&nbsp;evidence.&nbsp;

Some of the attacks on the White House list have received major&nbsp;coverage in America, despite Trump&#39;s claim. But also included on the list were&nbsp;smaller strikes&nbsp;overseas that got less.

&nbsp;

Justifying the Muslim ban

The list comes as Trump has been panned, by <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/british-speaker-opposes-letting-trump-address-parliament-12121" target="_blank">lawmakers </a>and by <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/womens-march-protesters-flood-washington-to-protest-trump-administration-11544" target="_blank">millions</a>&nbsp;around the world,&nbsp;for a severe&nbsp;&quot;travel ban&quot; imposed on seven majority Muslim countries. Rudy Giulianni went on live TV to explain that Trump himself originally called this executive order a &quot;<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/rudy-giuliani-told-trump-how-to-make-muslim-ban-legal-11841" target="_blank">Muslim ban</a>&quot;, even as his administration publicly contests that nomenclature. But presumably the White House is publishing this list to make it appear like the Muslim ban is founded on rationale, not prejudice. The list is also aimed&nbsp;normalising Trump&#39;s&nbsp;world view.

Publishing a catalogue of Islamic terrorism&nbsp;is parallel to an earlier&nbsp;Trump&nbsp;pledge to&nbsp;publish a weekly list of crimes committed by <a href="http://www.salon.com/2017/01/26/trump-plans-to-shame-sanctuary-cities-by-publishing-a-weekly-list-of-crimes-committed-by-undocumented-immigrants/" target="_blank">undocumented immigrants</a>&nbsp;in sanctuary cities. <a href="http://www.thefader.com/2017/01/26/trump-crimes-committed-immigrants-nazi" target="_blank">Critics </a>pointed out that this bore a resemblance to the list of crimes commited by Jewish people, kept&nbsp;by&nbsp;the Institute for Reseach on the Jewish Question in <a href="http://www.thefader.com/2017/01/26/trump-crimes-committed-immigrants-nazi" target="_blank">Nazi Germany</a>.

Highlighting the criminality of minorities is not designed to improve public safety, but to falsely create this&nbsp;appearance.&nbsp;Further, it is designed to make people hate and fear minorities, and to make it appear like fear and hate are sensible.

&nbsp;

Trump&#39;s silence speaks loudly

Last week, Alexandre Bissonnette,&nbsp;a 27-year-old caucasian Francophone&nbsp;from Quebec City, murdered six Muslims&nbsp;and injured eight more in a shooting spree inside a mosque.&nbsp;Canadians&nbsp;of all persuasions were shocked and saddened, but Trump sent condolences to &quot;the Prime Minister and people of Canada&quot;, rather than single out Muslims&nbsp;for support in a time of grief and fear. But the man for whom wishing&nbsp;&quot;Happy holidays&quot; instead of &quot;Merry Christmas&quot; is a sin warranting multiple twitter rants was unusually silent on social media. Initially there were murmurs that&nbsp;the killer was heard saying &quot;Allah Akbar!&quot; before unleashing carnage. This did not happen. Actually, far from this, Bissonnette liked &quot;Donald Trump&quot; on Facebook, and now former classmates say he&nbsp;&quot;really like Trump and had a permanent grudge against the left&quot;.

More, White House press secretary Sean Spicer said: &quot;We condemn this attack in the strongest possible terms...It&#39;s a terrible reminder of why we must remain vigilant and why the president is taking steps to be pro-active, rather re-active, when it comes to our nation&#39;s safety and security.&quot; Thus,&nbsp;mass murder perpetrated by a white French-Canadian&nbsp;against Muslim Canadians&nbsp;is warped and recast as evidence supposedly supporting the need to ban Muslims from entering America. Spicer&#39;s response, which is essentially articulating&nbsp;Trump&#39;s world view,&nbsp;is&nbsp;objectively incoherent.

&nbsp;

Stigmatising Muslims amid&nbsp;general disinformation from&nbsp;White House 

The Trump administration&#39;s Islamophobia&nbsp;also comes amid a torrent from them&nbsp;of general disinformation.&nbsp;White House spokesperson Kellyanne Conway was broadly criticised&nbsp;for coining&nbsp;the Orwellian term &quot;alternative facts&quot;&nbsp;to justify Sean Spicer&#39;s palpably false claim&nbsp;that the media&nbsp;misrepresented the crowd size at Trump&#39;s presidential inauguration.&nbsp;Reports are emerging&nbsp;of the White House shutting down a range of ordinary&nbsp;communication for various&nbsp;imporant agencies.&nbsp;Trump just recently&nbsp;dismissed as &quot;Fake News&quot; any poll that reflects <a href="http://money.cnn.com/2017/02/06/media/donald-trump-poll-denialism/" target="_blank">negatively </a>against&nbsp;him.

That the White House is actively&nbsp;dissemenating lies and shutting down open communication does not mean the media covering Trump is perfect!&nbsp;

<a href="https://www.buzzfeed.com/rubycramer/democrats-confront-lefty-fake-news?utm_term=.oeBZJy8ZA#.ro6GLr7GM" target="_blank">BuzzFeed </a>published criticism of&nbsp;<a href="https://www.buzzfeed.com/rubycramer/democrats-confront-lefty-fake-news" target="_blank">Fake News</a> with a liberal bent, as some Trump critics sensationalise half-truths,&nbsp;publish factually wrong information or outright fabrications.&nbsp;But the White House&#39;s criticism of the media seems to exist independently of media errors, and is designed to&nbsp;accomplish at least two goals. The first is to create fear by both&nbsp;stigmatising&nbsp;minorities and to paint the state of the country as being in&nbsp;&quot;<a href="http://www.vox.com/a/president-trump-inauguration-speech-transcript-annotations" target="_blank">carnage</a>&quot; that requires&nbsp;a strongman leader to fix.&nbsp;The second is to discredit the media, not because they are sometimes inaccurate, but specifically because&nbsp;they are&nbsp;accurate.

&nbsp;

The White House&#39;s bias

The White House&nbsp;publishing a&nbsp;list of terrorism attacks is hardly the first time politicians have tried to manipulate the media into getting&nbsp;headlines they desire. The criticism is not merely that they&#39;re shaping the story, it&#39;s that their framing is biased: It stigmatises&nbsp;Muslim citizens by associating Muslims in general with terrorism, and ignores terrorism&nbsp;committed by white people.

A 2015 article by&nbsp;<a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/06/18/white_extremist_murders_killed_at_least_60_in_u_s_since_1995.html" target="_blank">Ben Mathis-Lilley at Slate</a>&nbsp;corrects&nbsp;this record by publishing a&nbsp;list of terrorist attacks&nbsp;committed by white Americans on&nbsp;United States soil.<a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/06/18/white_extremist_murders_killed_at_least_60_in_u_s_since_1995.html" target="_blank"> &quot;White extremists&quot;</a> have killed at least 60 people in 23 deadly attacks since the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing.

Trump claims that any&nbsp;failure to utter<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72SbL2SJt-4" target="_blank">&nbsp;</a>&quot;Radical Islamist terrorism&quot; is&nbsp;dangerous&nbsp;political correctness. Esssentially&nbsp;Trump,&nbsp;and he&#39;s far from alone in this, believes that liberals are so overeagerly tolerant&nbsp;that in their misguided&nbsp;effort to be inclusive&nbsp;that they ignore flagrant,&nbsp;fatal&nbsp;threats in their midst.

This mindset presupposes that Muslims are uniquely and inherently dangerous, a bogus presumption which leads to two negative outcomes:&nbsp;A&nbsp;hostile environment for millions of peaceful Muslims, and a society unguarded against the&nbsp;real but officially unacknowledged&nbsp;danger of white terrorism, swallowed up as it is in the hysteria surounding a&nbsp;real but exaggerated threat&nbsp;posed by&nbsp;Islamic terrorism.

It also fails to take into account what should be a unifying and heartening truth,&nbsp;that&nbsp;people of every religion and skin colour actually agree:&nbsp;Islamic terrorism is very bad! Muslims are disproportionately the victims of terrorism. Islamic State is in predominantly Muslim countries&nbsp;killing thousands of people, destroying&nbsp;ancient sites&nbsp;and committing various other atrocities. Most of the people&nbsp;fighting against Islamic State are&nbsp;Muslims. Nobody likes Islamic State!

If Trump&#39;s only&nbsp;interest is keeping Americans safe, why is he silent about the threat posed by white terrorists? Trump says that if a leader is unwilling to&nbsp;say &quot;Radical Islamist terrorism&quot; aloud,&nbsp;they are incapable of protecting their society. They are soft on terror.&nbsp;But there is a class of terrorism about which Trump&nbsp;is glaringly,&nbsp;hypocritically silent.&nbsp;Trump&#39;s&nbsp;silence is both dividing Americans and putting them&nbsp;at risk.

Who he systematically criticises and systematically ignores reveals much.

As a private citizen Trump was free to tweet how he liked,&nbsp;but he is issuing&nbsp;official White House communications now. His pledge to put America&nbsp;first must apply equally for&nbsp;all Americans. This balance is required both&nbsp;when keeping Americans safe&nbsp;and when condemning American murderers, too.&nbsp;

(WION)

Trump is actively stigmatising Muslims and vilifying the media, and in the process ignoring many real threats to America

Yesterday the White House officially released a list of 78 terrorist attacks carried out by Islamic State (IS) supporters--in the US and abroad, between September 2014 to December 2016--claiming that these attacks were not reported, or were under-reported, in the media. Why did the White House publish such a document? The list was distributed hours after Trump had accused the media of downplaying terrorist attacks, The Hill reports. "And in many cases, the very, very dishonest press doesn't want to report it," Trump said. He suggested that the media buried stories of terrorist attacks for ulterior motives. "They have their own reasons, and you understand that," he said, without providing evidence. Some of the attacks on the White House list have received major coverage in America, despite Trump's claim. But also included on the list were smaller strikes overseas that got less. Justifying the Muslim ban The list comes as Trump has been panned, by lawmakers and by millions around the world, for a severe "travel ban" imposed on seven majority Muslim countries. Rudy Giulianni went on live TV to explain that Trump himself originally called this executive order a "Muslim ban", even as his administration publicly contests that nomenclature. But presumably the White House is publishing this list to make it appear like the Muslim ban is founded on rationale, not prejudice. The list is also aimed normalising Trump's world view. Publishing a catalogue of Islamic terrorism is parallel to an earlier Trump pledge to publish a weekly list of crimes committed by undocumented immigrants in sanctuary cities. Critics pointed out that this bore a resemblance to the list of crimes commited by Jewish people, kept by the Institute for Reseach on the Jewish Question in Nazi Germany. Highlighting the criminality of minorities is not designed to improve public safety, but to falsely create this appearance. Further, it is designed to make people hate and fear minorities, and to make it appear like fear and hate are sensible. Trump's silence speaks loudly Last week, Alexandre Bissonnette, a 27-year-old caucasian Francophone from Quebec City, murdered six Muslims and injured eight more in a shooting spree inside a mosque. Canadians of all persuasions were shocked and saddened, but Trump sent condolences to "the Prime Minister and people of Canada", rather than single out Muslims for support in a time of grief and fear. But the man for whom wishing "Happy holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas" is a sin warranting multiple twitter rants was unusually silent on social media. Initially there were murmurs that the killer was heard saying "Allah Akbar!" before unleashing carnage. This did not happen. Actually, far from this, Bissonnette liked "Donald Trump" on Facebook, and now former classmates say he "really like Trump and had a permanent grudge against the left". More, White House press secretary Sean Spicer said: "We condemn this attack in the strongest possible terms...It's a terrible reminder of why we must remain vigilant and why the president is taking steps to be pro-active, rather re-active, when it comes to our nation's safety and security." Thus, mass murder perpetrated by a white French-Canadian against Muslim Canadians is warped and recast as evidence supposedly supporting the need to ban Muslims from entering America. Spicer's response, which is essentially articulating Trump's world view, is objectively incoherent. Stigmatising Muslims amid general disinformation from White House The Trump administration's Islamophobia also comes amid a torrent from them of general disinformation. White House spokesperson Kellyanne Conway was broadly criticised for coining the Orwellian term "alternative facts" to justify Sean Spicer's palpably false claim that the media misrepresented the crowd size at Trump's presidential inauguration. Reports are emerging of the White House shutting down a range of ordinary communication for various imporant agencies. Trump just recently dismissed as "Fake News" any poll that reflects negatively against him. That the White House is actively dissemenating lies and shutting down open communication does not mean the media covering Trump is perfect! BuzzFeed published criticism of Fake News with a liberal bent, as some Trump critics sensationalise half-truths, publish factually wrong information or outright fabrications. But the White House's criticism of the media seems to exist independently of media errors, and is designed to accomplish at least two goals. The first is to create fear by both stigmatising minorities and to paint the state of the country as being in "carnage" that requires a strongman leader to fix. The second is to discredit the media, not because they are sometimes inaccurate, but specifically because they are accurate. The White House's bias The White House publishing a list of terrorism attacks is hardly the first time politicians have tried to manipulate the media into getting headlines they desire. The criticism is not merely that they're shaping the story, it's that their framing is biased: It stigmatises Muslim citizens by associating Muslims in general with terrorism, and ignores terrorism committed by white people. A 2015 article by Ben Mathis-Lilley at Slate corrects this record by publishing a list of terrorist attacks committed by white Americans on United States soil. "White extremists" have killed at least 60 people in 23 deadly attacks since the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing. Trump claims that any failure to utter "Radical Islamist terrorism" is dangerous political correctness. Esssentially Trump, and he's far from alone in this, believes that liberals are so overeagerly tolerant that in their misguided effort to be inclusive that they ignore flagrant, fatal threats in their midst. This mindset presupposes that Muslims are uniquely and inherently dangerous, a bogus presumption which leads to two negative outcomes: A hostile environment for millions of peaceful Muslims, and a society unguarded against the real but officially unacknowledged danger of white terrorism, swallowed up as it is in the hysteria surounding a real but exaggerated threat posed by Islamic terrorism. It also fails to take into account what should be a unifying and heartening truth, that people of every religion and skin colour actually agree: Islamic terrorism is very bad! Muslims are disproportionately the victims of terrorism. Islamic State is in predominantly Muslim countries killing thousands of people, destroying ancient sites and committing various other atrocities. Most of the people fighting against Islamic State are Muslims. Nobody likes Islamic State! If Trump's only interest is keeping Americans safe, why is he silent about the threat posed by white terrorists? Trump says that if a leader is unwilling to say "Radical Islamist terrorism" aloud, they are incapable of protecting their society. They are soft on terror. But there is a class of terrorism about which Trump is glaringly, hypocritically silent. Trump's silence is both dividing Americans and putting them at risk. Who he systematically criticises and systematically ignores reveals much. As a private citizen Trump was free to tweet how he liked, but he is issuing official White House communications now. His pledge to put America first must apply equally for all Americans. This balance is required both when keeping Americans safe and when condemning American murderers, too. (WION)

OPINION: White House list of 78 terrorist attacks it claims media ignored ignores terrorism by white people

media-attacks

Media Attacks, News on Media Attacks, stories on Media Attacks, articles on Media Attacks, Media Attacks stories at Wion, Media Attacks news, Media Attacks latest news

media attacks

Russia bans largest independent news website Meduza, calls it a 'security threat'

Russian court revokes independent newspaper Novaya Gazeta's license

Google threatens to halt 'search' feature in Australia over new media payment law; PM reacts

WION Edit: Attacking the media, a tool for diplomatic retaliation?

OPINION: White House list of 78 terrorist attacks it claims media ignored ignores terrorism by white people