Main private channel in Poland along with radio stations and newspapers observed a media blackout to protest against a proposed tax for non-state outlets. Poland's main news channel TVN participated in the move in opposition to the advertising tax. Newspapers carried blank front pages.

"This is where your favourite programme was supposed to be," read a white message on a black background on the TVN24 news channel. 
In a statement to AFP, the channel, owned by the US group Discovery, said the government proposal had "the intention of restricting their pluralism and freedom of expression".

The front pages of dozens of national newspapers including the most widely read dailies Fakt and Gazeta Wyborcza had a message in white on a black background reading "Media Without Choice".

Their websites were also blacked out.

Radio stations also suspended service, with Radio Zet informing its listeners that the tax would mean "liquidation for some media businesses".

"There is no free country without independent media. There is no freedom without freedom of choice," the radio station said.

The new tax, which is expected to take effect later this year, imposes a levy on advertising revenues of television and radio broadcasters, print outlets and internet media companies.

State media are exempt from the tax.

Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki has said the tax is part of Europe-wide efforts to tax global tech giants like Google or Facebook but many independent media outlets say they would be unfairly targeted too.

(With AFP inputs)

Main private channel in Poland along with radio stations and newspapers observed a media blackout to protest against a proposed tax for non-state outlets. Poland's main news channel TVN participated in the move in opposition to the advertising tax.

Main private channel in Poland along with radio stations and newspapers observed a media blackout to protest against a proposed tax for non-state outlets. Poland's main news channel TVN participated in the move in opposition to the advertising tax. Newspapers carried blank front pages. "This is where your favourite programme was supposed to be," read a white message on a black background on the TVN24 news channel. In a statement to AFP, the channel, owned by the US group Discovery, said the government proposal had "the intention of restricting their pluralism and freedom of expression". The front pages of dozens of national newspapers including the most widely read dailies Fakt and Gazeta Wyborcza had a message in white on a black background reading "Media Without Choice". Their websites were also blacked out. Radio stations also suspended service, with Radio Zet informing its listeners that the tax would mean "liquidation for some media businesses". "There is no free country without independent media. There is no freedom without freedom of choice," the radio station said. The new tax, which is expected to take effect later this year, imposes a levy on advertising revenues of television and radio broadcasters, print outlets and internet media companies. State media are exempt from the tax. Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki has said the tax is part of Europe-wide efforts to tax global tech giants like Google or Facebook but many independent media outlets say they would be unfairly targeted too. (With AFP inputs)

Poland: Media outlets observe blackout to protest new ad tax

White House officials promise a sea change from how the Trump White House interacted with the press. U.S President Joe Biden vows to undo Trump's assault over media.

How press freedom took a hit under Trump administration

A man was sentenced to eight years in prison on Tuesday in Vietnam for “anti-state” posts made on his Facebook account.

"Opposing the state"

According to the country’s security ministry, the man, Nguyen Quoc Duc Vuong, 29, is facing the charges of “making, storing, spreading, information, materials, items for the purpose of opposing the state”. His trial lasted for just one day in the province of Lam Dong.

The Communist Party, which rules Vietnam, heavily censors the media and has been unaccepting of criticism.

You might also like:&nbsp;<a href="/world/vietnam-opens-worlds-first-gold-plated-hotel-310471" hreflang="en">Vietnam opens world's 'first' gold-plated hotel</a>

As per the charge, Vuong had live-streamed 110 hours worth of videos, and had written 366 posts on Facebook targeting Ho Chi Minh, the founding leader of Vietnam. Additionally, he was also spreading “anti-state propaganda”,.

AFP reported that Vuong pled not guilty to the charge and claimed to have simply been voicing his personal views. However, the court ascertained that he was a “danger to society”.

"Outrageous"

The Human Rights Watch’s Deputy Asia Director Phil Robertson hit out at the move and called it “outrageous and unacceptable”.

"Vietnam must recognise that expressing political views contrary to Communist Party line should not be a crime," he added in a digital statement.

You might also like:&nbsp;<a href="/opinions-blogs/vietnam-has-reported-no-coronavirus-deaths-how-293853" hreflang="en">Vietnam has reported no coronavirus deaths – how?</a>

Besides his eight-year-long sentence, Vuong will have to undergo three years of house arrest after completing the jail term.

Reuters reported that arrests of activists in the country have shot up over the last year, attributing it to the upcoming party congress in 2021.

Just yesterday, on July 6, the government had jailed three people for over seven years citing attempts to overthrow the Communist Party.

(With inputs from AFP &amp; Reuters)

A man was sentenced to eight years in prison on Tuesday in Vietnam for “anti-state” posts made on his Facebook account. "Opposing the state" According to the country’s security ministry, the man, Nguyen Quoc Duc Vuong, 29, is facing the charges of “making, storing, spreading, information, materials, items for the purpose of opposing the state”.

A man was sentenced to eight years in prison on Tuesday in Vietnam for “anti-state” posts made on his Facebook account. "Opposing the state" According to the country’s security ministry, the man, Nguyen Quoc Duc Vuong, 29, is facing the charges of “making, storing, spreading, information, materials, items for the purpose of opposing the state”. His trial lasted for just one day in the province of Lam Dong. The Communist Party, which rules Vietnam, heavily censors the media and has been unaccepting of criticism. You might also like: Vietnam opens world's 'first' gold-plated hotel As per the charge, Vuong had live-streamed 110 hours worth of videos, and had written 366 posts on Facebook targeting Ho Chi Minh, the founding leader of Vietnam. Additionally, he was also spreading “anti-state propaganda”,. AFP reported that Vuong pled not guilty to the charge and claimed to have simply been voicing his personal views. However, the court ascertained that he was a “danger to society”. "Outrageous" The Human Rights Watch’s Deputy Asia Director Phil Robertson hit out at the move and called it “outrageous and unacceptable”. "Vietnam must recognise that expressing political views contrary to Communist Party line should not be a crime," he added in a digital statement. You might also like: Vietnam has reported no coronavirus deaths – how? Besides his eight-year-long sentence, Vuong will have to undergo three years of house arrest after completing the jail term. Reuters reported that arrests of activists in the country have shot up over the last year, attributing it to the upcoming party congress in 2021. Just yesterday, on July 6, the government had jailed three people for over seven years citing attempts to overthrow the Communist Party. (With inputs from AFP & Reuters)

'Danger to society': Vietnam jails man for 8 years citing Facebook posts critical of government

The United States and China, world’s mammoth economies are currently fighting on many fronts, including trade and media.

On the one hand is China, known as the pundit of public relations. The country has mastered the use of media to push its propaganda. On the other hand is the United States, fighting this propaganda war. As part of its efforts, the US has designated four Chinese media outlets as foreign missions.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="/world/trump-administration-designates-4-more-chinese-media-outlets-as-foreign-missions-307846" hreflang="en">Trump administration designates 4 more Chinese media outlets as 'foreign missions'</a>

According to the US, Beijing has full editorial control over the content, and hence will be treated as embassies. As part of this move, the companies will have to report details of their staff, and also reveal the properties they hold in the US. Currently, at least nine Chinese outlets are under scrutiny.

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/gravitas-chinas-new-security-law-hong-kongs-top-editor-on-the-public-mood-310038/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

China retaliated by imposing sanctions on US media outlets in China including the Associated Press, the National Public Radio, CBS news, and the United Press International News Agency.

These Americans companies will now need to divulge the same details expected of Chinese media outlets.

China’s brainwash game?

To strengthen its front of optics, China conducted media outreach campaigns in every continent. These include journalism exchange and training schemes.

Journalists are called to china on fully-sponsored trips that sometimes last 10 months, mostly those hailing from developing countries.

For instance, one Latin American nation reported that more than 50 journalists went to China on a two-month trip, and all of them belonged mostly to left-leaning publications.

Free content sharing

Chinese state media content, such as Xinhua and CGTN offer stories and videos for free, as part of their content sharing agreements.

They also run paid content in foreign outlets, stories that assert the superiority of the “Chinese way”. Reports say - China has such agreements with at least 25 to 30 media outlets in Afghanistan alone.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="/world/all-about-the-optics-chinese-media-goes-full-throttle-to-make-jinping-look-like-a-messiah-306090" hreflang="en">All about the optics: Chinese media goes full-throttle to make Jinping look like a 'messiah'</a>

In Africa, China sells stories that show how Bejing is helping develop the continent.

Journalists in Kenya say that it's refreshing as western media only focuses on African catastrophes.

Acquisitions

China is buying legacy companies or setting up digital joint ventures overseas in a bid to increase media presence and to strengthen scope of acquisitions.

Chinese media presence is higher in the Asia-Pacific region and Africa, compared to Latin America and Europe. China's Star Times in Africa has become a dominating satellite television player. In Hong Kong - the South China Morning Post is owned by the Alibaba group.

China daily’s spending in the US has soared from 500,000 USD in 2009 to more than five million USD in 2019.

The United States and China, world’s mammoth economies are currently fighting on many fronts, including trade and media. On the one hand is China, known as the pundit of public relations.

The United States and China, world’s mammoth economies are currently fighting on many fronts, including trade and media. On the one hand is China, known as the pundit of public relations. The country has mastered the use of media to push its propaganda. On the other hand is the United States, fighting this propaganda war. As part of its efforts, the US has designated four Chinese media outlets as foreign missions. Also read: Trump administration designates 4 more Chinese media outlets as 'foreign missions' According to the US, Beijing has full editorial control over the content, and hence will be treated as embassies. As part of this move, the companies will have to report details of their staff, and also reveal the properties they hold in the US. Currently, at least nine Chinese outlets are under scrutiny. China retaliated by imposing sanctions on US media outlets in China including the Associated Press, the National Public Radio, CBS news, and the United Press International News Agency. These Americans companies will now need to divulge the same details expected of Chinese media outlets. China’s brainwash game? To strengthen its front of optics, China conducted media outreach campaigns in every continent. These include journalism exchange and training schemes. Journalists are called to china on fully-sponsored trips that sometimes last 10 months, mostly those hailing from developing countries. For instance, one Latin American nation reported that more than 50 journalists went to China on a two-month trip, and all of them belonged mostly to left-leaning publications. Free content sharing Chinese state media content, such as Xinhua and CGTN offer stories and videos for free, as part of their content sharing agreements. They also run paid content in foreign outlets, stories that assert the superiority of the “Chinese way”. Reports say - China has such agreements with at least 25 to 30 media outlets in Afghanistan alone. Also read: All about the optics: Chinese media goes full-throttle to make Jinping look like a 'messiah' In Africa, China sells stories that show how Bejing is helping develop the continent. Journalists in Kenya say that it's refreshing as western media only focuses on African catastrophes. Acquisitions China is buying legacy companies or setting up digital joint ventures overseas in a bid to increase media presence and to strengthen scope of acquisitions. Chinese media presence is higher in the Asia-Pacific region and Africa, compared to Latin America and Europe. China's Star Times in Africa has become a dominating satellite television player. In Hong Kong - the South China Morning Post is owned by the Alibaba group. China daily’s spending in the US has soared from 500,000 USD in 2009 to more than five million USD in 2019.

China's global media spending suggests US concerns about a 'media war' are not unfounded

A Lebanese judge on Saturday banned media from reporting remarks by the US ambassador after she spoke about the powerful Hezbollah movement, a ruling criticised as non-binding and unenforceable.

During an interview with Saudi-owned news channel Al-Hadath aired on Friday, Dorothy Shea said the United States has "grave concerns about the role of Hezbollah, a designated terrorist organisation".

"It has syphoned off billions of dollars that should have gone into government coffers so that the government can provide basic services to its people," she said.

"It has obstructed some of the economic reforms the Lebanese economy so desperately needs," she added.&nbsp;

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/photos/empty-fridges-tell-stories-of-empty-stomachs-amid-lebanon-economic-crisis-308481">Have a look:&nbsp;Empty fridges tell stories of empty stomachs amid Lebanon economic crisis</a>

The US considers Hezbollah a terrorist organisation but the group and its allies command a majority in parliament and the cabinet.

On Saturday, a judge in south Lebanon issued an order banning local and foreign media working in the country from airing or publishing locally comments by the US ambassador for a year.

"The US ambassador discussed in her interview a Lebanese party represented in parliament and cabinet and that enjoys a wide popular base," the order said, referring to Hezbollah.

"The US ambassador has no right to talk about this party," the order added, accusing her of promoting internal sedition and strife.

The judge acknowledged that international law gives diplomats immunity but said media could be punished for violating his order.

The US embassy in Lebanon responded on Twitter, saying "we believe very much in freedom of expression and the important role a free media plays in the United States and Lebanon."

The State Department issued a more fiery response from Washington later Saturday, stating: "Hezbollah's attempt to silence the Lebanese media is pathetic. To even think to use the judiciary to silence freedom of speech and freedom of the press is ludicrous. We stand with the Lebanese people and against Hezbollah's censorship."

Information Minister Manal Abdel Samad dismissed the judge's order, saying "no one has the right to ban the media from covering the news."

Any issue pertaining to the media should pass through the information ministry and official judicial channels, she added.

Local broadcaster LBC said it would not abide by the ruling, calling it a "non-binding and unenforceable" decision that violates freedom of press.

It said it would challenge the ruling in court.

Lebanon's economic crisis has led to a collapse of the local currency and purchasing power, plunging whole segments of society into poverty.

Earlier this year, Lebanon defaulted on its debt. The Lebanese pound remains pegged to the dollar, but its value has plunged on the black market.

The government is currently in talks with the International Monetary Fund over a potential bail out.&nbsp;

A Lebanese judge on Saturday banned media from reporting remarks by the US ambassador after she spoke about the powerful Hezbollah movement, a ruling criticised as non-binding and unenforceable.

A Lebanese judge on Saturday banned media from reporting remarks by the US ambassador after she spoke about the powerful Hezbollah movement, a ruling criticised as non-binding and unenforceable. During an interview with Saudi-owned news channel Al-Hadath aired on Friday, Dorothy Shea said the United States has "grave concerns about the role of Hezbollah, a designated terrorist organisation". "It has syphoned off billions of dollars that should have gone into government coffers so that the government can provide basic services to its people," she said. "It has obstructed some of the economic reforms the Lebanese economy so desperately needs," she added. Have a look: Empty fridges tell stories of empty stomachs amid Lebanon economic crisis The US considers Hezbollah a terrorist organisation but the group and its allies command a majority in parliament and the cabinet. On Saturday, a judge in south Lebanon issued an order banning local and foreign media working in the country from airing or publishing locally comments by the US ambassador for a year. "The US ambassador discussed in her interview a Lebanese party represented in parliament and cabinet and that enjoys a wide popular base," the order said, referring to Hezbollah. "The US ambassador has no right to talk about this party," the order added, accusing her of promoting internal sedition and strife. The judge acknowledged that international law gives diplomats immunity but said media could be punished for violating his order. The US embassy in Lebanon responded on Twitter, saying "we believe very much in freedom of expression and the important role a free media plays in the United States and Lebanon." The State Department issued a more fiery response from Washington later Saturday, stating: "Hezbollah's attempt to silence the Lebanese media is pathetic. To even think to use the judiciary to silence freedom of speech and freedom of the press is ludicrous. We stand with the Lebanese people and against Hezbollah's censorship." Information Minister Manal Abdel Samad dismissed the judge's order, saying "no one has the right to ban the media from covering the news." Any issue pertaining to the media should pass through the information ministry and official judicial channels, she added. Local broadcaster LBC said it would not abide by the ruling, calling it a "non-binding and unenforceable" decision that violates freedom of press. It said it would challenge the ruling in court. Lebanon's economic crisis has led to a collapse of the local currency and purchasing power, plunging whole segments of society into poverty. Earlier this year, Lebanon defaulted on its debt. The Lebanese pound remains pegged to the dollar, but its value has plunged on the black market. The government is currently in talks with the International Monetary Fund over a potential bail out.

Lebanon judge issues non-binding media ban against US ambassador

Indian and Chinese soldiers were recently involved in a conflict across the Line of Actual Control.

While India quickly declared its fatalities along with the details of the incident, China has remained mum on what went down at the border.

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/gravitas-galwan-provocation-how-much-is-china-hiding-306632/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

However, in typical China style, the press in the country has also failed to report on the skirmish.

No details have been divulged about Chinese losses in Galwan. On global platforms, China pins the blame on India for being the “aggressor”, while domestically the country has not reported the incident at all!

From the Global Times to the People's Daily and the PLA Daily, there has minimal to no coverage of the border face off. Most of it has been pushed away into small columns.

A complete blackout!

The Global Times duly reported the casualties on the Indian side, but made no mention of local casualties.

Another state mouthpiece Xinhua ran Xi Jinping’s phone call with Ecuadorian president as its biggest story.

China Daily’s headline read “India urged to halt border violation”, calling India’s actions a violation of its territorial sovereignty.

Another headline from Xinhua read “Chinese military urges India to return to correct track of dialogue and negotiations”.

CGTN, another major Chinese outlet wrote “China's military urges India to stop provocative actions along border areas”

However, Chinese troops continue to conduct large-scale military drills along the border.

Indian and Chinese soldiers were recently involved in a conflict across the Line of Actual Control. While India quickly declared its fatalities along with the details of the incident, China has remained mum on what went down at the border.

Indian and Chinese soldiers were recently involved in a conflict across the Line of Actual Control. While India quickly declared its fatalities along with the details of the incident, China has remained mum on what went down at the border. However, in typical China style, the press in the country has also failed to report on the skirmish. No details have been divulged about Chinese losses in Galwan. On global platforms, China pins the blame on India for being the “aggressor”, while domestically the country has not reported the incident at all! From the Global Times to the People's Daily and the PLA Daily, there has minimal to no coverage of the border face off. Most of it has been pushed away into small columns. A complete blackout! The Global Times duly reported the casualties on the Indian side, but made no mention of local casualties. Another state mouthpiece Xinhua ran Xi Jinping’s phone call with Ecuadorian president as its biggest story. China Daily’s headline read “India urged to halt border violation”, calling India’s actions a violation of its territorial sovereignty. Another headline from Xinhua read “Chinese military urges India to return to correct track of dialogue and negotiations”. CGTN, another major Chinese outlet wrote “China's military urges India to stop provocative actions along border areas” However, Chinese troops continue to conduct large-scale military drills along the border.

While the world anxiously watches India-China standoff, Chinese media blacks out the conflict!

Chinese media is allegedly peddling a positive narrative for President Xi Jining.&nbsp;Most of these pegs run along the lines of him being a people-centric leader, “a president who is eradicating poverty”, and an “environmentalist”, all while being a “messiah for minorities”.

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/gravitas-xi-jinping-tries-to-rebuild-his-image-306136/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

On the other hand, calls to bring more transparency into the initial information given by China regarding the outbreak are getting louder around the world.&nbsp;To counter the global outrage, Chinese outlets are selling his most mundane activities as news stories.

A video released by the state-run CCTV on June 14 showed Jinping standing by the Chinese people, living upto the motto of “people first”.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/china-did-a-better-job-at-containing-covid-19-than-the-us-most-countries-believe-306071" hreflang="en">China did a better job at containing COVID-19 than the US, most countries believe</a>

“When you feel happy, we are happy, too. The Communist Party of China serves the people and does good things for the people. The communist party works for the happiness of the people”, Jinping said.

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="http://wionews.com/videos/gravitas-xi-jinping-tries-to-rebuild-his-image-306136/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

However, an entirely different situation continues to brew in Hong Kong, the semi-autonomous region. Many protesters have been shot at with rubber bullets, while laws bypassing the legislature elected by the people are becoming a yearly occurrence. Instances of mysterious disappearances also continue to dent China’s image globally.

Meanwhile, the Chinese state media will only show you stories of national unity, how Xi Jinping values China's diverse culture and “intangible cultural heritage”.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/chinese-activists-detained-for-publishing-censored-content-set-to-face-criminal-trial-305920" hreflang="en">Chinese activists detained for publishing censored content set to face criminal trial</a>

“All the civilisations created by humanity is the crystallisations of the hard labor and wisdom. The achievements of any civilisation deserve our respect and must be treasured”, Jinping was quoted saying.

The reality in China paints an entirely different picture. The Hui and Uighur people of china have been targeted for decades. While some have been branded extremists and sent to re-education camps, some have been convicted without evidence and are being tortured in detention.

Allegedly, this is part of China’s attempts to make every culture within its borders to appear more Chinese.

Chinese media is allegedly peddling a positive narrative for President Xi Jining. Most of these pegs run along the lines of him being a people-centric leader, “a president who is eradicating poverty”, and an “environmentalist”, all while being a “messiah for minorities”.

Chinese media is allegedly peddling a positive narrative for President Xi Jining. Most of these pegs run along the lines of him being a people-centric leader, “a president who is eradicating poverty”, and an “environmentalist”, all while being a “messiah for minorities”. On the other hand, calls to bring more transparency into the initial information given by China regarding the outbreak are getting louder around the world. To counter the global outrage, Chinese outlets are selling his most mundane activities as news stories. A video released by the state-run CCTV on June 14 showed Jinping standing by the Chinese people, living upto the motto of “people first”. Also read: China did a better job at containing COVID-19 than the US, most countries believe “When you feel happy, we are happy, too. The Communist Party of China serves the people and does good things for the people. The communist party works for the happiness of the people”, Jinping said. However, an entirely different situation continues to brew in Hong Kong, the semi-autonomous region. Many protesters have been shot at with rubber bullets, while laws bypassing the legislature elected by the people are becoming a yearly occurrence. Instances of mysterious disappearances also continue to dent China’s image globally. Meanwhile, the Chinese state media will only show you stories of national unity, how Xi Jinping values China's diverse culture and “intangible cultural heritage”. Also read: Chinese activists detained for publishing censored content set to face criminal trial “All the civilisations created by humanity is the crystallisations of the hard labor and wisdom. The achievements of any civilisation deserve our respect and must be treasured”, Jinping was quoted saying. The reality in China paints an entirely different picture. The Hui and Uighur people of china have been targeted for decades. While some have been branded extremists and sent to re-education camps, some have been convicted without evidence and are being tortured in detention. Allegedly, this is part of China’s attempts to make every culture within its borders to appear more Chinese.

All about the optics: Chinese media goes full-throttle to make Jinping look like a 'messiah'

Journalist Maria Ressa's libel conviction on Monday has raised fresh concerns about press freedom under Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte, who has a history of clashing with the media. 
 
Here are some notable confrontations:

'Shameless' Inquirer 
The Philippine Daily Inquirer is one of the nation's top publications and brands itself as delivering "balanced news, fearless views". 
 
When Duterte launched his deadly crackdown on narcotics in 2016, the paper covered it extensively and published editorials sharply critical of the killings.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="wionews.com/world/duterte-critic-journalist-maria-ressa-found-guilty-in-philippines-cyber-libel-case-305887" hreflang="en">Duterte-critic journalist Maria Ressa found guilty in Philippines cyber libel case</a> 
 
Duterte repeatedly attacked the paper in speeches -- at one point branding the Inquirer and the nation's top broadcaster ABS-CBN as "shameless... those sons of whore journalists". 
 
Months later the paper's owners ended up in talks to sell to a powerful businessman and Duterte-backer, though the deal would later fall through.

ABS-CBN shutdown 
The nation's top broadcaster ABS-CBN was forced off the air in May after years of threats by Duterte to shut down the network. 
 
Early in his term Duterte accused the network of failing to air his 2016 campaign adverts and not returning the payments, and singled it out for ire in his speeches. 
 
"I'm sorry. You're out. I will see to it that you're out," Duterte said in December. 
 
The president's spokesman has said he is "completely neutral" on the legislature granting the network a new licence to operate.

Reporters 'not exempted' from killing 
Duterte sparked outrage when he endorsed the killing of corrupt journalists as president-elect in 2016, saying "You're not exempted from assassination". 
 
The National Union of Journalists of the Philippines described the comments as "appalling" in a nation that is one of the most dangerous for reporters. 
 
One of the world's deadliest attacks against journalists took place in the Philippines in 2009, when 32 journalists were among 58 people killed by a warlord clan intent on stopping a rival's election challenge.

Wolf-whistle 
While still president-elect, Duterte wolf-whistled at a woman journalist during a nationally televised press conference, sparking criticism from rights groups and the press. 
 
He interrupted a question from reporter Mariz Umali before whistling and breaking into a short serenade. 
 
While Umali subsequently sought to play down the controversy, her husband, also a journalist, had words for Duterte. 
 
"Catcalling my wife is wrong in so many levels," husband Raffy Tima wrote on Facebook.&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;

Journalist Maria Ressa's libel conviction on Monday has raised fresh concerns about press freedom under Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte, who has a history of clashing with the media.

Journalist Maria Ressa's libel conviction on Monday has raised fresh concerns about press freedom under Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte, who has a history of clashing with the media. Here are some notable confrontations: 'Shameless' Inquirer The Philippine Daily Inquirer is one of the nation's top publications and brands itself as delivering "balanced news, fearless views". When Duterte launched his deadly crackdown on narcotics in 2016, the paper covered it extensively and published editorials sharply critical of the killings. Also read: Duterte-critic journalist Maria Ressa found guilty in Philippines cyber libel case Duterte repeatedly attacked the paper in speeches -- at one point branding the Inquirer and the nation's top broadcaster ABS-CBN as "shameless... those sons of whore journalists". Months later the paper's owners ended up in talks to sell to a powerful businessman and Duterte-backer, though the deal would later fall through. ABS-CBN shutdown The nation's top broadcaster ABS-CBN was forced off the air in May after years of threats by Duterte to shut down the network. Early in his term Duterte accused the network of failing to air his 2016 campaign adverts and not returning the payments, and singled it out for ire in his speeches. "I'm sorry. You're out. I will see to it that you're out," Duterte said in December. The president's spokesman has said he is "completely neutral" on the legislature granting the network a new licence to operate. Reporters 'not exempted' from killing Duterte sparked outrage when he endorsed the killing of corrupt journalists as president-elect in 2016, saying "You're not exempted from assassination". The National Union of Journalists of the Philippines described the comments as "appalling" in a nation that is one of the most dangerous for reporters. One of the world's deadliest attacks against journalists took place in the Philippines in 2009, when 32 journalists were among 58 people killed by a warlord clan intent on stopping a rival's election challenge. Wolf-whistle While still president-elect, Duterte wolf-whistled at a woman journalist during a nationally televised press conference, sparking criticism from rights groups and the press. He interrupted a question from reporter Mariz Umali before whistling and breaking into a short serenade. While Umali subsequently sought to play down the controversy, her husband, also a journalist, had words for Duterte. "Catcalling my wife is wrong in so many levels," husband Raffy Tima wrote on Facebook.

Duterte's history of clashes with Philippine media

Propaganda is just one part of the strategy. &nbsp;The second is surveillance and China has mastered it. A vast network of surveillance as a means of social control.

It is expanding its Orwellian reach. And for this, China uses something called the United Front System.

One could say it's a magic weapon that secures the Communist Party's power. &nbsp;

Here's how it works.

The United Front is a coalition of groups and individuals working towards the CCP's goals. A network of the party and state agencies.

Social organisations, religious bodies, universities, research institutes, and individuals.

All working together to strengthen and expand the Communist Party's control at home and abroad.

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/gravitas-united-front-xi-jinpings-magic-weapon-305246/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

The United Front Department is run by one of Xi Jinping's close allies Wang yang. &nbsp;The fourth-ranked member of the politburo.

Domestically, the biggest target of this body is the minorities and ethnic groups of China.

The Uighurs, Tibetans, Kazakhs, Hui people, Tajiks and many more. The Communist Party is strengthening its influence over them by co-opting representatives from these groups.

The United Front System keeps an eye on dissidents. It tracks student unions in university campuses. Scrutinises religious bodies.

Mobilises students and minorities for nationalistic activities at home and abroad. 
&nbsp; 
These operations are covert and deceptive and they spread beyond China's borders.

In Australia, some businessmen were members of the United Front. They have been accused of interfering in Australian politics on China's behalf.

The Australian media extensively reported on this. In the United States at least two senior members of the united front have been taken to court for stealing technology.

&nbsp;This united front also runs Confucius institutes. Recently, there were calls to ban them in America. Critics said these institutes try to control the discourse at American universities.

None of this happened overnight. The United Front has been active for a while. But it's now under scrutiny after the Wuhan virus pandemic.

From Australia to Britain, United Front members mobilised to gather medical supplies and send them to China.

The world has now taken note. This secretive arm of the Chinese communist party is influencing minds at home. &nbsp;An infiltrating society abroad.

Propaganda is just one part of the strategy. The second is surveillance and China has mastered it. A vast network of surveillance as a means of social control. It is expanding its Orwellian reach.

Propaganda is just one part of the strategy. The second is surveillance and China has mastered it. A vast network of surveillance as a means of social control. It is expanding its Orwellian reach. And for this, China uses something called the United Front System. One could say it's a magic weapon that secures the Communist Party's power. Here's how it works. The United Front is a coalition of groups and individuals working towards the CCP's goals. A network of the party and state agencies. Social organisations, religious bodies, universities, research institutes, and individuals. All working together to strengthen and expand the Communist Party's control at home and abroad. The United Front Department is run by one of Xi Jinping's close allies Wang yang. The fourth-ranked member of the politburo. Domestically, the biggest target of this body is the minorities and ethnic groups of China. The Uighurs, Tibetans, Kazakhs, Hui people, Tajiks and many more. The Communist Party is strengthening its influence over them by co-opting representatives from these groups. The United Front System keeps an eye on dissidents. It tracks student unions in university campuses. Scrutinises religious bodies. Mobilises students and minorities for nationalistic activities at home and abroad. These operations are covert and deceptive and they spread beyond China's borders. In Australia, some businessmen were members of the United Front. They have been accused of interfering in Australian politics on China's behalf. The Australian media extensively reported on this. In the United States at least two senior members of the united front have been taken to court for stealing technology. This united front also runs Confucius institutes. Recently, there were calls to ban them in America. Critics said these institutes try to control the discourse at American universities. None of this happened overnight. The United Front has been active for a while. But it's now under scrutiny after the Wuhan virus pandemic. From Australia to Britain, United Front members mobilised to gather medical supplies and send them to China. The world has now taken note. This secretive arm of the Chinese communist party is influencing minds at home. An infiltrating society abroad.

The United Front: China's magic weapon

Since the beginning of the coronavirus outbreak, China’s inability to respond efficiently was being called out across international media outlets. Here’s what home grown and state-backed outlets like the Global Times in China have been reporting.

Headlines protective of China like “Anti-China reports are 'inconsistent with facts’”, “COVID-19 tests in full swing in China”, and the sentiment of China doing enough to contain the outbreak in the country have been rampant in state news outlets.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/report-reveals-collective-negligence-by-china-and-who-in-dealing-with-the-coronavirus-pandemic-302695" hreflang="en">Report reveals collective negligence by China and WHO in dealing with the coronavirus pandemic</a>

Global Times also ran the headlines - “Baseless accusations by foreign media”, “Lessons for India on border peace”. Such coverage suggests a pattern of sharing one-sided information, while other countries have been allotted the role of the attacker.

The outlet - Global Times offers views of the Chinese Communist Party. They will tell you that Beijing has won its fight against the coronavirus, and that rigorous testing is in full-swing.

Where did the whistleblowers go?

However, not once has the this outlet acknowledged the whistleblowers who have gone missing since the outbreak began. Five Wuhan whistleblowers are missing, and one is dead.&nbsp;They tried exposing the truth about the coronavirus, and now there is no trace of them.

Dr Li Wenliang died of coronavirus in February. He tried to warn the world about COVID-19, only to be censored and tortured by the police, as suggested by a new report.

Chinese millionaire Ren Zhiqiang, who criticised the Communist Party's response to the virus, has not been seen since march. The Global Times does not have much to say on this missing real estate tycoon.

There are several others who have gone missing, like journalist Chen Giushi, Fan Bin, and Li Zehua. Shockingly, the reports of their disappearance have also dissipated with them.

Not once has Global Times attempted to report on these missing persons. That’s partly because the outlet is owned by the People's Daily which is the official newspaper of the central committee of the Communist Party of China.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/coronavirus-crisis-wuhan-chinas-punk-capital-loses-its-voice-302705" hreflang="en">Coronavirus crisis: Wuhan, China's punk capital loses its voice</a>

Global Times' editor, Hu Xijin is a party loyalist, who was long ago involved in the Tiananmen Square protests but is now withholding information.

Reporting on enforced disappearances is missing from the tabloid's playbook, as is seeking verified data on COVID-19 deaths, or the role of Wuhan's wet markets, or the Institute of Virology’s involvement.

All this, while the outlet has called out others multiple times, “The New York Times and Washington Post's baseless accusations that there were massive numbers of asymptomatic virus carriers in Wuhan”.

Since the beginning of the coronavirus outbreak, China’s inability to respond efficiently was being called out across international media outlets. Here’s what home grown and state-backed outlets like the Global Times in China have been reporting.

Since the beginning of the coronavirus outbreak, China’s inability to respond efficiently was being called out across international media outlets. Here’s what home grown and state-backed outlets like the Global Times in China have been reporting. Headlines protective of China like “Anti-China reports are 'inconsistent with facts’”, “COVID-19 tests in full swing in China”, and the sentiment of China doing enough to contain the outbreak in the country have been rampant in state news outlets. Also read: Report reveals collective negligence by China and WHO in dealing with the coronavirus pandemic Global Times also ran the headlines - “Baseless accusations by foreign media”, “Lessons for India on border peace”. Such coverage suggests a pattern of sharing one-sided information, while other countries have been allotted the role of the attacker. The outlet - Global Times offers views of the Chinese Communist Party. They will tell you that Beijing has won its fight against the coronavirus, and that rigorous testing is in full-swing. Where did the whistleblowers go? However, not once has the this outlet acknowledged the whistleblowers who have gone missing since the outbreak began. Five Wuhan whistleblowers are missing, and one is dead. They tried exposing the truth about the coronavirus, and now there is no trace of them. Dr Li Wenliang died of coronavirus in February. He tried to warn the world about COVID-19, only to be censored and tortured by the police, as suggested by a new report. Chinese millionaire Ren Zhiqiang, who criticised the Communist Party's response to the virus, has not been seen since march. The Global Times does not have much to say on this missing real estate tycoon. There are several others who have gone missing, like journalist Chen Giushi, Fan Bin, and Li Zehua. Shockingly, the reports of their disappearance have also dissipated with them. Not once has Global Times attempted to report on these missing persons. That’s partly because the outlet is owned by the People's Daily which is the official newspaper of the central committee of the Communist Party of China. Also read: Coronavirus crisis: Wuhan, China's punk capital loses its voice Global Times' editor, Hu Xijin is a party loyalist, who was long ago involved in the Tiananmen Square protests but is now withholding information. Reporting on enforced disappearances is missing from the tabloid's playbook, as is seeking verified data on COVID-19 deaths, or the role of Wuhan's wet markets, or the Institute of Virology’s involvement. All this, while the outlet has called out others multiple times, “The New York Times and Washington Post's baseless accusations that there were massive numbers of asymptomatic virus carriers in Wuhan”.

The truth behind Global Times: China's state-backed media outlet

Oriana Fallaci, the late and legendary Italian journalist who died in 2006, was a role model to others who followed her. She likened journalism to history- saying that it was history being written, simultaneously, to events as they unfolded. She didn’t seem to need the perspective of time and reflection. She turned out a huge body of work over decades, travelling the world doing it, generating controversies with some of her views, writing books too, all with signature passion and flair.&nbsp;

Of course, she had the privilege to interview a galaxy of heads of state, policymakers, big wheels of government, between and betwixt lesser folk. &nbsp;Fallaci did not take herself very seriously. She didn’t think that journalists were great influencers much as they might like to be. She likened their efforts to barking dogs that nobody took any real notice of. &nbsp;&nbsp;

Fallaci said this in a TV interview to Michael Wallace, a pioneer in opinionated TV journalism. Wallace was most famous for anchoring CBS’ 60 Minutes, being its first and most celebrated anchor. The programme was so successful as “magazine news”, under him; that as many as six other networks put in me-too shows, to compete, till there were a surfeit and glut. &nbsp;

Wallace himself was an irreverent departure from the magisterial news-style of a Walter Cronkite, also on CBS, who along with other senior TV News presenters of the time, thought of 60 Minutes as “Show Business”. That Wallace did commercials for many products in between his newsman stints, made the orthodox regard him as a mere “pitch-man”. &nbsp;

But handsome, Bogartian Mike Wallace, with his cigarette, smoke rising in the air, in those early black and white broadcasts, his sharp questioning, was, by today’s standards, almost donnish. &nbsp;

Now it is routine to shout and pillory, most famously on Fox News, a Rupert Murdoch owned US Channel, that came later. But Fox News, much more extreme, had Wallace call it op-ed on air. He said this to the Fox anchor he was interviewing, registering eyebrow raised surprise. But then, Fox News only appeared after a straight run of a couple of decades of 60 Minutes - with Mike Wallace.&nbsp;

Both Fallaci and Wallace, the early birds, were no great fans of objective reporting. Instead, they thought the best way to uncover the truth, such as it is, was by asking pointed questions to their interviewees and slanting the narrative. &nbsp;

Fallaci, appearing mostly in print, usually proceeded to play both judge and jury in her articles. &nbsp;Henry Kissinger, whose interview with Fallaci appeared in Playboy Magazine, thought the exchange was a disaster for him. He was quoted as seeing himself as the lone advance-riding cowboy leading the wagon train of governance. It is anybody’s guess what President Richard Nixon thought of this analogy from the mouth of his Secretary of State.&nbsp;

Today, not only the TV anchors but many of their regular panellists on TV news shows around the world, fancy themselves as cheer-leaders and crusaders after the truth as they see it. &nbsp;

There is a strenuous and blatant effort to influence the audience with opinion and rhetoric rather than the more prosaic facts. But then, from the very early days of the 1950s, TV News, with its ability to come into the living and bedrooms of the viewers, evolved quickly into a dose of drama and stimulation. There were the day-time soap operas to compete with. &nbsp;

Print struggles to remain current even in the dailies today let alone weeklies and magazines with longer timelines. It has been joined, like a swarm of bees, by digital websites with the ability to quickly upload their articles. &nbsp;

And the digital websites and broadcast TV, in turn, find themselves competing with both the written and visual social media working alongside, with little or no censorship. &nbsp;

Even if a video is proscribed by the government, it has often gone viral and has been absorbed by thousands, by the time the action to take it down has been completed. &nbsp;

News is indeed instant history as Fallaci had it, beyond the reach of the lobbies for or against it to block it out. Today it floats around forever in cyberspace for anyone to look at for as long as the sphere lasts. This even if the originator attempts to delete any pictures or views no longer thought of as kosher.&nbsp;

But there is an awful lot of it. And so, the only differentiator left to the media practitioner today is skill. TV news commentary is only as snappy and compelling as the news editors behind the scenes can make it. &nbsp;

Except for those anchors who write their own script, most junior presenters read what is prepared for them off a teleprompter. Of course, in certain formats such as rapid news, presenters can and do bring a good deal of style and cadence to the delivery. &nbsp;

Their guests, as panellists on TV debates too, are furnished by the guest relations teams of the network. Anchors, except for the top ones, have little influence here. But on their part, if the guests are articulate, and can think fast “on their feet”, they start to distinguish themselves in this Live medium. And over time, they find themselves in demand as reliable sounding boards for various channels. &nbsp;

Expertise alone, however, does not hack it. There are seasoned diplomats that cannot explain the foreign policy on TV in a ten to thirty-second sound byte. They are probably perfectly good at writing reports and books, and giving learned lectures. &nbsp;

It is an old truism that most print journalists are uncomfortable, rambling and not very personable on TV. Of course, this works the other way around too. TV journalists with considerable presence, &nbsp;are often not very good op-ed writers. Nor are they exactly scintillating on social media platforms, such as Twitter and Facebook. &nbsp;That seems to take a different kind of connect.&nbsp;

The “truth” however, is out there for the taking for the ambidextrous one. He or she can traverse galaxies explored and unexplored and plant personal flags across media landscapes. &nbsp;

But the neanderthals stand out too. It is most glaring when a person is an official spokesperson for a political party, but cannot make a good case for it. And there do seem to be a lot of such untrained and ineffective spokies out on the rounds. One wonders what process of proximity to whom got them their mischance to represent their Party? &nbsp;&nbsp;

Very few programmes can be pre-recorded for broadcast later, given the pace of the unfolding news and the competition. This is true of all except the special interviews. But when even these are broadcast Live in the 60Minutes fashion, they attract much higher TRPs. &nbsp;

This is understandably difficult to do with current heads of state, who like to vet the questions in advance. But it works well enough with ministers, other politicians, CEOs, spokespersons, celebrities, who are glad enough to be featured.&nbsp;

Why does anyone work in journalism? Is it about uncovering the truth? Wallace said he wouldn’t know what to do with himself if he wasn’t working. And because he needed pills for his clinical depression.&nbsp;

But most journalists don’t quit, even the disgraced ones, because they don’t know how to write their own obituaries. &nbsp; 
 
(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Oriana Fallaci, the late and legendary Italian journalist who died in 2006, was a role model to others who followed her. She likened journalism to history- saying that it was history being written, simultaneously, to events as they unfolded.

Oriana Fallaci, the late and legendary Italian journalist who died in 2006, was a role model to others who followed her. She likened journalism to history- saying that it was history being written, simultaneously, to events as they unfolded. She didn’t seem to need the perspective of time and reflection. She turned out a huge body of work over decades, travelling the world doing it, generating controversies with some of her views, writing books too, all with signature passion and flair. Of course, she had the privilege to interview a galaxy of heads of state, policymakers, big wheels of government, between and betwixt lesser folk. Fallaci did not take herself very seriously. She didn’t think that journalists were great influencers much as they might like to be. She likened their efforts to barking dogs that nobody took any real notice of. Fallaci said this in a TV interview to Michael Wallace, a pioneer in opinionated TV journalism. Wallace was most famous for anchoring CBS’ 60 Minutes, being its first and most celebrated anchor. The programme was so successful as “magazine news”, under him; that as many as six other networks put in me-too shows, to compete, till there were a surfeit and glut. Wallace himself was an irreverent departure from the magisterial news-style of a Walter Cronkite, also on CBS, who along with other senior TV News presenters of the time, thought of 60 Minutes as “Show Business”. That Wallace did commercials for many products in between his newsman stints, made the orthodox regard him as a mere “pitch-man”. But handsome, Bogartian Mike Wallace, with his cigarette, smoke rising in the air, in those early black and white broadcasts, his sharp questioning, was, by today’s standards, almost donnish. Now it is routine to shout and pillory, most famously on Fox News, a Rupert Murdoch owned US Channel, that came later. But Fox News, much more extreme, had Wallace call it op-ed on air. He said this to the Fox anchor he was interviewing, registering eyebrow raised surprise. But then, Fox News only appeared after a straight run of a couple of decades of 60 Minutes - with Mike Wallace. Both Fallaci and Wallace, the early birds, were no great fans of objective reporting. Instead, they thought the best way to uncover the truth, such as it is, was by asking pointed questions to their interviewees and slanting the narrative. Fallaci, appearing mostly in print, usually proceeded to play both judge and jury in her articles. Henry Kissinger, whose interview with Fallaci appeared in Playboy Magazine, thought the exchange was a disaster for him. He was quoted as seeing himself as the lone advance-riding cowboy leading the wagon train of governance. It is anybody’s guess what President Richard Nixon thought of this analogy from the mouth of his Secretary of State. Today, not only the TV anchors but many of their regular panellists on TV news shows around the world, fancy themselves as cheer-leaders and crusaders after the truth as they see it. There is a strenuous and blatant effort to influence the audience with opinion and rhetoric rather than the more prosaic facts. But then, from the very early days of the 1950s, TV News, with its ability to come into the living and bedrooms of the viewers, evolved quickly into a dose of drama and stimulation. There were the day-time soap operas to compete with. Print struggles to remain current even in the dailies today let alone weeklies and magazines with longer timelines. It has been joined, like a swarm of bees, by digital websites with the ability to quickly upload their articles. And the digital websites and broadcast TV, in turn, find themselves competing with both the written and visual social media working alongside, with little or no censorship. Even if a video is proscribed by the government, it has often gone viral and has been absorbed by thousands, by the time the action to take it down has been completed. News is indeed instant history as Fallaci had it, beyond the reach of the lobbies for or against it to block it out. Today it floats around forever in cyberspace for anyone to look at for as long as the sphere lasts. This even if the originator attempts to delete any pictures or views no longer thought of as kosher. But there is an awful lot of it. And so, the only differentiator left to the media practitioner today is skill. TV news commentary is only as snappy and compelling as the news editors behind the scenes can make it. Except for those anchors who write their own script, most junior presenters read what is prepared for them off a teleprompter. Of course, in certain formats such as rapid news, presenters can and do bring a good deal of style and cadence to the delivery. Their guests, as panellists on TV debates too, are furnished by the guest relations teams of the network. Anchors, except for the top ones, have little influence here. But on their part, if the guests are articulate, and can think fast “on their feet”, they start to distinguish themselves in this Live medium. And over time, they find themselves in demand as reliable sounding boards for various channels. Expertise alone, however, does not hack it. There are seasoned diplomats that cannot explain the foreign policy on TV in a ten to thirty-second sound byte. They are probably perfectly good at writing reports and books, and giving learned lectures. It is an old truism that most print journalists are uncomfortable, rambling and not very personable on TV. Of course, this works the other way around too. TV journalists with considerable presence, are often not very good op-ed writers. Nor are they exactly scintillating on social media platforms, such as Twitter and Facebook. That seems to take a different kind of connect. The “truth” however, is out there for the taking for the ambidextrous one. He or she can traverse galaxies explored and unexplored and plant personal flags across media landscapes. But the neanderthals stand out too. It is most glaring when a person is an official spokesperson for a political party, but cannot make a good case for it. And there do seem to be a lot of such untrained and ineffective spokies out on the rounds. One wonders what process of proximity to whom got them their mischance to represent their Party? Very few programmes can be pre-recorded for broadcast later, given the pace of the unfolding news and the competition. This is true of all except the special interviews. But when even these are broadcast Live in the 60Minutes fashion, they attract much higher TRPs. This is understandably difficult to do with current heads of state, who like to vet the questions in advance. But it works well enough with ministers, other politicians, CEOs, spokespersons, celebrities, who are glad enough to be featured. Why does anyone work in journalism? Is it about uncovering the truth? Wallace said he wouldn’t know what to do with himself if he wasn’t working. And because he needed pills for his clinical depression. But most journalists don’t quit, even the disgraced ones, because they don’t know how to write their own obituaries. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

The joys of journalism

A Nepalese newspaper on Thursday slammed Beijing for trying to muzzle free speech after it was accused of "deliberate" and "malicious" smearing by the Chinese embassy in the Himalayan nation.

The embassy had sharply criticised the Kathmandu Post on Tuesday for publishing a syndicated column which argued that China's authoritarian system of government had worsened the deadly coronavirus outbreak.

The reaction from the embassy came as China ordered three Wall Street Journal reporters to leave the country over an op-ed headline that Beijing had deemed racist, one of the country's harshest moves against foreign media in years.

Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/in-major-shift-china-sends-stern-message-to-pakistan-on-fatf-281730">In major shift, China sends stern message to Pakistan on FATF</a>

"The Chinese embassy did not just express its discontent with the article published; it went so far as to disparage the Post's Editor-in-Chief and employ threatening language," the Kathmandu Post said in an editorial.

"The undiplomatic -- and frankly menacing -- manner in which the Chinese embassy made its objections known is condemnable," it added.

"The actions of the embassy... can be perceived as a direct threat to the Nepali people's right to a free press, freedom of opinion and freedom of expression."

Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/coronavirus-outbreak-chinas-hubei-province-reports-108-more-deaths-2-dead-in-iran-281693">Coronavirus outbreak - China's Hubei province reports 108 more deaths; 2 dead in Iran</a>

"China can... express its reservations," the paper said. "What it cannot do, especially in a democracy, is demand that articles be taken down and then issue veiled threats against the editor of a foreign newspaper."

The commentary that sparked Chinese anger -- titled "China's secrecy has made the coronavirus crisis much worse" -- was written for the Chicago Tribune by Ivo Daalder, a former US ambassador to NATO.

The Kathmandu Post had republished the piece with an illustration of a 100 yuan note, altered to show communist China's founder Mao Zedong wearing a face mask.

The article "deliberately smeared the efforts of the Chinese government and people... and even viciously attacked the political system of China", the Chinese embassy had said.

It added that the Kathmandu Post's chief editor Anup Kaphle "has always been biased on China-related issues" and had become "a parrot of some anti-China forces".

"The Chinese Embassy in Nepal has made solemn representations to the newspaper and himself and reserves the right of further action."

Eighteen Nepali editors issued a statement Wednesday against the embassy's statement -- particularly the targeting of Kaphle.

"Nepal's constitution has guaranteed full press freedom, and we are committed to exercising and protecting it," they said.

Beijing has been wooing Nepal with pledges of development in the Himalayan nation, pumping millions of dollars into projects ranging from roads to hydropower plants.

Its embassy in Nepal has traditionally refrained from commenting on internal affairs.

A Nepalese newspaper on Thursday slammed Beijing for trying to muzzle free speech after it was accused of "deliberate" and "malicious" smearing by the Chinese embassy in the Himalayan nation.

A Nepalese newspaper on Thursday slammed Beijing for trying to muzzle free speech after it was accused of "deliberate" and "malicious" smearing by the Chinese embassy in the Himalayan nation. The embassy had sharply criticised the Kathmandu Post on Tuesday for publishing a syndicated column which argued that China's authoritarian system of government had worsened the deadly coronavirus outbreak. The reaction from the embassy came as China ordered three Wall Street Journal reporters to leave the country over an op-ed headline that Beijing had deemed racist, one of the country's harshest moves against foreign media in years. Also read: In major shift, China sends stern message to Pakistan on FATF "The Chinese embassy did not just express its discontent with the article published; it went so far as to disparage the Post's Editor-in-Chief and employ threatening language," the Kathmandu Post said in an editorial. "The undiplomatic -- and frankly menacing -- manner in which the Chinese embassy made its objections known is condemnable," it added. "The actions of the embassy... can be perceived as a direct threat to the Nepali people's right to a free press, freedom of opinion and freedom of expression." Also read: Coronavirus outbreak - China's Hubei province reports 108 more deaths; 2 dead in Iran "China can... express its reservations," the paper said. "What it cannot do, especially in a democracy, is demand that articles be taken down and then issue veiled threats against the editor of a foreign newspaper." The commentary that sparked Chinese anger -- titled "China's secrecy has made the coronavirus crisis much worse" -- was written for the Chicago Tribune by Ivo Daalder, a former US ambassador to NATO. The Kathmandu Post had republished the piece with an illustration of a 100 yuan note, altered to show communist China's founder Mao Zedong wearing a face mask. The article "deliberately smeared the efforts of the Chinese government and people... and even viciously attacked the political system of China", the Chinese embassy had said. It added that the Kathmandu Post's chief editor Anup Kaphle "has always been biased on China-related issues" and had become "a parrot of some anti-China forces". "The Chinese Embassy in Nepal has made solemn representations to the newspaper and himself and reserves the right of further action." Eighteen Nepali editors issued a statement Wednesday against the embassy's statement -- particularly the targeting of Kaphle. "Nepal's constitution has guaranteed full press freedom, and we are committed to exercising and protecting it," they said. Beijing has been wooing Nepal with pledges of development in the Himalayan nation, pumping millions of dollars into projects ranging from roads to hydropower plants. Its embassy in Nepal has traditionally refrained from commenting on internal affairs.

Nepal paper defiant after China slams virus criticism

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?

In a rare display of displeasure Prime Minister Narendra Modi hit out at the media without naming the word per se. He did not even mention the issues in detail but was quick to use the Hindi word ‘madhyam’. Prime Minister said that BJP workers should not expect the version of the government to be represented by the 'madhyam' and asked them to bypass the 'madhyam' and directly connect with its electoral base. Prime Minister also took a dig at the Opposition by saying that people without political capital are trying to malign the government. Though Prime Minister did not specify the issue, but government has been under exceeding attack on the issue of Citizenship Amendment Act and slowdown in the economy.

BJP has been the pioneer in using social media techniques for electoral and political purposes. Other Opposition parties continue to be way behind BJP when it comes to constant communication with its electoral constituency. Prime Minister’s direction to the workers to have a direct connection with the people on important issues is a strong message in this direction.

Media baiting is not new in the world of politics. Heavyweight global leaders like US President Donald Trump to Russia’s Vladimir Putin have taken a strong position against the mainstream media which is labelled as liberal, and hence, opposed to their political vision. In this case, the attack was not direct. In the past, even Rahul Gandhi and other leaders of regional parties have been taking jibe against the mainstream media, asking them to take a strong position against the ruling dispensation. Social media accounts supported by various parties have attacked mainstream media of either being lame or liberal.

Media bashing by every political party in both India and abroad, reflects a growing public trend of politics becoming illiberal in nature. BJP has a huge mandate in Lok Sabha and it came back with an increased number in 2019. Despite a huge mandate, there is a feeling within the govt that the Opposition has not reconciled to its defeat.

Same are the concerns reflected by Donald Trump who continues to face Opposition from various institutions of the US government. Despite getting CAA passed in Lok Sabha, BJP too faces street protests throughout India supported by civil society activists and Opposition leaders quietly. This issue has led to a lockdown in a conversation between the Opposition and the government which refuses to back down on the issue. Whatever may be the outcome, the ultimate loser is the mainstream media which is getting caught between political crossfire that gets personal and highly accentuated through social media. 
 
(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)&nbsp; 
&nbsp;

In a rare display of displeasure Prime Minister Narendra Modi hit out at the media without naming the word per se. He did not even mention the issues in detail but was quick to use the Hindi word ‘madhyam’.

In a rare display of displeasure Prime Minister Narendra Modi hit out at the media without naming the word per se. He did not even mention the issues in detail but was quick to use the Hindi word ‘madhyam’. Prime Minister said that BJP workers should not expect the version of the government to be represented by the 'madhyam' and asked them to bypass the 'madhyam' and directly connect with its electoral base. Prime Minister also took a dig at the Opposition by saying that people without political capital are trying to malign the government. Though Prime Minister did not specify the issue, but government has been under exceeding attack on the issue of Citizenship Amendment Act and slowdown in the economy. BJP has been the pioneer in using social media techniques for electoral and political purposes. Other Opposition parties continue to be way behind BJP when it comes to constant communication with its electoral constituency. Prime Minister’s direction to the workers to have a direct connection with the people on important issues is a strong message in this direction. Media baiting is not new in the world of politics. Heavyweight global leaders like US President Donald Trump to Russia’s Vladimir Putin have taken a strong position against the mainstream media which is labelled as liberal, and hence, opposed to their political vision. In this case, the attack was not direct. In the past, even Rahul Gandhi and other leaders of regional parties have been taking jibe against the mainstream media, asking them to take a strong position against the ruling dispensation. Social media accounts supported by various parties have attacked mainstream media of either being lame or liberal. Media bashing by every political party in both India and abroad, reflects a growing public trend of politics becoming illiberal in nature. BJP has a huge mandate in Lok Sabha and it came back with an increased number in 2019. Despite a huge mandate, there is a feeling within the govt that the Opposition has not reconciled to its defeat. Same are the concerns reflected by Donald Trump who continues to face Opposition from various institutions of the US government. Despite getting CAA passed in Lok Sabha, BJP too faces street protests throughout India supported by civil society activists and Opposition leaders quietly. This issue has led to a lockdown in a conversation between the Opposition and the government which refuses to back down on the issue. Whatever may be the outcome, the ultimate loser is the mainstream media which is getting caught between political crossfire that gets personal and highly accentuated through social media. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

'Madhyam' becomes the victim: Media and strongmen of global politics

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/facebooks-zuckerberg-grilled-in-us-congress-on-digital-currency-privacy-elections-257824">Facebook</a>&nbsp;on Friday began rolling out its dedicated "news tab" with professionally produced content, the latest move by the social network to promote journalism and shed its reputation as a platform for misinformation.

The tab, being tested with some US users, will be separate from a user's normal feed and include articles from partner news organisations,&nbsp;making a clear distinction between journalism and stories shared by users from a wide range of sources.

"This is going to be&nbsp;the first time ever there will be a dedicated space on the (Facebook) app that is focused on high-quality journalism," Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg told an audience in New York in a joint appearance with CEO Robert Thomson of News Corp, one of the partners in the project.

The mix of stories in&nbsp;Facebook&nbsp;News will be determined by algorithmic "personalisation" based on a user's preferences and data, with journalists choosing some of the stories.

The company said users would have "more control over the stories they see, and the ability to explore a wider range of their news interests, directly within the&nbsp;Facebook&nbsp;app."

Facebook&nbsp;is expected to pay some of the news organizations, reportedly millions of dollars in some cases,&nbsp;but has yet to disclose full details.

Zuckerberg said&nbsp;Facebook&nbsp;would not seek to limit coverage of the company or himself.

Going global?

Zuckerberg said he sees the effort as important even if it is used by only a small percentage of&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/libras-association-is-independent-facebook-wont-be-part-of-it-even-outside-the-us-till-regulators-approve-zuckerberg-to-us-house-panel-257767">Facebook</a>&nbsp;users. And he said the company is in discussions to bring the feature to other countries.

"We want to do something like this across the world as well," he said.

The social network has partnered with some 200 news organisations including The Wall Street Journal, USA Today, The Washington Post, CBS News, BuzzFeed, Fox News, the Boston Globe, Bloomberg and Vanity Fair.

Zuckerberg defended the inclusion of partners some criticise as politically partisan such as the right-wing outlet Breitbart, saying the news tab "needs to have a diversity of views."

Facebook&nbsp;said it would begin an initial test rollout which would "showcase local original reporting" from publications in major cities including New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Dallas, Philadelphia, Houston, Washington, Miami, Atlanta and Boston.

Topic sections will include business, entertainment, health, science and technology, and sports.

Rebooting the relationship

The move represents&nbsp;Facebook's effort to reboot its relationship with news organisations, many of which have been critical of the platform for failing to curb the spread of misinformation and for taking much of the online ad revenue.

The plan notably brings together&nbsp;Facebook&nbsp;and Rupert Murdoch's News Corp.

Thomson, the News Corp CEO who last year denounced what he called a "dysfunctional" online landscape that made it hard for publishers to thrive, welcomed the&nbsp;Facebook&nbsp;initiative in the joint appearance with Zuckerberg.

"It is a powerful precedent that will echo around editorial departments," said Thomson, whose company includes the Wall Street Journal.

"It begins to change the terms of trade for quality journalism."

Paying for 'good stuff'

Northeastern University professor Dan Kennedy said the tab could help&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/facebook-announces-steps-to-clamp-down-on-misinformation-ahead-of-2020-election-257494">Facebook</a> users distinguish between misinformation and professional news.

"Less savvy news consumers might not be able to tell the difference between exaggerated or fake viral news and real journalism from respected news organisations," Kennedy said.

"So this should help a lot."

But Kennedy said it could be problematic that&nbsp;Facebook&nbsp;may only be paying the richest media organisations, increasing woes for small, local outlets.

Ken Paulson, a former USA Today editor who now heads the Free Speech Center at Middle Tennessee State University, agreed that the initiative will promote better content.

"My long-term hope for the news business is that more consumers will recognise the difference between quality and chaos and be willing to pay for the good stuff," Paulson said.

University of Oregon journalism professor Damian Radcliffe noted that&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/zuckerberg-defends-facebooks-approach-to-free-speech-draws-line-on-china-257158">Facebook</a>&nbsp;users currently "bump into" news in their feed, as opposed to actively seeking it out.

He said the project raises "important questions here about how transparent the story selection process will be, and what&nbsp;Facebook&nbsp;is effectively saying about news which sits outside of the tab. Does that means it's deemed less trustworthy?"

Facebook on Friday began rolling out its dedicated "news tab" with professionally produced content, the latest move by the social network to promote journalism and shed its reputation as a platform for misinformation.

Facebook on Friday began rolling out its dedicated "news tab" with professionally produced content, the latest move by the social network to promote journalism and shed its reputation as a platform for misinformation. The tab, being tested with some US users, will be separate from a user's normal feed and include articles from partner news organisations, making a clear distinction between journalism and stories shared by users from a wide range of sources. "This is going to be the first time ever there will be a dedicated space on the (Facebook) app that is focused on high-quality journalism," Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg told an audience in New York in a joint appearance with CEO Robert Thomson of News Corp, one of the partners in the project. The mix of stories in Facebook News will be determined by algorithmic "personalisation" based on a user's preferences and data, with journalists choosing some of the stories. The company said users would have "more control over the stories they see, and the ability to explore a wider range of their news interests, directly within the Facebook app." Facebook is expected to pay some of the news organizations, reportedly millions of dollars in some cases, but has yet to disclose full details. Zuckerberg said Facebook would not seek to limit coverage of the company or himself. Going global? Zuckerberg said he sees the effort as important even if it is used by only a small percentage of Facebook users. And he said the company is in discussions to bring the feature to other countries. "We want to do something like this across the world as well," he said. The social network has partnered with some 200 news organisations including The Wall Street Journal, USA Today, The Washington Post, CBS News, BuzzFeed, Fox News, the Boston Globe, Bloomberg and Vanity Fair. Zuckerberg defended the inclusion of partners some criticise as politically partisan such as the right-wing outlet Breitbart, saying the news tab "needs to have a diversity of views." Facebook said it would begin an initial test rollout which would "showcase local original reporting" from publications in major cities including New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Dallas, Philadelphia, Houston, Washington, Miami, Atlanta and Boston. Topic sections will include business, entertainment, health, science and technology, and sports. Rebooting the relationship The move represents Facebook's effort to reboot its relationship with news organisations, many of which have been critical of the platform for failing to curb the spread of misinformation and for taking much of the online ad revenue. The plan notably brings together Facebook and Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. Thomson, the News Corp CEO who last year denounced what he called a "dysfunctional" online landscape that made it hard for publishers to thrive, welcomed the Facebook initiative in the joint appearance with Zuckerberg. "It is a powerful precedent that will echo around editorial departments," said Thomson, whose company includes the Wall Street Journal. "It begins to change the terms of trade for quality journalism." Paying for 'good stuff' Northeastern University professor Dan Kennedy said the tab could help Facebook users distinguish between misinformation and professional news. "Less savvy news consumers might not be able to tell the difference between exaggerated or fake viral news and real journalism from respected news organisations," Kennedy said. "So this should help a lot." But Kennedy said it could be problematic that Facebook may only be paying the richest media organisations, increasing woes for small, local outlets. Ken Paulson, a former USA Today editor who now heads the Free Speech Center at Middle Tennessee State University, agreed that the initiative will promote better content. "My long-term hope for the news business is that more consumers will recognise the difference between quality and chaos and be willing to pay for the good stuff," Paulson said. University of Oregon journalism professor Damian Radcliffe noted that Facebook users currently "bump into" news in their feed, as opposed to actively seeking it out. He said the project raises "important questions here about how transparent the story selection process will be, and what Facebook is effectively saying about news which sits outside of the tab. Does that means it's deemed less trustworthy?"

Facebook's 'news tab' seeks to reboot its role within media

Australian Media Is Protesting Against Government's Misuse Of Power To Silence Journalists.

Gravitas: Australia: Newspapers Black Out Front Pages

A group of foreign reporters on a trip to Syria organised by the Russian Defense Ministry were on Wednesday shown an elaborate network of caves in the strategic northwestern Idlib province said to have been used as a major rebel base.

Journalists see caves formerly used by rebels

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

Seven Hong Kong media associations held a silent march in Hong Kong on Sunday (July 14) against alleged police violence. Several hundred reporters marched from a park in Admiralty near the Central Government Offices to the police headquarters, where they held up signs reading "Stop police violence, defend press freedom" and "Protect our fourth estate".

Hong Kong reporters march against alleged police violence

President Donald Trump on Wednesday pardoned disgraced media mogul Conrad Black, who served more than three years in prison in the US for fraud and obstruction of justice.

"In 2007, prosecutors alleged that Lord Black had committed several acts of mail fraud and obstruction. The Supreme Court of the United States, however, largely disagreed and overturned almost all charges in his case," the White House said in a statement announcing the pardon.

The statement described Black -- who wrote a book entitled "Donald J. Trump: A President Like No Other" -- as an "entrepreneur and scholar" who "has made tremendous contributions to business, as well as to political and historical thought."

His legal battles began in 2004 when he was accused of siphoning off tens of millions of dollars from the sale of newspapers owned by Hollinger International, his holding company.

Black, a prolific writer and historian in his own right, vehemently maintained his innocence and launched a series of libel lawsuits in Canada to strike back at the detractors he blames for destroying his once vast empire.

But years of legal battles -- which went all the way up to the US Supreme Court -- failed to fully clear his name, although he did manage to greatly reduce his prison time by clearing himself of many of the charges.

Montreal-born Black renounced his Canadian citizenship in 2001 after a spat with then prime minister Jean Chretien, who protested the media owner's peerage to Britain's House of Lords.

At its peak, Black's newspaper group was one of the largest media empires in the world, with revenues in the billions of dollars and global daily circulation in the millions.

As well as The Daily Telegraph in London, the group included the Chicago Sun-Times, Canada's National Post, and the Jerusalem Post.

President Donald Trump on Wednesday pardoned disgraced media mogul Conrad Black, who served more than three years in prison in the US for fraud and obstruction of justice.

President Donald Trump on Wednesday pardoned disgraced media mogul Conrad Black, who served more than three years in prison in the US for fraud and obstruction of justice. "In 2007, prosecutors alleged that Lord Black had committed several acts of mail fraud and obstruction. The Supreme Court of the United States, however, largely disagreed and overturned almost all charges in his case," the White House said in a statement announcing the pardon. The statement described Black -- who wrote a book entitled "Donald J. Trump: A President Like No Other" -- as an "entrepreneur and scholar" who "has made tremendous contributions to business, as well as to political and historical thought." His legal battles began in 2004 when he was accused of siphoning off tens of millions of dollars from the sale of newspapers owned by Hollinger International, his holding company. Black, a prolific writer and historian in his own right, vehemently maintained his innocence and launched a series of libel lawsuits in Canada to strike back at the detractors he blames for destroying his once vast empire. But years of legal battles -- which went all the way up to the US Supreme Court -- failed to fully clear his name, although he did manage to greatly reduce his prison time by clearing himself of many of the charges. Montreal-born Black renounced his Canadian citizenship in 2001 after a spat with then prime minister Jean Chretien, who protested the media owner's peerage to Britain's House of Lords. At its peak, Black's newspaper group was one of the largest media empires in the world, with revenues in the billions of dollars and global daily circulation in the millions. As well as The Daily Telegraph in London, the group included the Chicago Sun-Times, Canada's National Post, and the Jerusalem Post.

Trump pardons disgraced media mogul Conrad Black: White House

Pakistan escorts a group of foreign journalists and diplomats to the site of an Indian air strike to show that, contrary to Delhi's claims, no infrastructure was damaged.

Pakistan's Balakot stunt on the eve of India Polls

Pakistan takes media, diplomats on visit to Indian strike site

Pakistan's Supreme Court rebuked <a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/opinion-how-pakistans-army-sidelined-nawaz-sharif-150781">the country's powerful military and intelligence agencies</a> Wednesday, calling for them to uphold free speech and stay out of politics in a country ruled by the generals for nearly half its existence.

The unusually strong criticism was issued in a judgement criticising the role of the intelligence agencies in anti-blasphemy protests which paralysed the capital Islamabad for several weeks in 2017.

"If any personnel of the Armed Forces indulges in any form of politicking or tries to manipulate the media he undermines the integrity and professionalism of the Armed Forces," the judgement, posted on the Supreme Court website, stated.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>'If any personnel of the Armed Forces indulges in any form of politicking or tries to manipulate the media he undermines the integrity and professionalism of the Armed Forces,' the judgement, posted on the Supreme Court website, stated</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text='If any personnel of the Armed Forces indulges in any form of politicking or tries to manipulate the media he undermines the integrity and professionalism of the Armed Forces,' the judgement, posted on the Supreme Court website, stated" target="_blank">&nbsp;</a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">×</a></div>
</div>
</div>

Pakistan's Constitution "emphatically prohibits" members of the armed forces from "engaging in any kind of political activity", it added, ordering the government and the chiefs of the army, air force and navy to take action against anyone found violating their oaths to uphold the document.

The 2017 protests were led by a then-little-known Islamist group called the Tehreek-e-Labaik Pakistan (TLP) and were only dispersed after violent clashes led to a military-brokered deal which forced the resignation of the federal law minister.

Viral videos showing what appeared to be soldiers handing out cash to protesters helped fuel speculation the demonstrators were backed by the military as it sought to put pressure on the then-ruling party of former prime minister Nawaz Sharif.

The judgement also spelt out curbs on free speech, singling out the intelligence agencies for a stern warning.&nbsp;

"All intelligence agencies... and the (military's media wing) must not exceed their respective mandates. They cannot curtail the freedom of speech and expression," the judgement said.

"Those who resort to such tactics under the mistaken belief that they serve some higher goal delude themselves," it continued.

Local media have 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.

Activists and bloggers speaking out against the state and military have also complained of repression.

The Committee to Protect Journalists said the army had "quietly but effectively, set restrictions on reporting" in a report released September last year.

Pakistan's courts have cautioned the military establishment against meddling before -- and paid a price.&nbsp;

An Islamabad High Court judge was ousted last year after he publicly accused the country's top intelligence agency of manipulating judicial decisions to influence the general election.

Pakistan's Supreme Court rebuked the country's powerful military and intelligence agencies Wednesday, calling for them to uphold free speech and stay out of politics in a country ruled by the generals for nearly half its existence.

Pakistan's Supreme Court rebuked the country's powerful military and intelligence agencies Wednesday, calling for them to uphold free speech and stay out of politics in a country ruled by the generals for nearly half its existence. The unusually strong criticism was issued in a judgement criticising the role of the intelligence agencies in anti-blasphemy protests which paralysed the capital Islamabad for several weeks in 2017. "If any personnel of the Armed Forces indulges in any form of politicking or tries to manipulate the media he undermines the integrity and professionalism of the Armed Forces," the judgement, posted on the Supreme Court website, stated. 'If any personnel of the Armed Forces indulges in any form of politicking or tries to manipulate the media he undermines the integrity and professionalism of the Armed Forces,' the judgement, posted on the Supreme Court website, stated × Pakistan's Constitution "emphatically prohibits" members of the armed forces from "engaging in any kind of political activity", it added, ordering the government and the chiefs of the army, air force and navy to take action against anyone found violating their oaths to uphold the document. The 2017 protests were led by a then-little-known Islamist group called the Tehreek-e-Labaik Pakistan (TLP) and were only dispersed after violent clashes led to a military-brokered deal which forced the resignation of the federal law minister. Viral videos showing what appeared to be soldiers handing out cash to protesters helped fuel speculation the demonstrators were backed by the military as it sought to put pressure on the then-ruling party of former prime minister Nawaz Sharif. The judgement also spelt out curbs on free speech, singling out the intelligence agencies for a stern warning. "All intelligence agencies... and the (military's media wing) must not exceed their respective mandates. They cannot curtail the freedom of speech and expression," the judgement said. "Those who resort to such tactics under the mistaken belief that they serve some higher goal delude themselves," it continued. Local media have 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. Activists and bloggers speaking out against the state and military have also complained of repression. The Committee to Protect Journalists said the army had "quietly but effectively, set restrictions on reporting" in a report released September last year. Pakistan's courts have cautioned the military establishment against meddling before -- and paid a price. An Islamabad High Court judge was ousted last year after he publicly accused the country's top intelligence agency of manipulating judicial decisions to influence the general election.

Pakistan Supreme Court tells army to stay out of politics, media

The United States last year slid down the rankings of a global corruption index as America's system of checks and balances faced growing threats on Donald Trump's watch, Transparency International said Tuesday.

The US lost four points to score 71 out of 100 on the watchdog's 2018 Corruption Perceptions Index, sending the country tumbling out of the top 20 for the first time since 2011.

"The low score comes at a time when the US is experiencing threats to its system of checks and balances as well as an erosion of ethical norms at the highest levels of power," TI said in its annual report.

The second year of Trump's presidency was a turbulent one, ranging from damaging revelations in an investigation probing links between Trump's 2016 campaign team and Russia, to his controversial backing for a Supreme Court nominee accused of sexual assault.

The US leader, who frequently rails against the media for writing "fake news", was also dogged by accusations of nepotism and conflicts of interest.

Last month, Trump agreed to close his personal charity after the New York attorney general said it had acted "as little more than a checkbook to serve Mr&nbsp;Trump's business and political interests".

Transparency International's closely-watched index ranks 180 nations according to their perceived level of public sector corruption, where a score of zero means very corrupt and 100 signifies very clean.

"The Trump presidency has illuminated the cracks in the US system for ensuring a government that is accountable to the public interest," TI's Zoe Reiter, acting representative to the US, told AFP.

"But President Trump is a symptom rather than a cause; the issues were there before he took office. For example, the Office of Government Ethics simply doesn't have the teeth to control for conflicts of interest at the highest levels," she said.

Rise of autocrats

As in previous years, New Zealand and Nordic countries were among the best in class with Denmark narrowly beating New Zealand to the top spot at 88 and 87 points respectively.

Strife-torn Somalia was once again the worst performer, below Yemen, South Sudan and Syria which all scored in the low teens.

The Berlin-based watchdog also singled out Turkey and Hungary for falling down the rankings, blaming "the deterioration of rule of law and democratic institutions, as well as a rapidly shrinking space for civil society and independent media".

"With many democratic institutions under threat across the globe — often by leaders with authoritarian or populist tendencies — we need to do more to strengthen checks and balances and protect citizens' rights," TI's managing director Patricia Moreira said.

As part of its recommendations, the group urged governments to stand up for a free press and support civil society organisations that encourage public oversight over government spending.

The index is compiled based on data from 12 international organisations including the World Bank, African Development Bank and the World Economic Forum.

The United States last year slid down the rankings of a global corruption index as America's system of checks and balances faced growing threats on Donald Trump's watch, Transparency International said Tuesday.

The United States last year slid down the rankings of a global corruption index as America's system of checks and balances faced growing threats on Donald Trump's watch, Transparency International said Tuesday. The US lost four points to score 71 out of 100 on the watchdog's 2018 Corruption Perceptions Index, sending the country tumbling out of the top 20 for the first time since 2011. "The low score comes at a time when the US is experiencing threats to its system of checks and balances as well as an erosion of ethical norms at the highest levels of power," TI said in its annual report. The second year of Trump's presidency was a turbulent one, ranging from damaging revelations in an investigation probing links between Trump's 2016 campaign team and Russia, to his controversial backing for a Supreme Court nominee accused of sexual assault. The US leader, who frequently rails against the media for writing "fake news", was also dogged by accusations of nepotism and conflicts of interest. Last month, Trump agreed to close his personal charity after the New York attorney general said it had acted "as little more than a checkbook to serve Mr Trump's business and political interests". Transparency International's closely-watched index ranks 180 nations according to their perceived level of public sector corruption, where a score of zero means very corrupt and 100 signifies very clean. "The Trump presidency has illuminated the cracks in the US system for ensuring a government that is accountable to the public interest," TI's Zoe Reiter, acting representative to the US, told AFP. "But President Trump is a symptom rather than a cause; the issues were there before he took office. For example, the Office of Government Ethics simply doesn't have the teeth to control for conflicts of interest at the highest levels," she said. Rise of autocrats As in previous years, New Zealand and Nordic countries were among the best in class with Denmark narrowly beating New Zealand to the top spot at 88 and 87 points respectively. Strife-torn Somalia was once again the worst performer, below Yemen, South Sudan and Syria which all scored in the low teens. The Berlin-based watchdog also singled out Turkey and Hungary for falling down the rankings, blaming "the deterioration of rule of law and democratic institutions, as well as a rapidly shrinking space for civil society and independent media". "With many democratic institutions under threat across the globe — often by leaders with authoritarian or populist tendencies — we need to do more to strengthen checks and balances and protect citizens' rights," TI's managing director Patricia Moreira said. As part of its recommendations, the group urged governments to stand up for a free press and support civil society organisations that encourage public oversight over government spending. The index is compiled based on data from 12 international organisations including the World Bank, African Development Bank and the World Economic Forum.

Corruption seen rising in Trump's US: Watchdog

media

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