extranjero ([info]extranjero) rakstīja,
@ 2023-04-09 14:03:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Jautājums par vārda brīvību, vai šādi naidu nesoši tvīti ir pieļaujami:

https://twitter.com/MedvedevRussiaE/status/1644669039095037953

Es teiktu, ka ir svarīgi tos atļaut, lai visi varētu skaidri redzēt, ka Krievijas iebrukums Ukrainā nav nekādi saistīts ar valsts drošības apsvērumiem vai NATO paplašināšanās risku, bet tiešā genocīdiskā naidā pret Ukrainu un vēlmi paplašināt Krievijas impēriju.

No otras puses, tas var iedvesmot tankijus un citus margināli noskaņotos ekstrēmistus. Arī Latvijā ir daudz šaubīgo un prātā vāju cilvēku, kas aizstāv Krieviju.

Tā ir nopietna dilemma – atļaut vai neatļaut. Kā domājat jūs?

(Lasīt komentārus) - (Ierakstīt jaunu komentāru)


[info]begemots
2023-04-09 21:57 (saite)
> Tāpēc amerikāņiem praksē ir vajadzīgs nedaudz plašāks ētikas modelis

Es saprotu, ka tu tā uzskati. 🤷

(Atbildēt uz šo) (Iepriekšējais) (Diskusija)


[info]extranjero
2023-04-10 11:47 (saite)
Es negribu, ka tiek aktīvi cenzēta pareiza informācija, vienlaikus klausoties par to, ka ir vārda brīvība un nekas netiek cenzēts.

(Atbildēt uz šo) (Iepriekšējais) (Diskusija)


[info]begemots
2023-04-11 08:35 (saite)
COVIDs ir tikai tas, kam tu pievērsi uzmanību; korporatīvā cenzūra faktiski ir kaut kas tāds, kas notiek visu laiku. Un, izskatās, ka ar to nav atrasti efektīvi līdzekļi, kā cīnīties, jo to ir teju neiespējami pieķert un -- pats galvenais -- tā ir vnk efektīva biznesa prakse. Citiem vārdiem sakot, pa šiem pārsimt gadiem privātā īpašumā esošu masu mēdiju, tā ir izkristalizējusies kā situācija, lai šie masu mēdiji varētu palikt pie dzīvības.

Croteau and Hoynes[7] discuss corporate censorship in the news publishing business, observing that it can occur as self-censorship. They note that it is "virtually impossible to document", because it is covert. Jonathan Alter states that "In a tight job market, the tendency is to avoid getting yourself or your boss in trouble. So an adjective gets dropped, a story skipped, a punch pulled … It's like that Sherlock Holmes story – the dog that didn't bark.[8] Those clues are hard to find." The head of the Media Access Project notes that such self-censorship is not misreporting or false reporting, but simply not reporting at all. Self-censorship is not the product of "dramatic conspiracies", according to Croteau and Hoynes, but simply the interaction of many small daily decisions. Journalists want to keep their jobs and editors support the interests of the company. These many small actions and non-actions accumulate to produce (in their words) "homogenized, corporate-friendly media".
[...]
They state that "even among journalists who entered the field for the noblest of reasons" there is a tendency to avoid any controversial journalism that might embroil the news company in a battle with a powerful corporation or a government agency. They observe that although such conflicts "have always been the stuff of great journalism" they are "very bad business", and that "in the current climate business trumps journalism just about every time".

Croteau and Hoynes[7] report that such corporate censorship in journalism is commonplace, reporting the results of studies revealing that more than 40%[10] of journalists and news executives stating that they had deliberately engaged in such censorship by avoiding newsworthy stories or softening the tones of stories. More than a third of the respondents stated that news organizations would ignore news that might hurt their financial interests. A similar fraction stated that they self-censored in order to further, or not endanger, their careers.

// https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_censorship

(Atbildēt uz šo) (Iepriekšējais)

(Lasīt komentārus) -

Neesi iežurnalējies. Iežurnalēties?