17 Oct 2025 | News and features
Rebooted British spoof series Spitting Image came under fire recently from the rights owners of Paddington Bear after the character was featured in a video posted to YouTube in July titled “Spitting Image Presents: The rest is Bulls*!t”.
In the video, a parody of the popular The Rest Is… podcast series, Spitting Image’s Paddington drops his soft-spoken upper-class English accent for something more akin to his native South America whilst swapping the marmalade jam for a pile of suspicious white powder.
Dr Alberto Godionli from the University of Groningen puts forward the question, does the parody actually take aim at the idealised Britishness that Paddington represents?
The mockery looks through the facade of Paddington, described as being the “embodiment of a good immigrant archetype” by James Greig in an article for GQ following the death of Queen Elizabeth II, who famously sat down for tea with the Peruvian immigrant in a YouTube video posted by the royal family in 2022 to mark her Platinum Jubilee. Greig comments on this meeting, writing: “It’s a form of soft monarchism for people who want to buy into a cosy, benign and progressive vision of Britishness”.
Speaking to the Radio Times, Al Murray, one of the comedians behind the latest iteration of Paddington on Spitting Image, slated the legal action as “an attack on comedy” going on to say: “In my experience people find you funny taking the piss out of things, until you take the piss out of something they like. Then they don’t find you funny anymore.”
Spitting Image’s version of Paddington Bear, Photo from Spitting Image/Facebook
This legal attack on English satire that uses the image of a beloved bear harks back to the 1971 obscenity trial against counter-culture magazine OZ involving the character Rupert Bear.
Rupert Bear first appeared in Daily Express comic strips in 1920, depicted as a young bear living in the fictional countryside town of Nutwood which served as an idyllic depiction of an old-fashioned British living.
The case started after the release of OZ’s Schoolkids issue in May 1970, which was the result of an invitation to people under 18 to contribute to, and edit, an issue of the magazine.
Among the offending pieces was one submitted by 15-year-old schoolboy Vivian Berger who had modified a comic strip by American artist Robert Crumb to include Rupert Bear as the main character engaging in an explicit sexual act.
The comic drew attention from the British Obscene Publications Squad, later known for its own corruption, with OZ editors Richard Neville, Felix Dennis and Jim Anderson facing charges including “conspiracy to corrupt public morals” in what became the longest obscenity trial in British history.
Jonathan Dimbleby, reporting from the trial wrote: “It was certainly revealing; not least for the fact that the prosecution conspicuously ignored the bulk of the magazine – some 21 pages of the youthful anti-authoritarian political writing. According to the Crown, neither ‘politics’, nor what the kids thought of ‘the pigs’, were relevant in what was merely a criminal trial.”
Neville, Dennis and Anderson were found guilty and sentenced to up to 15 months’ imprisonment, however the verdict was overturned on appeal.
Rupert, like Paddington, represented a sense of Britishness that amounts to little more than a nostalgic look at a Britain still stuck between the wars, before the end of the British Empire, and before the start of the welfare state and the decline in raw global power which would mark the next 100 years.
Other examples of famous bear characters being used for political satire prove however that this is not a uniquely British phenomenon.
Yogi Bear was the subject of a 2020 Onion headline that read: Heavily Armed Fans Guard Statue Of Yogi Bear In Case It Turns Out He Supported Confederacy, mocking the reaction to the removal of a number of Confederate statues that had occurred across the United States that same year.
And again from the USA, the often-mocked Smokey Bear, with his slogan “Only YOU can prevent forest fires” was depicted in a 2022 Seattle Times cartoon saying “I hate to say it but climate change has beat me”, as part of a comment piece on that year’s wildfires.
In China images of Winnie the Pooh have been used to mock President Xi Jinping and they emerged as a symbol of dissent during protests in Hong Kong. This has led to the removal of images of the bear across Chinese social media, where users had been claiming a visual resemblance between Xi and the bear. The mockery at times included other members of government such as former Hong Kong Chief Executive Carrie Lam being compared to the character Piglet after appearing in an image with Xi.
Political artist Badiucao has used Winnie the Pooh in a series of images mocking Xi’s efforts to censor the character, with the piece “‘Xi’s going on a bear hunt” showing the President holding a rifle over the bear’s corpse.
In Russia the bear has been used to represent the country for centuries and demonstrate Russian strength, even when the bear is seen as tamed. With its sharp teeth and knife-like claws aimed towards Ukraine the bear has reared up again. Not that Russian nationalists mind – and mock-ups of Russian President Vladimir Putin riding a bear are are still shared to bolster his strong man image.
26 Sep 2025 | Americas, Asia and Pacific, China, Europe and Central Asia, European Union, Israel, Middle East and North Africa, News and features, Palestine, United Kingdom, United States
Bombarded with news from all angles every day, important stories can easily pass us by. To help you cut through the noise, every Friday Index publishes a weekly news roundup of some of the key stories covering censorship and free expression. This week, we look at the designation of Antifa as domestic terrorists and the indictment of James Comey.
Australian horror movie edited to make a gay couple straight
An Australian company behind the new horror film Together, pulled it from cinemas in China this week. This followed the discovery of unauthorised changes made by the Chinese distributor which had edited a scene from a gay wedding to make the couple appear heterosexual.
Together, starring James Franco and Alison Brie, is distributed by Neon who released a statement on the edits: “Neon does not approve of Hishow’s unauthorised edit of the film and have demanded they cease distributing this altered version.”
Guidelines released by China’s top media regulator in 2016 banned depictions of homosexuality from TV in the country. In the past, the ban would have meant sections of an offending movie or documentary would have been edited out as happened with the Freddie Mercury biopic Bohemian Rhapsody. However AI technology has allowed scenes to be altered instead.
In the case of Together an AI-generated woman replaced the man depicted in the original and so a gay wedding became a straight one.
Trump signs order designating Antifa a domestic terrorist organisation
US President Donald Trump signed an order on Monday designating Antifa a domestic terrorist organisation following the death of podcaster Charlie Kirk.
An article released by the White House refers to an alleged “trend of Radical Left violence that has permeated the nation in recent years” and provides a list of supposed “Antifa” attacks. This included the assertion that Kirk was “assassinated by a Radical Left terrorist” which many people dispute, as there is little proof the shooter had any political affiliation or that there was a greater conspiracy.
Antifa gets its name from compacting the term “anti-facist” and has its roots in 1920s and 1930s Europe, where groups formed to push back against growing fascist movements.
Concerns have been raised regarding the legality of such an order, or even how such an order should be carried out, with Antifa not really being an organisation at all in the USA, just a loosely connected network of protest groups. Seth G. Jones from the Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) wrote in 2020 after Trump had suggested a similar move: “While President Trump raised the possibility of designating Antifa as a terrorist organization, such a move would be problematic. It would trigger serious First Amendment challenges and raise numerous questions about what criteria should be used to designate far-right, far-left, and other extremist groups in the United States. In addition, Antifa is not a “group” per se, but rather a decentralised network of individuals. Consequently, it is unlikely that designating Antifa as a terrorist organisation would even have much of an impact.”
BBC releases short film calling for Gaza access
A short film premiered on Wednesday and launched by the BBC, AFP, AP and Reuters called for international journalists to be allowed into Gaza.
Independent reporters have been refused entry to the strip since the 7 October attacks on Israel, leading to repeated calls for access from foreign press and governments.
In a statement Deborah Turness, CEO of BBC News, said: “As journalists, we record the first draft of history. But in this conflict, reporting is falling solely to a small number of Palestinian journalists, who are paying a terrible cost.
“It is almost two years since October 7th when the world witnessed Hamas’ atrocities. Since then, a war has been raging in Gaza but international journalists are not allowed in. We must now be let into Gaza. To work alongside local journalists, so we can all bring the facts to the world.”
You can watch the short film here.
Chinese Journalist Zhang Zhan jailed for “picking quarrels and provoking trouble”
Chinese lawyer and journalist Zhang Zhan has been sentenced to four years imprisonment for “picking quarrels and provoking trouble”.
Zhan was jailed in 2020 for reporting on the Covid-19 outbreak in Wuhan through her YouTube and Twitter (now X) accounts and is just one of many writers and journalists currently imprisoned in China.
Released in May 2024 she was arrested again by police three months later whilst travelling to report on the arrest of an activist in the province of Gansu.
Concerns are mounting over Zhan’s health after she has reportedly gone on repeated hunger strikes to protest her arrest.
Ex-FBI director James Comey indicted on two charges
Ex-director of the FBI James Comey has been indicted on two charges by a Virginia court this week.
Comey has been charged with one count of making false statements and one count of obstruction of justice according to the indictment.
Comey was appointed FBI director in 2013 by then President Barack Obama and served in this role until his firing in 2017 by President Donald Trump, during an investigation into links between the Trump campaign and Russia in the 2016 presidential election.
In 2020 Comey faced a congressional hearing where he defended the investigation, stating: “In the main, it was done by the book, it was appropriate and it was essential that it be done, there were parts of it that were concerning.”
It is at this hearing that Comey is accused of knowingly lying to congress whilst being questioned about the FBI’s handling of both the Russia investigation and an investigation into a private email server used by Hilary Clinton.
Comey’s trial is notably being held in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, known as the espionage court, and famously host to cases such as that of Edward Snowden, and CIA whistleblower John Kiriakou.
3 Sep 2025 | Americas, News and features, United States, Volume 54.02 Summer 2025
This article first appeared in Volume 54, Issue 2 of our print edition of Index on Censorship, titled Land of the Free?: Trump’s war on speech at home and abroad, published on 21 July 2025. Read more about the issue here.
In late April, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt decided to do things differently by holding a new type of press briefing. Instead of fielding questions from credentialled journalists, she held separate briefings specifically for social media news influencers.
“Tens of millions of Americans are now turning to social media and independent media outlets to consume their news, and we are embracing that change, not ignoring it,” Leavitt said at the beginning of the first such briefing on 28 April.
Jackson Gosnell – a college student who runs a popular TikTok news account and sometimes appears on the pro-Donald Trump broadcaster One America News – attended that briefing. He asked about Russia’s war in Ukraine given Trump’s promise to end it quickly.
“I thought it was important to ask questions that people at home wanted to know,” Gosnell told Index. “Not the fluff that others might have given.”
Unsurprisingly, nearly all the 25 people identified by NBC as having attended that week’s briefings at the White House have a history of clear support for Trump. The “fluff” from the other news influencers – dubbed “newsfluencers” or “news brokers” by various academics – included a combination of softball questions, overt praise for Trump, false information and conspiracy theories.
But how did these people make their way into the heart of the federal government? In January, Leavitt announced that “new media” – such as podcasters and social media influencers – would be permitted to apply for credentials to cover the White House. She began reserving a rotating “new media” seat at regular press briefings and giving its occupant the first question. Analysis by The New York Times found that the seat often went to either right-wing media or newer outlets such as digital start-ups Semafor and Axios.
The White House then took over the press pool in February, giving it control for the first time in a century over which reporters were permitted close access to cover the president. It announced it would start inviting “new media” to join the press pool, with most of the invited outlets being conservative or right-wing, according to analysis by the non-profit Poynter Institute for Media Studies.
Historically organised by the independent White House Correspondents’ Association, the press pool is a group of rotating journalists, who cover the president up close every day for a wider group of media, who are known as the press corps.
The rise of citizen journalism in the USA has been a long time coming. But in the months since Trump returned to the Oval Office, the phenomenon has quickly reached a crescendo as the White House embraces pro-Trump newsfluencers in a way that has never been done before.
Former president Joe Biden invited social media influencers to the White House, too. But the current administration openly welcomes, champions and legitimises pro-Trump newsfluencers and other members of the “new media” cohort – many of whom tend to disseminate falsehoods and conspiracies.
The White House has simultaneously used other mechanisms – such as co-opting the press pool – to box out traditional media and make it more difficult for mainstream journalists to cover the current administration.
Multiple academics said that, taken together, these phenomena are concerning for US democracy because they make holding the president accountable a taller order. They also send the message to the rest of the world that the USA doesn’t care as much about championing global press freedom as it once did.
“This is about trying to eliminate criticism and dissent,” Kathy Kiely, chair of free press studies at the Missouri School of Journalism, said. “[It’s] lapdogs versus watchdogs.”
The White House’s spokesperson Anna Kelly told Index over email that the media has enjoyed “an unprecedented level of access to President Trump, who is the most transparent and accessible president in history.”
“Under the president’s leadership, the press office has been more inclusive of new media, whose audiences often dwarf those of legacy media outlets, and local syndicates – ensuring that the president’s message reaches as many Americans as possible,” she added.
The concept of a newsfluencer is relatively new. In the USA, they were once on the fringes of the media ecosystem. But the 2020 election and the subsequent “big lie” narrative – that the election was stolen from Trump – was a major inflection point that accelerated the rise of far-right newsfluencers. False narratives about the Covid-19 pandemic and the 6 January insurrection in 2021 also helped facilitate their ascent.
Many rose to prominence by deliberately differentiating themselves from the mainstream media. But now some of them are on the verge of entering the mainstream themselves, if they haven’t already.
“These Maga [Make America Great Again] influencers see their role not as sceptical journalists but as boosters of the president and his administration,” said Aidan McLaughlin, editor-in-chief of the media news site Mediaite.
The months leading up to the 2024 presidential election crystallised the vast reach that newsfluencers now wield. Trump appeared on an array of podcasts and online shows popular with male audiences, including the Joe Rogan Experience podcast. Former vice-president Kamala Harris also turned to “new media” in her campaign.
It’s difficult to measure the extent that newsfluencers impact how people vote or think about societal issues, said Roxana Muenster, a graduate in communications at Cornell University in New York who studies far-right lifestyle movements online. She said the outsized role they played around the 2024 election was undeniable.
Shortly after the election, a Pew Research Centre report confirmed the growing power that newsfluencers hold. Roughly one in five Americans regularly get news from influencers on social media, the report found, and about two-thirds of that group say this helps them better understand current events and civic issues.
No longer on the outskirts of the US media sphere, right-wing TikTokers and podcasters are now welcomed into the White House. Some, such as Laura Loomer, influence Trump himself (her sway has allegedly led to the sacking of several government officials, including former national security adviser Mike Waltz).
Others – including Robert F Kennedy Jr, Kash Patel and Dan Bongino – have even become members of the administration.
To a certain extent, these newsfluencers don’t really need the White House, says Muenster, because they already have significant followings of their own. But they do get something else out of it.
“It bestows them with a certain legitimacy,” she said. “It says that these are reliable sources to get your news from.”
This can pose problems when the newsfluencers aren’t actually reliable or accurate, as is often the case. “They are not as strict with the truth as people in the actual news industry,” Muenster said.
That means false information and conspiracy theories can run rampant, which doesn’t bode well for the health of US democracy.
Disinformation and misinformation can erode trust in institutions and make authoritarianism seem more appealing, according to Mert Bayar, a post-doctoral scholar at the University of Washington’s Centre For an Informed Public.
“In a normal democracy, you want credible sources of information,” he said.
For instance, while in the “new media” seat during an official briefing in late April, Tim Pool – the prominent host of several conservative podcasts, which last year were found to have links to Russian state media – lambasted “legacy media” for “hoaxes” about Trump and asked Leavitt to comment on their “unprofessional behaviour”. (“We want to welcome all viewpoints into this room,” Leavitt replied.)
And at one of the influencer briefings, Dominick McGee – a highly-followed conspiracy theorist on X who operates under the pseudonym Dom Lucre – asked Leavitt whether Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton would ever be investigated for election integrity. Forbes reported that McGee was briefly suspended from X (then Twitter) in 2023 for posting a video of child sexual abuse.
Leavitt said McGee’s question was “refreshing” and that “the legacy media would never ask” it.
In a phone interview, McGee told Index he thought US media was “broken” and had “betrayed the American people”.
He said he considers himself a journalist; but he also said he was more concerned with being “freaking entertaining”.
Like McGee, Gosnell thinks mainstream media is dead and influencers are the future of the media industry.
But compared with other “new media” in the Trump orbit, Gosnell is relatively balanced in how he delivers the news. Even though he welcomes the rise of the newsfluencer, he knows it comes with risks. “It’s a little scary, too, because people on the internet can lie just as much as news hosts – if not [more],” Gosnell said.
Still, he is sometimes tempted to produce more opinionated content, adding: “It seems way more profitable.”
The White House gets something out of its new arrangement, too, according to Bayar. Speaking directly to Maga newsfluencers gives the White House a sympathetic ear to peddle its messages to. Meanwhile, prioritising these voices also limits the ability of journalists from mainstream outlets to ask hard questions that can hold the administration accountable.
To Bayar, the situation in the USA reminds him of his home country, Turkey, where the government picks and chooses which journalists are and aren’t allowed at press conferences with president Recep Tayyip Erdoğan.
“It is part of this authoritarian playbook,” said Bayar. “If you don’t get asked tough questions, you can actually control public opinion better because you control your answers.”
While the White House’s embrace of Maga newsfluencers appears to be bad news for democracy in the “land of liberty” and the home of the First Amendment, it also has implications for the rest of the world.
The USA has historically championed press freedom globally. But the administration’s simultaneous embrace of pro-Trump influencers and attacks on critical media signal that Washington doesn’t really care about independent journalism anywhere in the world, according to Kiely. “It sends a very strong signal to dictators elsewhere,” she said.
Some authoritarian countries appear to have already been emboldened by Trump’s actions. As part of the Azerbaijani government’s crackdown on independent media, authorities in May imprisoned Voice of America contributor Ulviyya Guliyeva. Press freedom experts and her colleagues believe the Trump administration’s campaign to gut VOA emboldened Baku to target the reporter.
As McLaughlin says, “this has a bad ripple effect on the rest of the world”.
29 Aug 2025 | Americas, Europe and Central Asia, Iran, Israel, Middle East and North Africa, News and features, Palestine, United Kingdom, United States
Bombarded with news from all angles every day, important stories can easily pass us by. To help you cut through the noise, every Friday Index publishes a weekly news roundup of some of the key stories covering censorship and free expression. This week, we look at the Israeli “double-tap” strike on a hospital that killed 20 people, and the sexual misconduct libel case of actor Noel Clarke.
In public interest: Actor Noel Clarke loses libel case against The Guardian
Prominent English actor Noel Clarke has lost a lengthy sexual misconduct libel case in High Court against The Guardian in which 26 witnesses testified against him.
The landmark case was based on a series of articles and a podcast published by the Guardian between April 2021 and March 2022 in which more than 20 women accused Clarke of sexual misconduct, with allegations ranging from unwanted sexual contact to taking and sharing explicit pictures without consent. The actor claimed that these allegations were false, bringing libel charges against the Guardian over what he believed was an unlawful conspiracy, reportedly seeking £70 million in damages if his case was successful.
Mrs Justice Steyn, ruling on the case, gave the verdict that the Guardian succeeded in defending themselves against the legal action on truth and public interest grounds, with Steyn stating that Clarke “was not a credible or reliable witness”, and that his claims of conspiracy were “born of necessity” due to the sheer number of witnesses testifying against him. In a summary of the findings, she ruled that the allegations made were “substantially true.”
The UK Anti-SLAPP Coalition, headed by Index on Censorship, have stated that while this is a crucial ruling, the case “exerted a significant toll on The Guardian and its journalists”, and that a universal anti-SLAPP law is necessary to avoid similar situations from occurring. Index also stated that “public interest journalism needs greater protections”. Katharine Viner, editor-in-chief of the Guardian, wrote this was a landmark ruling for investigative journalism and for the women involved. During proceedings, the court heard that one woman had been threatened with prosecution by Clarke’s lawyers in what was described by the lawyer acting for the Guardian as an attempt at witness intimidation.
Back–to–back strikes: more journalists killed in “double tap” attack on Gaza hospital
An Israeli attack in which two missiles hit back-to-back on the same Gaza hospital has killed at least 20 people, including four health workers and five journalists.
The attack struck Nasser Hospital in Khan Younis, southern Gaza Strip, at approximately 10am on Monday 26 August. An initial missile hit the hospital, killing at least one person – then approximately ten minutes later, when rescue workers and journalists had flooded the scene, a second strike hit the hospital. This second attack was broadcast live on Al Ghad TV, and showed a direct hit on aid workers and reporters,. The nature of the attack has led to it being dubbed a “double-tap”, a military tactic in which an initial strike on a target is followed up shortly after with a second strike, which targets those who rush to the scene.. The IDF have released an initial inquiry into the attack, and are further investigating “several gaps” in how this incident came to pass.
The five media workers killed were Reuters journalist Hussam al-Masri who died in the initial strike, and Mohammad Salama of Al-Jazeera, Mariam Dagga of Associated Press, Ahmed Abu Aziz of Middle East Eye, and independent journalist Moaz Abu Taha killed subsequently. The attack follows a targeted Israeli strike on 10 August that left four Al-Jazeera journalists and three media workers dead. The Committee to Protect Journalists have documented that at least 189 Palestinian journalists have been killed by Israeli attacks in Gaza since the start of the war.
Putting out fires: Trump attempts to ban the burning of American flags
Donald Trump is moving to ban the burning of United States flags – an act that has been protected under a Supreme Court ruling since 1989.
Stating that burning the flag “incites riots at levels we’ve never seen before,” Trump signed an executive order that calls for Attorney General Pam Bondi to challenge a court ruling that categorises flag burning as legitimate political expression under the constitution. He outlined how anyone caught committing the offence would be subject to one year in jail – a statement that will be tested soo. Mere hours after signing the order a 20-year-old man was arrested for burning an American flag just outside the White House.
The White House published a fact sheet that described desecrating the American flag as “uniquely and inherently offensive and provocative”, and referenced the burning of the flag at the 2025 Los Angeles protests alongside conduct “threatening public safety”. They argue that despite the 1989 ruling, the Supreme Court did not intend for flag burning that is “likely to incite imminent lawless action” or serve as a form of “fighting words’” to be constitutionally protected.
The crime of online activism: Iranian activist sentenced to prison over social media activism
Iranian student activist Hasti Amiri has been sentenced in absentia to three years in prison for her social media advocacy for women’s rights and against the death penalty.
Amiri, who previously served 7 months in a Tehran prison in 2022 over her anti-death penalty stance, has been sentenced by a Revolutionary Court in Iran to three years imprisonment and a 500 million Iranian rial fine for “spreading falsehoods” and “propaganda against the state”, as well as a 30.3 million rial fine for appearing without a hijab in public.
Amiri reported all of the charges against her in a post on Instagram, writing that “When simply opposing the death penalty is considered propaganda against the state, then execution itself is a political tool of intimidation”. She is the latest human rights activist to face criminal charges in Iran – Sharifeh Mohammadi was recently sentenced to death for “rebelling against the just Islamic ruler(s)”, and student activist Motahareh Goonei was this week sentenced to 21 months in prison for the same crime of “propaganda against the state”.
Reforming local government: Reform UK bans local press access in Nottinghamshire
Journalists from the Nottingham Post have been banned from speaking to Reform UK members of Nottinghamshire County Council in what has been called a “massive attack on local democracy.”
Mick Barton, Reform’s council leader in Nottinghamshire reportedly took issue with the paper following an alleged dispute over an article covering a disagreement between councillors. The decision has been condemned by three former county council leaders, and has drawn scrutiny from national groups such as the National Union of Journalists and the Society of Editors.
The ban also covers reporters at the Nottingham Post from the BBC-funded Local Democracy Reporting Service which shares stories with media outlets across the country. The newspaper has also found out that press officers at the council have been told to take reporters off media distribution lists, meaning they won’t get press releases or be invited to council events. Leader of the opposition and former council leader Sam Smith criticised the ban: “The free press play a key role in keeping residents informed of actions being taken by decision makers and in return the press express the views of residents to the politicians and public in publishing balanced articles.”
Reform MP for Ashfield Lee Anderson, who has a history of disagreements with the Nottingham Post, has announced that he will also be joining the boycott. This follows social media posts from the MP accusing journalists of having a negative bias towards the party.
