Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales speaking at Westminster Media Forum, April 2018. Credit: Daniel Bruce
“The advertising-only business model has been incredibly destructive for journalism,” said Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales at a Westminster Media Forum event on Thursday 26 April 2018 in London that looked at “fake news”.
“We need to resolve the incentives so that it makes sense and is financially sustainable to do good news,” Wales added.
Wales cited examples of false news stories that had been published on the Mail Online, such as an article featuring a projection of a perfect horizon in Beijing, erected as a way to compensate for the pollution, which proved fake, and a story claiming the Pope supported Donald Trump. He said the Daily Mail of 20 years ago was different. While not what he would choose to read, he thinks there is a place in the media landscape for tabloids, but one running fake news is “a quantum leap we should be very concerned about”.
Suggesting alternatives to advertising-only models, Wales said the Guardian’s donation request box (which he admitted he had consulted on) was an excellent example of how a media organisation can earn money without compromising standards. Meanwhile, a total paywall was very beneficial for some media, in particular financial media, with those readers valuing inside knowledge on the markets, though it would not suit all (the Guardian’s Snowden files, for example, were information he said he would want everyone to be able to access at the same time).
Wales’s concerns about the advertising-only, clickbait-style media models were echoed by others throughout the conference. Drawing an impressive panel of industry experts across media, law and tech, they all united in the view that while fake news meant a myriad of things to many different people, and was not something new, it was nevertheless problematic. Mark Borkowski, founder and head of Borkowski PR, spoke of the 19th-century great moon hoax and how “everything is different and everything is the same” before adding: “The speed at which we expect to get information, without proper fact-checking, is a plague.”
Nic Newman from the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism proposed different ways for media to gain more trust, of which “slowing down” was one. Richard Sambrook, former director of global news at the BBC and now director of the Centre for Journalism at Cardiff University, said the rise in the number of opinion pieces over evidenced-based journalism was because they were cheaper to commission.
Better education about what constitutes good quality, reliable media was another solution proposed.
“Audiences need better education and sensitivity around algorithms,” said Kathryn Geels, from Digital Catapult.
Katie Lloyd, who is development director at the BBC’s School Report and who runs workshops around the country educating school children into news literacy, said there was a sense of urgency and confusion when it came to the topic and that teachers feel like it really needs to be taught.
“Young people are on the one hand savvy and on the other not so much and need extra help,” said Lloyd, adding that of those children she had interacted with, most knew what fake news was in principle, but not how to spot it.
“When we started talking to teachers they said they didn’t have the tools and the skills to teach it,” she added, tapping into a point raised by head of home news and deputy head of newsgathering at Sky, Sarah Whitehead, who said media education was just as important for older people as it was for the young, as the world of online was not the domain of only one group.
Lloyd also explained that diversity was essential when it came to who was delivering news as people were more likely to trust news from those they could relate to. This was in response to an audience member saying they had spoken to school children who expressed that they respected news on Vice over the BBC. Lloyd agreed that it was essential for news organisations to have a wide range of people in terms of age and background. [/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_basic_grid post_type=”post” max_items=”4″ element_width=”6″ grid_id=”vc_gid:1524822984082-ad9d065c-d104-5″ taxonomies=”6564″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]President Donald Trump’s decision to take on athletes who choose to kneel during the national anthem at the start of professional sports games shows his disregard for the protections offered by the US Constitution’s First Amendment.
“The ability to choose to ‘take the knee’ in protest at what individuals see as injustice is protected by the First Amendment. While no one is saying the president or anyone else needs to agree with refusing to stand during The Star-Spangled Banner, the protections offered by the US Constitution enable Americans to make their own ‘statements’. Acting in accordance with the rights enshrined in the Constitution is respecting the ideals that the national anthem represents,” Jodie Ginsberg, CEO of Index on Censorship said.[/vc_column_text][vc_separator][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column width=”1/2″][vc_custom_heading text=”Stay up to date on free speech” use_theme_fonts=”yes”][vc_column_text]Index is a nonprofit that campaigns for and defends free expression worldwide. We publish work by censored writers and artists, promote debate, and monitor threats to free speech. We believe that everyone should be free to express themselves without fear of harm or persecution – no matter what their views. Join our mailing list to get our weekly newsletter.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/2″][gravityform id=”20″ title=”false” description=”false” ajax=”false”][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_separator][vc_basic_grid post_type=”post” max_items=”12″ style=”load-more” items_per_page=”4″ element_width=”6″ grid_id=”vc_gid:1506347728698-e036ca33-8297-5″ taxonomies=”986″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
Today, more than thirty cultural institutions and human rights organisations around the world, including international arts, curators’ and critics’ associations, organisations protecting free speech rights, as well as US based performance, arts and creative freedom organisations and alliances, issued a joint statement opposing United States President Donald J. Trump’s immigration ban. Read the full statement below.
On Friday, January 27th, President Trump signed an Executive Order to temporarily block citizens of seven predominantly Muslim countries from entering the United States. This order bars citizens of Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen from entering the United States for 90 days. It also suspends the entry of all refugees for 120 days and bars Syrian refugees indefinitely.
The organisations express grave concern that the Executive Order will have a broad and far-reaching impact on artists’ freedom of movement and, as a result, will seriously inhibit creative freedom, collaboration, and the free flow of ideas. US border regulations, the organisations argue, must only be issued after a process of deliberation which takes into account the impact such regulations would have on the core values of the country, on its cultural leadership, and on the world as a whole.
Representatives of several of the participating organisations issued additional statements on the immigration ban and its impact on writers and artists:
Helge Lunde, Executive Director of ICORN, said, “Freedom of movement is a fundamental right. Curtailing this puts vulnerable people, people at risk and those who speak out against dictators and aggressors, at an even greater risk.”
Svetlana Mintcheva, Director of Programs at the US National Coalition Against Censorship (NCAC), said, “In a troubled and divided world, we need more understanding, not greater divisions. It is the voices of artists that help us understand, empathise, and see the common humanity underlying the separations of political and religious differences. Silencing these voices is not likely to make us any safer.”
Suzanne Nossel, Executive Director of PEN America, said, “The immigration ban is interfering with the ability of artists and creators to pursue their work and exercise their right to free expression. In keeping with its mission to defend open expression and foster the free flow of ideas between cultures and across borders, PEN America vows to fight on behalf of the artists affected by this Executive Order.”
Diana Ramarohetra, Project Manager of Arterial Network, said, “A limit on mobility and limits on freedom of expression has the reverse effect – to spur hate and ignorance. Artists from Somalia and Sudan play a crucial role in spreading the message to their peers about human rights, often putting themselves at great risk in countries affected by ongoing conflict. Denying them safety is to fail them in our obligation to protect and defend their rights.”
Ole Reitov, Executive Director of Freemuse, said, “This is a de-facto cultural boycott, not only preventing great artists from performing, but even negatively affecting the US cultural economy and its citizens rights to access important diversity of artistic expressions.”
Shawn Van Sluys, Director of Musagetes and ArtsEverywhere, said, “Musagetes/ArtsEverywhere stands in solidarity with all who protect artist rights and the freedom of mobility. It is time for bold collective actions to defend free and open inquiry around the world.”
A growing number of organisations continue to sign the statement.
JOINT STATEMENT REGARDING THE IMPACT OF THE US IMMIGRATION BAN ON ARTISTIC FREEDOM
Freedom of artistic expression is fundamental to a free and open society. Uninhibited creative expression catalyses social and political engagement, stimulates the exchange of ideas and opinions, and encourages cross-cultural understanding. It fosters empathy between individuals and communities, and challenges us to confront difficult realities with compassion.
Restricting creative freedom and the free flow of ideas strikes at the heart of the core values of an open society. By inhibiting artists’ ability to move freely in the performance, exhibition, or distribution of their work, United States President Trump’s January 27 Executive Order, blocking immigration from seven countries to the United States and refusing entry to all refugees, jettisons voices which contribute to the vibrancy, quality, and diversity of US cultural wealth and promote global understanding.
The Executive Order threatens the United States safe havens for artists who are at risk in their home countries, in many cases for daring to challenge repressive regimes. It will deprive those artists of crucial platforms for expression and thus deprive all of us of our best hopes for creating mutual understanding in a divided world. It will also damage global cultural economies, including the cultural economy of the United States.
Art has the power to transcend historical divisions and socio-cultural differences. It conveys essential, alternative perspectives on the world. The voices of cultural workers coming from every part of the world – writers, visual artists, musicians, filmmakers, and performers – are more vital than ever today, at a time when we must listen to others in the search for unity and global understanding, when we need, more than anything else, to imagine creative solutions to the crises of our time.
As cultural or human rights organisations, we urge the United States government to take into consideration all these serious concerns and to adopt any regulations of United States borders only after a process of deliberation, which takes into account the impact such regulations would have on the core values of the country, on its cultural leadership, as well as on the world as a whole.
African Arts Institute (South Africa)
Aide aux Musiques Innovatrices (AMI) (France)
Alliance for Inclusion in the Arts (USA)
Arterial (Africa)
Artistic Freedom Initiative (USA)
ArtsEverywhere (Canada)
Association of Art Museum Curators and Association of Art Museum Curators Foundation
Association Racines (Morocco)
Bamboo Curtain Studio (Taiwan)
Cartoonists Rights Network International
Cedilla & Co. (USA)
Culture Resource – Al Mawred Al Thaqafy (Lebanon)
International Committee for Museums and Collections of Modern Art (CIMAM)
College Art Association (USA)
European Composer and Songwriter Alliance (ECSA)
European Council of Artists
Freemuse: Freedom of Expression for Musicians
Index on Censorship: Defending Free Expression Worldwide
Independent Curators International
International Arts Critics Association
International Network for Contemporary Performing Arts
The International Cities of Refuge Network (ICORN)
Levy Delval Gallery (Belgium)
Geneva Ethnography Museum (Switzerland)
National Coalition Against Censorship (USA)
New School for Drama Arts Integrity Initiative (USA)
Observatoire de la Liberté de Création (France)
On the Move | Cultural Mobility Information Network
PEN America (USA)
Queens Museum (USA)
Roberto Cimetta Fund
San Francisco Art Institute (USA)
Stage Directors and Choreographers Society (SDC) (USA)
Tamizdat (USA)
Vera List Center for Art and Politics, New School (USA)[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_basic_grid post_type=”post” max_items=”4″ element_width=”6″ grid_id=”vc_gid:1486570424977-7a30af48-045a-3″ taxonomies=”3784″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
Donald Trump, who controversially called for a temporary ban on Muslims entering the USA, will not be banned from entering the UK after a debate over whether he should be allowed to enter the UK. In September 2015, Tyler, the Creator, an American hip-hop artist known for his controversial lyrics, did not fare so well.
On 26 August 2015, the musician was banned from entering the UK because of words he had penned for songs released in 2009. That day, Tyler explained the situation on Twitter, saying: “BASED ON LYRICS FROM 2009 I AM NOT ALLOWED IN THE UK FOR 3-5 YEARS (although I was there 8 weeks ago) THAT IS WHY THE SHOWS WERE CANCELLED.”
Speaking to Vice at the time, Index on Censorship’s chief executive Jodie Ginsberg said: “The British government has talked repeatedly in recent months about the importance of free expression and yet shown again and again through its actions that this commitment is half-hearted. Free expression includes allowing those whose speech others find offensive to express themselves. Tyler, the Creator, should be allowed to perform.”
Tyler’s lyrics have a tendency to push buttons, with his adopted alter ego Wolf Haley spitting rhymes about raping pregnant women and using a hefty variety of slurs. However, he stands firm on the fact that his lyrical content in no way a represents him as an individual and what he believes. In an interview with the Guardian, he said: “The thing that irks me about it is that the paper saying I am denied entry to UK clearly states that these songs were written from [the perspective of] an alter ego — which means they obviously did some research on these songs that they’re detaining me for.”
Additionally, in one of his most popular tracks, Radicals, he opens the song saying: “Hey, don’t do anything I say in this song, okay? It’s fuckin’ fiction. If anything happens, don’t fuckin’ blame me, white America, fuck Bill O’Reilly.” Seconds after the disclaimer, the MC launches into a tornado of aggressive bass and lines about defying what others think of him.
Tyler wasn’t the first rapper to be banned from the UK; both Busta Rhymes and Snoop Dogg have been denied entry because of convictions for criminal offences in the US. However, he is the first to be denied due to the content of his art.
Index on Censorship has teamed up with the producers of the award-winning They Will Have To Kill Us First to create the Music in Exile Fund to support musicians facing censorship globally. You can donate here, or by texting “BAND61 £10” to 70070 to give £10.
