Introducing News Sniffer (@news_sniffer)

Hello World! http://t.co/7zkQ3zsG
— News Sniffer (@news_sniffer) March 30, 2012

Yesterday we introduced Irishnewsdiffs.com, today it's News Sniffer. A tool and tracker that does the same job but for the banner online newspapers.

We're now monitoring selected feeds from The @Independent and The @washingtonpost http://t.co/3jJUWOO0qt
— News Sniffer (@news_sniffer) February 12, 2014

News Sniffer now tracks changes to The New York Times articles: http://t.co/xoTngQTL #nytimes
— News Sniffer (@news_sniffer) August 28, 2012

Added Guardian's Comment is Free article feed. Support for the New York Times is in the pipes too. http://t.co/7zkLvZjw
— News Sniffer (@news_sniffer) August 22, 2012

Introducing irishnewsdiffs.com (@IrishNewsDiffs)

http://t.co/hAYmpcvhWS is now live. Tracking changes to http://t.co/l0k311Hu63 and http://t.co/OtrZXcgasw << I see this becoming invaluable.
— TJ McIntyre (@tjmcintyre) April 7, 2014

@tjmcintyre @Tupp_Ed To highlight differences in coverage? Can you explain? I think I have a case of Monday brain.
— Bernard Tyers (@bernardtyers) April 14, 2014

@bernardtyers Hopefully it will show up the effect of defamation threats. Also, other changes in response to pressure.
— TJ McIntyre (@tjmcintyre) April 14, 2014

Further explanation here:

"Irish NewsDiffs archives changes in articles after publication. Currently, we track rte.ie, and irishtimes.com. 

NewsDiffs, which was born out of the Knight Mozilla MIT hackathon in June 2012, is trying to solve the problem of archiving news in the constantly evolving world of online journalism.

The original NewsDiffs is at newsdiffs.org

This version was launched in April 2014 to track changes to Irish news websites.

The trouble with conflict journalism

@BBCnireland @SpotlightNI conflict journalism at its worst and so juxtaposed to state visit, playing into hands of the bigots? How's that?
— Prof John D Brewer (@Prof_johnbrewer) April 8, 2014

The State Visit of Michael D. Higgins to England and the banquet coincided with a BBC broadcast on alleged IRA gunrunner "Spike" Murray. This caused quite a stir on Twitter. This shows how conflict journalism remains controversial and divided. Some taking a censorial stance. Others more frontal. It shows how some stories could be hidden by fear of causing instability.

.@Prof_johnbrewer @SpotlightNI Are you saying, professor, that you would prefer the BBC not to make politically-sensitive revelations?
— Sam McBride (@SJAMcBride) April 8, 2014

.@Prof_johnbrewer @SpotlightNI You sound nostalgic for the 'responsible' BBC of the 1920s when controversial issues couldn't be reported
— Sam McBride (@SJAMcBride) April 9, 2014

Jaw-droppingly disgraceful tweets from QUB academic @Prof_johnbrewer re: last night's Spotlight. Unbelievable.
— Newton Emerson (@NewtonEmerson) April 9, 2014

Intimidating and criminalising journalism

Glenn Greenwald with his partner who was detained in Heathrow under the Terrorism Act

[Earlier post by Brian Spencer on criminalising journalism in the US here]


In 2003 the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) raiding the house of  two well known journalists, Liam Clarke (@LIAMCLARKECJ) and Kathryn Johnston (@kathrynjohnston). The police removed 21 bagfuls of the computers and material and detained the two journalists for 23 hours. Police searched their home and battered down the door of their office.

Mick Fealty - Censoring dissent in Northern Ireland with violence and intimidation

Northern Ireland playwright Gary Mitchell was forced into hiding by a loyalist gang

Northern Ireland paramilitaries and gangs are notoriously intolerant of dissent or people who speak out. Mick Fealty said in an article in the Guardian, 'Freedom of speech: a matter of life and death':

"[Sean O'Callaghan speaks of] the burdensome intolerance of dissent which inflects all manner of political and cultural discourse [in Northern Ireland]. In the pre-modern political realities of significant parts of Belfast - expulsion is the preferred option. 

And as [Glenn] Patterson argues, this intolerance cuts across the cultural divide. The consequent loss of the talent represented by the forced departure of playwright Gary Mitchell damages all of Northern Ireland's society. It should serve as a warning to the post modern world beyond his native Rathcoole Estate, of the nasty consequences of the routine compromising of freedom of speech and expression."

Gary Mitchell was forced out of his home in the Belfast suburb of Rathcoole in November 2005. This happened after his house was attacked by loyalist paramilitaries. He also received a death-threat. He and his family are now living in hiding somewhere in Northern Ireland.

Mick Fealty in full here.

Ruth Dudley Edwards - Council "censored" report on violence

Ruth Dudley Edwards (@RuthDE) has accused Fermanagh district council of censorship. This comes after they forced the removal of her reporting that there had been violence associated with the Orange Order. She said:

"What happened happened and there is no hope for Northern Ireland if the past is airbrushed out because it doesn’t suit politicians or public officials."

Previously looked at Ed Moloney who said censorship extended Troubles by up to 15 years. Mick Fealty also noted that "journalists were sometimes told to hold back on a story in case they might do damage to the delicate administration." Read more in the Impartial Reporter here. 

DUP oppose attempt to make the new councils record their meetings

DUP oppose attempt to make the new councils record their meetings. But this morning the Assembly has voted it through http://t.co/3hWfBhf3CU
— Sam McBride (@SJAMcBride) March 19, 2014

@Kenanmalik "on the importance of the right to offend"

Kenan Malik (@kenanmalik) is a writer, lecturer and broadcaster, including a presenter of BBC Radio 4's Analysis. His last book From Fatwa to Jihad was shortlisted for the Orwell Prize. He recently wrote a piece on his blog, 'On the importance of the right to offend.' He said:

"There is something truly bizarre (and yet in keeping with the zeitgeist of our age) that someone should become the focus of death threats and an international campaign of vilification for suggesting that an inoffensive cartoon was, well, inoffensive. 

From the Rushdie affair to the controversy over the Danish cartoons, from the forcing offstage of Gurpreet Kaur Bhatti’s play Behzti to the attempt this week by members of Northern Ireland’s Democratic Unionist Party to shut down the Reduced Shakespeare Company’s production of The Bible: The Complete Word Of God (a decision thankfully later reversed),  reactionaries have often used campaigns against ‘offence’ as a political weapon with which to harass opponents and as a means of bolstering their community support. The anti-Nawaz campaign is no different. Muhammad Shafiq and Muhammad Ansar both have had public spats with Nawaz, and both are cynically exploiting the claim of ‘offensiveness’ to reclaim political kudos."

Ed Moloney - Censorship in Ireland and Northern Ireland

The Irish journalist Ed Moloney wrote in the Nieman Reports of Hardvard University here. He started with a brief historical sweep:

"Censorship has a long if not very honorable place in Irish history. The British imposed press controls during the 1919-21 war of independence, as did the pro-Treaty side in the subsequent Irish civil war. Newspapers were forbidden, for instance, to use words like “guerilla” to describe opponents of the new Irish government. Censorship lived on after the early Troubles. In the south of Ireland it took a less political and more religious form. The state censor was allowed to ban books and films on moral grounds, i.e. when they offended Catholic doctrine or values. 

In Northern Ireland censorship remained entirely political. In the 1920’s the pro-British Unionist government passed the Special Powers Act, a draconian piece of legislation which gave the police the authority to ban any dubious expression of political thinking and to imprison those responsible.

Peter Robinson supports veto of the new Westminster libel law

Asked by the News Letter if he had any interest in the veto of Westminster's libel reform act, the First Minister Peter Robinson said:

"I certainly am interested. I have to say I am bemused at people who want to help their chums in the media out. I’ll stand up for ordinary people who are wronged by the media. The suggestion – the absurd suggestion – by some that this restricts in some way the media from doing their job and is an infringement of rights...there is a defence against any defamation case, a total defence against a defamation case, and that is truth. 

So if the media are telling the truth, what are they worried about? Why would they be concerned about this if they intended to write or to publish or to broadcast the truth? That is the defence that they could take and I think the withdrawal of that kind of legislation [in England and Wales] allows a recklessness that we’ve seen creeping in to broadcasting and media behaviour. 

The News Letter also reported that Mr Robinson, who has himself threatened to sue for libel in the past, said that it was not difficult to sue but the “costs are prohibitive”.

Original News Lertter report here. Previous posts on the veto of the Westminster libel reform by Stormont here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here.

Nick Cohen - Censorship is at its most effective when no one admits it exists

Nick Cohen wrote in The Spectator here: 

"Censorship is at its most effective when no one admits it exists."

Incinerating Ireland's Censorship Board

Fintan O'Toole wrote about the continuing existence Ireland's censorship board here:

"So far this century seven books have been referred to the board by members of the public. Not a single book has been banned. In the same period 34 “periodical publications”, mostly magazines, have been referred to the board. Nine were banned, all in 2003. So for the past decade no publication has been prohibited."

He explained its cynical effect: "Yet it’s not quite true to say that the censorship process has no effect. It retains a vestigial power in one specific area: publications about abortion. The current register of banned publications contains no books prohibited on the old and notorious grounds that they are “in general tendency indecent or obscene”. But it does still contain books banned on the grounds that “they advocate the procurement of abortion or miscarriage or the use of any method, treatment or appliance for the purpose of such procurement."

Fintan O'Toole explained why the old infrastructure must be demolished and demolished loudly. He said:

"But it is worth making a fuss, because it provides the opportunity for an official apology for the way the State allowed a few busybody philistines to inflict their dirty-minded ignorance on many of our best artists. 

There was nothing funny or quaint about censorship. It was cruel and demeaning. Beginning with Liam O’Flaherty’s The House of Gold, in 1929, serious works of literature by Irish writers from Bernard Shaw to Kate O’Brien to John McGahern were systematically banned. The brunt of censorship was borne not by pornographers but by artists: one study found that 70 per cent of books banned for indecency or obscenity in the 1930s had been reviewed by the Times Literary Supplement. 

Irish writers were specifically targeted, so that none of them could make a living from the sale of their books in Ireland. As Frank O’Connor pointed out, the real aim of the censorship was to “destroy the character and prospects of Irish writers in their own country”. As for Irish readers, they were reduced, as Samuel Beckett – banned, of course – put it, to being fed, like Irish pigs, on the “sugarbeet pulp” of romances and cowboy novels. 

This cultural vandalism is still a stain on the State. The censorship board shouldn’t be allowed to expire with a whimper. It should be incinerated sacrificially, with an official apology for its miserable existence."

In full here.

Christopher Hitchens on Censoring Pornography

In an essay on free speechChristopher   Hitchens called the urge to censor pornography a red-herring. He said:

"Other attempts at abridging free expression also come dressed up in superficially attractive packaging. As an example, surely we should forbid child pornography? In a sense this is a red herring: Anybody involved in any way in using children for sex is already prosecutable for a multitude of extremely grave crimes. Free expression doesn’t really come into it. The censor is more likely to prosecute a book like Nabokov’s Lolita and yet have no power to challenge porn czars. And surely the spending of money isn’t a form of free speech, as our Supreme Court has more than once held it is, most recently, as pertaining to political campaign contributions."

 

Anthony McIntyre - Irish News Working to Censor

You can read all about it here, here and here.

 

31 Writers and Poets Call for Stormont action on libel reform

Thirty-one leading writers, poets and playwrights – including novelists Colm Toibin, Roddy Doyle, Sebastian Barry,  Graham Linehan, Brian Keenan, academic and political analyst Lord Bew, poet Michael Longley and Lucy Caldwell have signed a letter to the First and Deputy First Minister Mr Robinson and Minister Martin McGuinness urging action to ensure that Northern Ireland does not become a forum for libel bullies.

They said that without reform to the libel system that "the people of Northern Ireland will enjoy fewer free speech protections than fellow citizens in England and Wales".

Their letter concluded:

"We call upon the Executive to redress this imbalance, and breathe life into the right that underpins all other rights: our right to freedom of speech."

The newly instllaed Finance Minister Simon Hamilton has commissioned an official report on the new Westminster legislation which will examine whether or not the new law should be extended here A public consultation on Mike Nesbitt's Bill was launched on Thursday 19 September.


Read more in full here.

The problems with Cameron's porn crackdown

Andrew Sullivan quotes a civil liberties activist here:

"Jim Killock, from the Open Rights Group, said Cameron’s plan was not only bound to fail but also sets a dangerous precedent of government intervention when it comes to freedom of expression and access to information. “I’m not sure censorship is ever the answer,” he said. “It’s a shocking attempt to claim the moral high ground. … I don’t think he fully understands what he is proposing.”"

The French Lurch Towards Social Media Censorship

These are interesting times for social media. In Dublin Fine Gael TD Tom Hayes seems to be toying with the idea of bringing in the legal control of online communications. In England and Wales the director of public prosecutions has played it cool and has put the matter out to public consultation.