Is there a connection between the censorship of the same articles – and from the same blog – exercised in The Guardian and in the Swedish mainstream press?
[This post is supposed to be linked to the following articles: SvD "Hurtig: Jag blir förbannad", "Ingen jävsinvändning från Hurtig", "Japan varnades för brister redan 2008", AB "Stängda dörrar ett måste för att fälla", "Det är ett straff i sig med utdragna rättsprocesser", DN "Assanges advokat avvaktar om jäv". Ping at Twingly was done 19/3 2011 and 06.01 and 12.52]
Foreword
The main issues - understandably occupying most minds and hearts these days - are those related to the events in Japan and particularly the emergent risks of a nuclear-related disaster.
The fact is that WikiLeaks - the project founded by Julian Assange - had warned about the risk of such nuclear-plant catastrophe in Japan associated with the event of an earthquake.
It is reported that in December 2008, an official from the International Atomic Energy Agency IAEA had warned of such catastrophe identifying "a serious problem" with nuclear reactors "in areas of Japan prone to earthquakes”. The information was part of the US diplomatic cables releases by WikiLeaks. The cables also disclosed that one top IAEA nuclear safety official, Tomihiro Taniguchi, also a former manager of Japan nuclear energy security was a not adequate as to provide a safety management in case of a nuclear catastrophe in Japan as a result of earthquakes.
See more details on the above in the The Australian's report Japan syndrome shows why we need WikiLeaks.
All of us that value in high esteem the contribution to peace and humankind that Julian Assange’s project has done - and that it may continue that outstanding while commanded by the civil courage of the project's first author - also value as banal, and anti-historic, the efforts of all those who with the help of fabricating pseudo-evidence, anti-personal media-campaigns and a variety of deceptions collaborate at the end for the destruction of Assange’s project.
All of those useful fools from the self appointed Swedish left, or self-designated as "true" liberals, or plain libertarian impostors, and who became collaborators out of sheer naivety or false patriotism, believing acting in the defence of “Swedish interests" and “cultural” values such as perfect Swedish police traditions, perfect Swedish juridical praxis and perfect “modern” legislation, are nothing but pathetic enemies of both culture, liberalism and true equality. Equality in front of justice, and legal proceedings, to start with.
Professors blogg have with the support of internationally recognized human-rights advocates - such as Naomi Wolf, also a leading spokesperson of one most important wave in modern feminism, and attorney and journalist Andrew Kreig, Director of the Washington-based Justice-Integrity project – worked to denounce such inequalities Sweden have displayed in their case against Assange. The police investigation, the irregularities in the prosecution in conjunction with the nominal accusers' “defence”, the intervention of foreign political and economic interests, the sinister link to social democratic politicians in the rendition of political prisoners to the CIA, their representation in the law firm representing the "plaintiff" (the nominal Assange accusers), the vilifying role of the media in discrediting Julian Assange, etc., etc.
Professors blogg have authored half of total articles published so far in 2011 in the Swedish blogosphere on the subject "Assange", and 90 percent of all the articles in English.
The prize to offer has been severe. Professors blogg has been subject to blockade and hijacking. We do not mind that, personally. But our public have also forced to pay a ransom.
The ransom those in power will force us to pay in order to liberate our opinion from censorship is to be “honoured” with a self-inflicted injury to the integrity of such opinion. We should do like the most of Swedish bloggers, like the rest of collaborators. We should play along with the establishment’s war against Assange. And then we should write unmolested, and our opinions publicized in the wings of the mighty.
We shall not:
La lotta continua
The Guardian
Wikileaks Central reports on censorship exercised in The Guardian regarding links to Professors blogg. (see “Possible gag order on the Guardian re Assange case?).
Update 2011-07-04: See this updated report on the Guardian issue in "More Clues Point Towards Guardian Gag Order in Assange Case" (ccwlja)
Update 2011-07-04: See this updated report on the Guardian issue in "More Clues Point Towards Guardian Gag Order in Assange Case" (ccwlja)
The report of the Guardian repeatedly erasing of links to Professors blogg was first made in WL Central. Hereby I post the reply of the The Guardian forum-member which authored the report. She is answering here to my query for details.
[Here follows Debra's email of 4 March 18:41 - subject Re: Important info. needed]
Hello Marcello,
The problem was in linking to your website and also to even mention Professors Blogg website in the text of our comment. The moderators removed at least one comment where I didn't include any link, only mentioned the name of your site.
Another time in one of my comments I mentioned Naomi Wolf's "Karl Rove, Sweden and 8 major aberrations" article and I gave the URL to her article on your website and my whole comment was removed by the Guardian moderators. But at another time I mentioned this same article again - Naomi Wolf's "8 big problems" - but I gave a link to it on another website (Newsmill, I think - the article had a slightly different title on the other site and didn't mention Karl Rove in the title) and that was NOT removed.
I also left links to articles about Thomas Bodstrom and Andrew Kreig's "Karl Rove's Swedish Connections" article on your website - both times using the URL to YOUR blog - both times the whole comment (including links) was removed.
Those are the three authors I remember.
Another time in one of my comments I mentioned Naomi Wolf's "Karl Rove, Sweden and 8 major aberrations" article and I gave the URL to her article on your website and my whole comment was removed by the Guardian moderators. But at another time I mentioned this same article again - Naomi Wolf's "8 big problems" - but I gave a link to it on another website (Newsmill, I think - the article had a slightly different title on the other site and didn't mention Karl Rove in the title) and that was NOT removed.
I also left links to articles about Thomas Bodstrom and Andrew Kreig's "Karl Rove's Swedish Connections" article on your website - both times using the URL to YOUR blog - both times the whole comment (including links) was removed.
Those are the three authors I remember.
Other Guardian readers have had exactly the same thing happen to them, but it is ALL mention of AND links to YOUR blog which are censored.
If it helps you, you can go to the Fuck Yeah Julian Assange blog because I have left detailed comments there about this whole censorship issue. If you read the days 24th, 25th, 26th February - all comments left by Debra (that is me, talking about the Guardian censorship issue) - there is more detail there.
I hope this helps.
If it helps you, you can go to the Fuck Yeah Julian Assange blog because I have left detailed comments there about this whole censorship issue. If you read the days 24th, 25th, 26th February - all comments left by Debra (that is me, talking about the Guardian censorship issue) - there is more detail there.
I hope this helps.
Debra
[Debra asked me later per email 5 March 2011 09:29 "not to print my full name or email address"].
- Show quoted text -
Quoting Marcello Ferrada de Noli:
Quoting Marcello Ferrada de Noli
4 March 2011 15:21 - subject Important info. needed
Dear Debra,
I need to know however, which are the posts from Professors blogg that were refused to be linked or referred in The Guardian
These two questions are CRUCIAL for the publication:1. Which posts (from *Professors blogg*) were blocked. You do not need to have the exact URL or remember the exact tittle. It would be enough if you remember the main-content or the author of the blog-post/s.
2. About the problem you got with these blogs in The Guardian comments. Was the problem referred to the *linking* of any of our blogs, or the problem was that The Guardian did not accept the mentioning of Progfessors blogg or the reference to a certain post in Professors blogg.
Please reply ASAP
Marcello
--
Dear Debra,
I need to know however, which are the posts from Professors blogg that were refused to be linked or referred in The Guardian
These two questions are CRUCIAL for the publication:1. Which posts (from *Professors blogg*) were blocked. You do not need to have the exact URL or remember the exact tittle. It would be enough if you remember the main-content or the author of the blog-post/s.
2. About the problem you got with these blogs in The Guardian comments. Was the problem referred to the *linking* of any of our blogs, or the problem was that The Guardian did not accept the mentioning of Progfessors blogg or the reference to a certain post in Professors blogg.
Please reply ASAP
Marcello
--
[Here follows excerpts of Debra's first email, 1 March 2011 11:15 - subject Guardian newspaper removing readers' links to your site]
Dear Professor Ferrada-Noli,
I hope you are well. Thank you for all the time and energy you devote to informing us about the Julian Assange case.
I recently asked the Guardian newspaper why they were systematically removing my comments that contained links to your blog. I got a reply! I have forwarded the original email I received below (please be careful with the names). I have tried to publicise this censorship and have managed to get the email published on WL Central. I hope this has helped direct more people to your excellent resource.
I understand the Guardian's actions as they are vulnerable to the UK's draconian libel laws; on the other hand I believe an informed public is vital to democracy.
Thank you for any help you can give.
I recently asked the Guardian newspaper why they were systematically removing my comments that contained links to your blog. I got a reply! I have forwarded the original email I received below (please be careful with the names). I have tried to publicise this censorship and have managed to get the email published on WL Central. I hope this has helped direct more people to your excellent resource.
I understand the Guardian's actions as they are vulnerable to the UK's draconian libel laws; on the other hand I believe an informed public is vital to democracy.
Thank you for any help you can give.
Kind regards,
Debra XXXX
Username = Arbed or Arbed12
(PS. Guardian moderators are leaving my detailed analyses of the legal case
untouched, for which I'm grateful. I get a lot of positive feedback from other
readers for those.)
Debra XXXX
Username = Arbed or Arbed12
(PS. Guardian moderators are leaving my detailed analyses of the legal case
untouched, for which I'm grateful. I get a lot of positive feedback from other
readers for those.)
----- Forwarded message from xxxx@guardian.co.uk -----
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 11:12:25 +0000
From: xxxx@guardian.co.uk
Reply-To: Blog.User.Help@guardian.co.uk
Subject: Comment removal
To: xxxx@onetel.com
Dear arbed,
We saw your comment asking why links to Prof Blog get removed by the moderators. All we're able to say is that certain external links potentially pose legal risk for the Guardian, and therefore have to be removed
Best
Community Moderation Team.
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 11:12:25 +0000
From: xxxx@guardian.co.uk
Reply-To: Blog.User.Help@guardian.co.uk
Subject: Comment removal
To: xxxx@onetel.com
Dear arbed,
We saw your comment asking why links to Prof Blog get removed by the moderators. All we're able to say is that certain external links potentially pose legal risk for the Guardian, and therefore have to be removedBest
Community Moderation Team.
Please consider the environment before printing this email.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Visit guardian.co.uk - newspaper website of the year
http://www.guardian.co.uk/ http://www.observer.co.uk/
To save up to 30% when you subscribe to the Guardian and the Observer
visit http://www.guardian.co.uk/subscriber
As to the Swedish case,
Uppdate. Preliminary conclusions contained in the reproduced article here below on the responsibilities of the opinion-censorship in the Swedish media apparatus were based in written information provided to us by Twingly. Twingly was specifically informed at the moment of our consultation that I was preparing an article in the issue to be published abroad. After my report was published in the Swedish Second-Opinion Twingly changed their version in 180 degrees and now affirms instead that it was not their clients, the Swedish press, that exercised censorship to the Assange-articles in Professors blogg. First they say Twingly was not the responsible and implied the newspapers moderators. Now they say the newspapers were not at all the responsible. What has happened after our publication and why Källström is giving this totally new version only those actors know.
The newspapers from their part gave inconclusive versions. Svenska dagbladet informed per email that the problem was of “technical” nature and “beyond their control”, implying that it was caused by an external actor. Expressen (web-redaktionen) informed over the telephone that the responsibility of whether blogs appeared linked to their articles is clearly Twingly’s. But the journalist giving this information when I talked to Expressen's web-redaktionen 17 March, 17:28 (call loged from Italy), in spite of giving her name did not wish to be quoted. Dagens Nyheter for their part plainly refused to comment. Twingly denied any wrongdoing.
AFTER we contacted Twingly the 11 of March and said that we were preparing a report on the Swedish media’s blog-censorship to be published abroad, Twingly finally linked Naomi Wolf’s guest-article in Professors blog to old articles (over a month ago) in the Swedish press. One of the censured articles – and that became the “pilot case” – was Naomi Wolf’s article in Professors blog the 10 of February 2011 dealing with the alleged Karl Rove’s connection in the Assange case and the wrong doings in the police investigation (“Karl Rove, Sweden, and the Eight Major Aberrations in the Police Sex Crime Reporting Process in the Assange Case. By Naomi Wolf“). In an essay of sheer deception, Twingly tries now to produce as “probe” that no censorship has been exercised against Wolf’s above article by showing screen shots that visualise such post is linked in the media article (see comment below by Martin Källström). What Källström hides is that they linked Naomi’s article only the 11 of March – after our announce on disclosing - and that they took the screen shots after that date.
The question on who has been behind this request of censorship in the Swedish media apparatus will remain surely unanswered from the part of the authors of such initiative, or from their collaborators.
The email-correspondence between Martin Källström, Twingly’s CEO, is published down below as an Appendix of this article. The readers will judge their selves. For my part, case closed.
Summary. This analysis is a follow up of a report in Second-Opinion (“Svensk media censurerar i Assange-fallet”, 2011-02-21) reviewing possible actors in the alleged censorship of the Swedish media apparatus towards opinion-articles. One conclusion here is that the link-search engines cannot be held responsible for the filtering [see update above]. Further, dissimilar levels regarding censorship are found among different newspapers. In Aftonbladet and Svenska Dagbladet problems in the likings could have been in certain cases technically-based, while in Swedish newspaper Dagens Nyheter those would be clearer ascribed to an active policy of selective censorship towards critical blog-opinions and analyses. [media 1,2,3,4,5,6, 7, 8, 9, 10]
In the context of analysing the Swedish Trial by Media against Assange I have previously reported the problems in the linking process (to Swedish mainstream-media articles) of some guest-columns and own analyses published in Professor blog. Regarding the system used by Swedish newspapers in order to display in their articles links to blog-posts related to those issues, I reported in the above referred article an earlier commentary by Martin Källström, Twingly’s Chief Executive Officer, which manifested among other:
''The newspapers which are connected to Twingly get reports from their readers if the content of a blog is inadequate. When such report arrives in Twingly’s administration-gear, intervenes the “moderator” (newspaper’s Web-controller) and look into the blog’s content. . .” “You have a serious and good blog, I cannot think that some newspaper would blockade your article.''
I commented: "In the above phrase “some newspaper would blockade your article” Twingly
unequivocally admits that a Swedish newspaper would exercise censure against the publications whose content is deemed inappropriate. The question remains: who authored the request for censuring BOTH Naomi Wolf’s and Andrew Kreig’s articles about Karl Rove, Assange and Sweden, published in the Swedish based Professors blog?"In a letter of 11 March 2011 to the Company’s Executive Director Martin Källström, Professors blogg asked Twingly Sweden to kindly help us to elucidate these two items:
“A) Where in the linking process (Professors blogg - Twingly - Swedish newspaper) the referred censorship or filtering of the referred linked articles is exercised? B) What would be the reason for the said censorship?"
Twingly answered promptly and manifested that “the most probable cause is a technical issue, and if so it will be very easily resolved.” The Company added that “If it is not a technical issue, then it is the moderators at the newspapers themselves that have made the decision to not link to your blog posts. If so they will be able to give the exact reason why and I'm sure they will publish the link after talking to you."
The fact is, as I reported previously in Second-Opinion, that I DID talk with the newspapers about this situation for over a month ago. Unfortunately, in one case (SvD) the message was inconclusive and in the other (DN), the consultation was plainly disregarded by the newspaper which did not answer at all.
The link-search engine
After Twingly investigated the technical issue in the base of a sample of links I provided, they concluded that their linking procedure it has been made correctly, according to their prevalent criteria in the “picking-up” of links from the blogosphere. Namely, the engines surveillance all blogs and eventually detect those links corresponding to media-articles provided those media-links are located among the first fifty links included in a blog-post text.
This is the synthesis of the positive and negative outcomes of the test using as pilot case a blog-post I provided. In this particular post (the pilot case) I had recently added extra links corresponding to a list of new articles published on the same subject in Profesors blogg: I) Technical staff at Twingly examined first that blog-post and they anticipated a negative result in pinging, meaning that the pilot blog-post could not have been possibly detected by the search-engine because of a) the number of links in the post exceeded N= 50, and b) the media-links were placed in the text in a position below the inserted link number 50, which it is the cut off in the engine's surveillance for each blog. II) Then I moved higher up in the text of that same blog-post (the experiment pilot-post) the links corresponding to several related media-articles, in order to allow them to be detected before all the other links. III) Finally, using that modified blog-post Twinlgy performed the Ping procedure and this time the pilot blog-post was linked almost instantaneously. I checked from my site the first of those links in the pilot blog-post and confirmed that the ping process functioned.
The above procedure would indicate that, according to an standard technical procedure, Twingly would have performed the linking from the blog towards the newspapers’ articles in every case in which the media-articles links were correctly placed (before N= 50). This then would rule out that the problem would have been occasioned by a failure of Twingly’s technical procedure specifically in regard to my pinging.
Although Professors blogg have never signalled Twingly as "THE responsible" for these non-linking episodes, I had mentioned Twingly as one of the actors operating in the linking system with reference to the articles in PB. Those assumptions regarding the linking system in the media apparatus have to be reconsidered.
[see update above].
In concrete, my conclusion is that Twingly has to be ruled out as a possible actor – within the media apparatus – in the filtering or censorship of Swedish blog-articles [see update above].
Which leave us with the rest of the actors.
The owners
There are no conclusive studies on Corporate censorship in Sweden, although the consolidation of ownership in Sweden’s main newspapers reduces the number of owners basically to two: Bonnier (principally) and Schibsted. The newspapers usually linked by Swedish blogs are Dagens Nyheter (owned by Bonnier), Svenska Dagbladet (owned 99,4% by Schibsted), Aftonbladet (owned 49,9% by Schibsted, and then LO), and Expressen (owned by Bonnier).
As I have already stated in article on the case Assange I published in Newsmill, I would not believe that there would be such determinant censorship existing in Sweden as exercised from the owners of the newspapers towards the editors or newspapers staff. This should include the on-line editions. Ergo, this actor is also ruled out.
The Swedish newspapers
With the help of Twingly’s “rules of the game” criteria which they provided me I tested anew the linking processes departing from Professors blogg’s articles on the Assange case.
Twingly has given guarantees that – provided the links to the media articles is localized in the blog-text within the range of the first 50 included links, the article would be picked up by Twingly and definitely be sent to the newspapers so they could placed in their blog-list linking to their respective article.
As referred above, the test I performed 11 March, still in contact with Twingly, resulted in that I finally could confirm that the "pilot blog-article", as we saw almost immediately, had became visibly as linked in the newest article of SvD regarding the Assange-theme. I had also linked the pilot post at the same time to an article in DN. Testing over and everything looked all right. I thanked Twingly.
However, as I saw it few hours later, the same article did not appear linked to the article of Dagens Nyheter. Astonishingly, Dagens Nyheter instead ran a message at the bottom of the DN article stating: “This article has no blog-posts” [Artikeln saknar blogg-poster].
Further, the “test-article” from Professors blog also had disappeared from the new SvD article - as we saw instants after doing the linking test med Twyling - although it remained (still until now, a day after) in the SvD’s older articles.
In the context of the present analysis, it is highly relevant to corroborate here that the very same article (“Karl Rove, Sweden, and the Eight Major Aberrations in the Police Sex Crime Reporting Process in the Assange Case. Guest-article by Naomi Wolf”) that 11 March with the assistance of Twingly staff it became finally linked (to some of the articles it was meant to), had not been accepted by the newspapers during the originally linking-process I performed manually on the 10 February 2011.
Although Professors blogg have never signalled Twingly as "THE responsible" for these non-linking episodes, I had mentioned Twingly as one of the actors operating in the linking system with reference to the articles in PB. Those assumptions regarding the linking system in the media apparatus have to be reconsidered.
[see update above].
In concrete, my conclusion is that Twingly has to be ruled out as a possible actor – within the media apparatus – in the filtering or censorship of Swedish blog-articles [see update above].
Which leave us with the rest of the actors.
The owners
There are no conclusive studies on Corporate censorship in Sweden, although the consolidation of ownership in Sweden’s main newspapers reduces the number of owners basically to two: Bonnier (principally) and Schibsted. The newspapers usually linked by Swedish blogs are Dagens Nyheter (owned by Bonnier), Svenska Dagbladet (owned 99,4% by Schibsted), Aftonbladet (owned 49,9% by Schibsted, and then LO), and Expressen (owned by Bonnier).
As I have already stated in article on the case Assange I published in Newsmill, I would not believe that there would be such determinant censorship existing in Sweden as exercised from the owners of the newspapers towards the editors or newspapers staff. This should include the on-line editions. Ergo, this actor is also ruled out.
The Swedish newspapers
With the help of Twingly’s “rules of the game” criteria which they provided me I tested anew the linking processes departing from Professors blogg’s articles on the Assange case.
Twingly has given guarantees that – provided the links to the media articles is localized in the blog-text within the range of the first 50 included links, the article would be picked up by Twingly and definitely be sent to the newspapers so they could placed in their blog-list linking to their respective article.
As referred above, the test I performed 11 March, still in contact with Twingly, resulted in that I finally could confirm that the "pilot blog-article", as we saw almost immediately, had became visibly as linked in the newest article of SvD regarding the Assange-theme. I had also linked the pilot post at the same time to an article in DN. Testing over and everything looked all right. I thanked Twingly.
However, as I saw it few hours later, the same article did not appear linked to the article of Dagens Nyheter. Astonishingly, Dagens Nyheter instead ran a message at the bottom of the DN article stating: “This article has no blog-posts” [Artikeln saknar blogg-poster].
Further, the “test-article” from Professors blog also had disappeared from the new SvD article - as we saw instants after doing the linking test med Twyling - although it remained (still until now, a day after) in the SvD’s older articles.
In the context of the present analysis, it is highly relevant to corroborate here that the very same article (“Karl Rove, Sweden, and the Eight Major Aberrations in the Police Sex Crime Reporting Process in the Assange Case. Guest-article by Naomi Wolf”) that 11 March with the assistance of Twingly staff it became finally linked (to some of the articles it was meant to), had not been accepted by the newspapers during the originally linking-process I performed manually on the 10 February 2011.
And this, particularly considering the fact that the article of Naomi Wolf in its original edited version in Professors blogg contained only 28 links all together (including n= 11 
“labels”) prior the given media-links, ergo absolutely within the N= 50 consecutive-links range determined by Twingly.
As source for the above I have the two edited versions of that guest-column of Naomi Wolf as confirmed to me per email by Blogger 2/10/2011 12:30:00 AM respectively 2/10/2011 02:56:00 PM (with the links to the newspaper-articles included).
All which reinforce the panorama on that is not Twingly, but the Swedish main newspapers which have in the past exercised this arbitrary filtering.
In the same fashion, there are other articles from Professors blogg, which, in spite of falling within the above described “50-links limit” neither have been linked in requested media articles. One example is my analysis “Does Sweden Inflict Trial by Media against Assange?” of 20 February 2011. The article has a total of 36 links in the text preceding the media-links which appear at the end of the article. The blog-link was filtered by most of the articles in the Swedish mainstream media in spite of the direct relevancy of the subject treated in conjunction to such articles.
Yet another example of link-censorship situations, in which the blog-posts was not linked at all by the Swedish mainstream press on spite it treated the very same subject as in the newspaper article, is the Professors blogg’ analysis "Comments on Judge Riddle's verdict & and lawyer Jennifer Robinson’s interview" (27 Feb 2011). I essayed to link this post to the article in SvD “Hurtig: Jag blir förbannad” of 24 Feb 2011. At the time of the linking the article in PB had only n= 33 links (or N= 44 in case n= 11 labels are also counted as “links” in the process. Further 3 links were added 7 March). In other words, all within the range of the 50 links operated by the Twingly system. The article was not linked, as seen in the list of blogs appearing at the end of the SvD article.
“labels”) prior the given media-links, ergo absolutely within the N= 50 consecutive-links range determined by Twingly.As source for the above I have the two edited versions of that guest-column of Naomi Wolf as confirmed to me per email by Blogger 2/10/2011 12:30:00 AM respectively 2/10/2011 02:56:00 PM (with the links to the newspaper-articles included).
All which reinforce the panorama on that is not Twingly, but the Swedish main newspapers which have in the past exercised this arbitrary filtering.
In the same fashion, there are other articles from Professors blogg, which, in spite of falling within the above described “50-links limit” neither have been linked in requested media articles. One example is my analysis “Does Sweden Inflict Trial by Media against Assange?” of 20 February 2011. The article has a total of 36 links in the text preceding the media-links which appear at the end of the article. The blog-link was filtered by most of the articles in the Swedish mainstream media in spite of the direct relevancy of the subject treated in conjunction to such articles.
The pictures below correspond to the blogs listed (two pages) in the Article "Hurtig: Jag blir förbannad" as it was seen 12 March 2011. Professors blogg's post Comments on Judge Riddle's verdict & and lawyer Jennifer Robinson’s interview is NOT included in the list
Finally:
I have encountered the following situation regarding the newspaper Expressen.
Just beside the article at Expressen 10 March 2011 "Polisen vän med kvinna som anmälde Assange", the newspaper run a markedly visible box stating “Do blog about this article. Comment and link this article to your blog. Then your article it will be seen here”. [”Blogga om den här artikeln. Kommentera och länka till den här artikeln i din blogg. Då kommer ditt inlägg att synas här”] and they give also there instructions as how to link Pinga din blogg hos Twingly så hittar vi den.- However, as seen in this picture taken 12 March 2011, Expressen conceals the phrase “Show the most linked / most recent blog-article“ with the trick of using white fonts against a white background (so the text listing the eventual blogs cannot possibly be visualized, for the background has the same white colour!).
Of course there were many posts in the blogosphere following that Expressen’s article. As listed in Knuff.se that day several bloggers even characterized the referred Expressen's article as a pseudo-scoop [see update above].
Further, dissimilar levels regarding the discussed censorship are to be found among different newspapers. In the case of Aftonbladet and Svenska Dagbladet problems in the likings from our blog could have been in certain cases technically-based, while the case of the main Swedish newspaper Dagens Nyheter it would be clearer ascribed to an active policy of selective censorship towards critical blog-opinions. Finally, the situation reported here about newspaper Expressen has to be investigated further, as a technical problem could explain the absence of the above mentioned blog-listing. [see update above]. The denouncing of all cases regarding Swedish media which essay selectively blog-linking with regard to the covering of the Swedish case against Assange, should be strongly continued until such censorship praxis it brings to an end.
Conclusion: A selective censorship from sectors of the mainstream press has been exercised against blog-opinions and fact-based analyses contradicting articles by that media, in connection to the case Assange as reported in Professors blogg. Who has authored this censorship initiative or been able to implemented is unclear, as actors in the Swedish media apparatus blame each other.
The arrogance displayed by some actors in the Swedish media in their pursuit of censorship, to hide, minimize or distort the truth on the irregularities in the Swedish case against Assange and Wikileaks – including those committed by the Swedish media themselves – contrast with the humble yet effective dedication of thousands independent analysts, nonetheless professional, unbound and liberate, gathered in the world forums and blogospheres.
Sweden complains these days about prestige losses abroad, but Swedes should start by protesting and demand a fair media report on this and all issues affecting the Nation. Also a significant part of the budget allowing these media to indulge in such discussible ethical adventures, are in fact public funds. The public should own the truth. Those in power should own the shame.
Marcello Ferrada-Noli
I have encountered the following situation regarding the newspaper Expressen.
Just beside the article at Expressen 10 March 2011 "Polisen vän med kvinna som anmälde Assange", the newspaper run a markedly visible box stating “Do blog about this article. Comment and link this article to your blog. Then your article it will be seen here”. [”Blogga om den här artikeln. Kommentera och länka till den här artikeln i din blogg. Då kommer ditt inlägg att synas här”] and they give also there instructions as how to link Pinga din blogg hos Twingly så hittar vi den.- However, as seen in this picture taken 12 March 2011, Expressen conceals the phrase “Show the most linked / most recent blog-article“ with the trick of using white fonts against a white background (so the text listing the eventual blogs cannot possibly be visualized, for the background has the same white colour!).
Of course there were many posts in the blogosphere following that Expressen’s article. As listed in Knuff.se that day several bloggers even characterized the referred Expressen's article as a pseudo-scoop [see update above].
Further, dissimilar levels regarding the discussed censorship are to be found among different newspapers. In the case of Aftonbladet and Svenska Dagbladet problems in the likings from our blog could have been in certain cases technically-based, while the case of the main Swedish newspaper Dagens Nyheter it would be clearer ascribed to an active policy of selective censorship towards critical blog-opinions. Finally, the situation reported here about newspaper Expressen has to be investigated further, as a technical problem could explain the absence of the above mentioned blog-listing. [see update above]. The denouncing of all cases regarding Swedish media which essay selectively blog-linking with regard to the covering of the Swedish case against Assange, should be strongly continued until such censorship praxis it brings to an end.
Conclusion: A selective censorship from sectors of the mainstream press has been exercised against blog-opinions and fact-based analyses contradicting articles by that media, in connection to the case Assange as reported in Professors blogg. Who has authored this censorship initiative or been able to implemented is unclear, as actors in the Swedish media apparatus blame each other.
The arrogance displayed by some actors in the Swedish media in their pursuit of censorship, to hide, minimize or distort the truth on the irregularities in the Swedish case against Assange and Wikileaks – including those committed by the Swedish media themselves – contrast with the humble yet effective dedication of thousands independent analysts, nonetheless professional, unbound and liberate, gathered in the world forums and blogospheres.
Sweden complains these days about prestige losses abroad, but Swedes should start by protesting and demand a fair media report on this and all issues affecting the Nation. Also a significant part of the budget allowing these media to indulge in such discussible ethical adventures, are in fact public funds. The public should own the truth. Those in power should own the shame.
Marcello Ferrada-Noli
Wikileaks, J Assange, Assange, media, yttrandehefrihet, transperans, wikileaks, intressant, bloggosfären, twingly
Email correspondence between Twingly's CEO Martin Hellström and M Ferrada-Noli 11 - 15, 2011
(some of this correspondence was also published as commentaries in Second-Opinion). Den 15 Mars 2011 08:46:588
After my comment to Martin Källström here bellow, I received an answer from him per email; he did not send it here as a public comment at difference with his first reply. In such email, Källström does a 180-degrees turn with reference to his previous statements to us on the possible role of the newspapers – Twingly’s clients - with regard to my alleged complains of link-censorship. As he has not made this communication public, neither I can reproduced here as a whole. I will thou publish it in Professors blog together with all the correspondence with H, provided he agrees.
I state in the meantime the following:
1. I have NEVER received an information from Källström prior to the publication of this article in Second-Opinion 14 March 20011, on that “none of your posts have ever been removed by newspaper moderators. I just want to be clear that this is the information you have received from us.” (Källström email 14 March, 11:17:51)
2. Quite at the contrary, Källström did expressly write to us “If it is not a technical issue, then it is the moderators at the newspapers themselves that have made the decision to not link to your blog posts. If so they will be able to give the exact reason why. . .” (Källström email of 11 March, 11:17).
I have in no possible fashion misrepresented in my article what Källström has himself said in his email communications. I have quoted him exactly as he wrote and I have not given my conclusions as his opinions. I even wrote before my signature “THE OPINIONS HERE ARE EXCLUSIVELY MINE".
In the main, the issue was about a complain concerning link-censorship, as illustrated among other with the filtering 10 February 2011 (please observe, 10 February) of Naomi Wolf’s article in Professors blogg “Karl Rove, Sweden, and the Eight Major Aberrations in the Police Sex Crime Reporting Process in the Assange Case”. At the date of that original ping, effectuated in several occasions on the 10 February, the article fully complied with the Twingly rules. But it was not linked. Earlier, Källström said to us it was not Twingly that blocked posts that complied with the rules. Now he says it was not the newspapers. Who was then if not Twingly or the newspapers?
Finally, Wolf’s article visualized in the screenshots referred now by Källström in his first commentary here (http://i.imgur.com/OHlJD.png) corresponds to the ping done by Twingly only three days ago, the 11 of March, long AFTER the public complain we made, and in conjunction with our consultation to Källström 11 March 2011. We are of course pleased that the article is finally linked to the media even if it was published in Professors blogg for over 30 days ago (as shown in the list), and referred to old articles published by that time.
Marcello Ferrada-Noli, 14 March 2011
I state in the meantime the following:
1. I have NEVER received an information from Källström prior to the publication of this article in Second-Opinion 14 March 20011, on that “none of your posts have ever been removed by newspaper moderators. I just want to be clear that this is the information you have received from us.” (Källström email 14 March, 11:17:51)
2. Quite at the contrary, Källström did expressly write to us “If it is not a technical issue, then it is the moderators at the newspapers themselves that have made the decision to not link to your blog posts. If so they will be able to give the exact reason why. . .” (Källström email of 11 March, 11:17).
I have in no possible fashion misrepresented in my article what Källström has himself said in his email communications. I have quoted him exactly as he wrote and I have not given my conclusions as his opinions. I even wrote before my signature “THE OPINIONS HERE ARE EXCLUSIVELY MINE".
In the main, the issue was about a complain concerning link-censorship, as illustrated among other with the filtering 10 February 2011 (please observe, 10 February) of Naomi Wolf’s article in Professors blogg “Karl Rove, Sweden, and the Eight Major Aberrations in the Police Sex Crime Reporting Process in the Assange Case”. At the date of that original ping, effectuated in several occasions on the 10 February, the article fully complied with the Twingly rules. But it was not linked. Earlier, Källström said to us it was not Twingly that blocked posts that complied with the rules. Now he says it was not the newspapers. Who was then if not Twingly or the newspapers?
Finally, Wolf’s article visualized in the screenshots referred now by Källström in his first commentary here (http://i.imgur.com/OHlJD.png) corresponds to the ping done by Twingly only three days ago, the 11 of March, long AFTER the public complain we made, and in conjunction with our consultation to Källström 11 March 2011. We are of course pleased that the article is finally linked to the media even if it was published in Professors blogg for over 30 days ago (as shown in the list), and referred to old articles published by that time.
Marcello Ferrada-Noli, 14 March 2011
Reply |Marcello Ferrada-Noli to Martin Källström, 15 March, 10:01
Martin, your email of 14 March 2011, 17.51 is preposterous:
1. About “none of your posts have ever been removed by newspaper moderators. I just want to be clear that this is the information you have received from us.”
This is a plain fabrication. You have NEVER affirmed to us, before this email, that the newspapers’ moderators have never removed our posts. At the contrary, what you have said instead is “If it is not a technical issue, then it is the moderators at the newspapers themselves that have made the decision to not link to your blog posts. If so they will be able to give the exact reason why. . .” (Källström email of 11 March 2011, 11:17).
2. About “If any such moderation would have taken place, we would see it in our database logs, since no moderation can be done if not through our system.” This is absolutely the FIRST time you are mentioned this. Quite at the contrary, you NEVER ruled out the possibility that the moderators would have to stop the links to our posts (see for instance item 1, above).
3. About “Feel free to continue to misrepresent this information”. What information are you talking about? The information you DID NOT give to us? Or the one you gave but now you pretend to deny? How dare you Martin Källström to produce such statements while everything I have quote from you it was written by yourself in black and white?
I would like ask you here for your agreement to publish in Professors blogg the complete correspondence between Twingly and us. As the reader will be able to see in the email exchange, there is no such information to either interpret or misrepresent, as you wrongly, and unmerited, accuse.
Finally:
“Misrepresentation” is defined as “a fraudulent representation with the purpose to deceive”. Those are a very serious accusation which, by having whatsoever no ground, would make you fully liable. For is a behaviour that I will not accept, at all. I have quoted you exactly as you have written. I never in my article mentioned my opinions as been yours. What I said instead, and pristine clear before my signature was: THE OPINIONS HERE ARE EXCLUSIVELY MINE”
Sincerely
Marcello Ferrada-Noli
This is a plain fabrication. You have NEVER affirmed to us, before this email, that the newspapers’ moderators have never removed our posts. At the contrary, what you have said instead is “If it is not a technical issue, then it is the moderators at the newspapers themselves that have made the decision to not link to your blog posts. If so they will be able to give the exact reason why. . .” (Källström email of 11 March 2011, 11:17).
2. About “If any such moderation would have taken place, we would see it in our database logs, since no moderation can be done if not through our system.” This is absolutely the FIRST time you are mentioned this. Quite at the contrary, you NEVER ruled out the possibility that the moderators would have to stop the links to our posts (see for instance item 1, above).
3. About “Feel free to continue to misrepresent this information”. What information are you talking about? The information you DID NOT give to us? Or the one you gave but now you pretend to deny? How dare you Martin Källström to produce such statements while everything I have quote from you it was written by yourself in black and white?
I would like ask you here for your agreement to publish in Professors blogg the complete correspondence between Twingly and us. As the reader will be able to see in the email exchange, there is no such information to either interpret or misrepresent, as you wrongly, and unmerited, accuse.
Finally:
“Misrepresentation” is defined as “a fraudulent representation with the purpose to deceive”. Those are a very serious accusation which, by having whatsoever no ground, would make you fully liable. For is a behaviour that I will not accept, at all. I have quoted you exactly as you have written. I never in my article mentioned my opinions as been yours. What I said instead, and pristine clear before my signature was: THE OPINIONS HERE ARE EXCLUSIVELY MINE”
Sincerely
Marcello Ferrada-Noli
Reply |Martin Källström to Macello Ferrada de Noli, 14 March, 17:51
[this email was not sent by Källström to Second opinion, only to my private email address]
14 March
Dear Marcello.
Thank you for this. What I'm trying to get across to you is that none of your posts have ever been removed by newspaper moderators. I just want to be clear that this is the information you have received from us. If any such moderation would have taken place, we would see it in our database logs, since no moderation can be done if not through our system. Feel free to continue to misrepresent this information, but if you do please take note that in doing so you are expressing the belief that you have received false information from me. If so, I certainly will respect your belief and your freedom to express it, but I feel very sorry that you do not have more confidence in me..
Thank you for this. What I'm trying to get across to you is that none of your posts have ever been removed by newspaper moderators. I just want to be clear that this is the information you have received from us. If any such moderation would have taken place, we would see it in our database logs, since no moderation can be done if not through our system. Feel free to continue to misrepresent this information, but if you do please take note that in doing so you are expressing the belief that you have received false information from me. If so, I certainly will respect your belief and your freedom to express it, but I feel very sorry that you do not have more confidence in me..
Best regards,
Martin
Marcello Ferrada-Noli
Dear Martin,
1. On the "one blog at the time rule". I thank you for that information. I had perhaps figure it out of my own, if not were for the fact that I have seen from time to time in the articles' blog-lists two blog-posts from the same blogger, from different dates.
2. I also tried to make clear that not all my articles have been neglected in the linking process. Only those in the group Assange-subject, and in this group those that specifically treated, mentioned or linked to articles on the alleged Rove connection to such case in Sweden. You can see a possible rationale for this in my previous article in Second-Opinion on this matter, as there are some journalists apparently well situated in the corridors of power, and self declared Rove fans, which have openly advocated for the action to stop Naomi's article from circulation in the blogosphere. I can also tell you that in a later occasion I have tested to send the same material from my other registered blog. The first time it went through, but refused afterwards.
3. About Noemi Wolf’s guest-column 10 Feb 2011. Karl Rove, Sweden, and the Eight Major Aberrations in the Police Sex Crime Reporting Process in the Assange Case. Guest-article by Naomi Wolf (the first one); it did comply with the Twingly norms (the 50-links limit) the first time I tried to link it. The ping functioned but the article was not linked at the newspaper level. I believe I explain that clearly in my recent article.
I greatly appreciate your help in all this, and from your staff, and judging from the recent developments, I have the impression that this filtering episodes will not occur that easy in the future.Kind regards
Marcello
Dear Martin,
1. On the "one blog at the time rule". I thank you for that information. I had perhaps figure it out of my own, if not were for the fact that I have seen from time to time in the articles' blog-lists two blog-posts from the same blogger, from different dates.
2. I also tried to make clear that not all my articles have been neglected in the linking process. Only those in the group Assange-subject, and in this group those that specifically treated, mentioned or linked to articles on the alleged Rove connection to such case in Sweden. You can see a possible rationale for this in my previous article in Second-Opinion on this matter, as there are some journalists apparently well situated in the corridors of power, and self declared Rove fans, which have openly advocated for the action to stop Naomi's article from circulation in the blogosphere. I can also tell you that in a later occasion I have tested to send the same material from my other registered blog. The first time it went through, but refused afterwards.
3. About Noemi Wolf’s guest-column 10 Feb 2011. Karl Rove, Sweden, and the Eight Major Aberrations in the Police Sex Crime Reporting Process in the Assange Case. Guest-article by Naomi Wolf (the first one); it did comply with the Twingly norms (the 50-links limit) the first time I tried to link it. The ping functioned but the article was not linked at the newspaper level. I believe I explain that clearly in my recent article.
I greatly appreciate your help in all this, and from your staff, and judging from the recent developments, I have the impression that this filtering episodes will not occur that easy in the future.Kind regards
Marcello
Den 14 Mars 2011 16:07:23
Martin Källström
Hello Marcello,
Thank you for inviting me to comment on this post. In spite of my efforts to be as thourough as possible in describing how Twingly works, I'm truly sorry that I failed to provide enough information. I wish you had included your concerns above in the information you provided to me, in which case I could have addressed them properly before.
Twingly would not work at all without a few limitations. One of the limitations is that any specific blog only can contribute a single blog post to each article. This limitation is in place because otherwise Twingly backlinks would be far too inviting for spammers, and one blog could simply link dozens of blog posts to the same article to mechanically dominate the debate there.
If you look at these screenshots from some of the articles that you have linked to in your blog: http://i.imgur.com/OHlJD.png , you can see that your posts certainly are not banned from the newspapers. However, you can notice that your blog only appears once on each article. In the cases where you have linked more than once to the same article, only the latest blog post is linked from that specific article.
If you or any of your readers have similar concerns in the future (no matter how small!), I would like to encourage you to get in touch with us at support@twingly.com so that we can sort out what is going on.Best regards,
Martin Källström
CEO Twingly
Thank you for inviting me to comment on this post. In spite of my efforts to be as thourough as possible in describing how Twingly works, I'm truly sorry that I failed to provide enough information. I wish you had included your concerns above in the information you provided to me, in which case I could have addressed them properly before.
Twingly would not work at all without a few limitations. One of the limitations is that any specific blog only can contribute a single blog post to each article. This limitation is in place because otherwise Twingly backlinks would be far too inviting for spammers, and one blog could simply link dozens of blog posts to the same article to mechanically dominate the debate there.
If you look at these screenshots from some of the articles that you have linked to in your blog: http://i.imgur.com/OHlJD.png , you can see that your posts certainly are not banned from the newspapers. However, you can notice that your blog only appears once on each article. In the cases where you have linked more than once to the same article, only the latest blog post is linked from that specific article.
If you or any of your readers have similar concerns in the future (no matter how small!), I would like to encourage you to get in touch with us at support@twingly.com so that we can sort out what is going on.Best regards,
Martin Källström
CEO Twingly
Marcello Ferrada de Noli to Martin Källström 14 March, 14:57
Hi,
I would like to have your comments (off the record if you like) on these two texts. I have mentioned you both in Acknowledgements.
Please observe that two erratas (seen in "Kommentarer" section), are waiting to be corrected in the Second-Opinion text.
1) http://www.second-opinion.se/so/view/1762
2) http://ferrada-noli.blogspot.com/2011/03/opinion-censorship-in-swedish-media.htmll
Kinds regards
Marcello
Marcello Ferrada de Noli to Martin Källström 11 March, 15:56
OK, thanks
Marcello
Martin Hellström to Marcello Ferrada de Noli 11 March, 15:41
Hi Marcello,
It seems to be working out so far, but please don't hesitate to let us know if you have more questions.
Just note that we don't have support during weekends, so Kristoffer won't be able to reply between Friday afternoon and Monday morning.
Best regards,
Martin
Marcello Ferrada de Noli to Martin Källström 11 March, 15:41
Dear all,
Now the linking procedure is functioning and Naomi's article is linked accordingly.
I thank Martin, Kristoffer and the Twingly support-staff for this valuable clarification. I feel of course relieved and I will author a corresponding explanation in Professors blogg.
Although this, unfortunately, does not change my analysis on the Mainstream Media article-production in the Assange case (both in the issues of objective-content and characterization ad-hominem) my assumptions regarding the linking system in the media apparatus have to be reconsidered.
I also like to mention that in no instance during this process I have signaled Twingly as "the responsible" for this non-linking episodes.
With best regards
Prof. Marcello Ferrada-Noli
Marcello Ferrada de Noli to Martin Källström 11 March, 11:33
Dear Martin,
Marcello Ferrada de Noli to Martin Källström 11 March, 11:33
Dear Martin,
Martin Hellström to Marcello Ferrada de Noli 11 March, 11:17
Hello Marcello,
Thank you for bringing this to my attention. The most probable cause is a technical issue, and if so it will be very easily resolved.
If it is a technical issue, then it is Twingly's fault and responsibility that your blog posts have not appeared. If this is the case I deeply apologize beforehand and promise that we will resolve it as quickly as possible.
If it is not a technical issue, then it is the moderators at the newspapers themselves that have made the decision to not link to your blog posts. If so they will be able to give the exact reason why and I'm sure they will publish the link after talking to you.
But since you have provided the sample links which is all the information we need to investigate the cause, let's do that. Please be patient and wait for us to look into it. Rest assure that we will resolve this in a timely fashion.
Best regards,
Martin Källström
Marcello Ferrada de Noli to Martin Källström 11 March, 10:31
To
Martin Källström, Twingly CEO
Dear Mr. Martin Källström,
I wonder whether you would help me to understand the situation I have with linking of my blog-articles (I publish the Swedish-based Professors blogg ) to main Swedish newspapers using Twingly system.
1. I run the said blog since 2005. I started to link to articles in the Swedish media from early and I have even advocated in this article on Twingly for the use of this unique service. Prior the covering in my blog of the case Assange I had never before experienced any problem with the linking from Professors blogg's articles to articles published in the Swedish mainstream media.
2. However, the linking from several articles published in my blog during the last weeks, either authored by myself or by prominent American attorneys or human-rights journalists as Andrew Kreig and Naomi Wolf, have been denied.
These are authors of notable intellectual prestige and with very many texts published in books or column form. As an example, both of them have a column in The Huffington Post, the leading journalist publication in the USA.
I mention the above in making a point that they are authors/journalists with recognized experience in editing and publishing articles, books and columns as to accordingly provide their published analyses, sources, etc. with utter professionalism.
3. What I need now is to establish the these two items:
A) Where in the linking process (Professors blogg - Twingly - Swedish newspaper) the referred censorship or filtering of the referred linked articles is exercised.
B) What would be the reason for the said censorship
The most recent among these articles (with denied linking) is WikiLeaks aftermath. The Middle East Feminist Revolution, by Naomi Wolf . The media links essayed were 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, (corresponding to DN, SvD, Expressen and Aftonbladet).
I would greatly appreciate for an ASAP reply by you in this matter, as I am urged by a USA human-rights publication to report on this episode.
With best regards
Prof. Marcello Ferrada-Noli
Other articles in Professors blogg on the Swedish case Assange case
No comments:
Post a Comment