1) Awful story from Sweden. In September, journalists at public broadcaster Swedish Radio (SR) signed statement demanding better coverage of racism/discrimination & called out racism/discrimination within SR itself.

SR responded by banning a number of them from covering racism.

2) In September of 2020, a group of journalists – most with immigrant backgrounds – at public service broadcaster Swedish Radio signed a statement: ”Whose SR? A Call for Representation and Against Racism at Swedish Radio.” The statement was widely discussed and debated.
3) The statement laid bare problems at Swedish Radio with coverage of race, racism and discrimination in Sweden and abroad. It also outlined examples of racism/discrimination at Swedish Radio itself, and problems with the recruitment and promotion of minority journalists at SR.
4) The conclusion to the statement included a list of demands intended to improve the situation at Swedish Radio. Leadership at Swedish Radio largely dismissed the claims, and a number of journalists in the Swedish press were highly critical of those who signed the statement.
5) In a story just been published in @Journalistense, it is revealed that a number of those who signed the petition were removed from coverage of Black Lives Matter, and issues related to BLM. Why? Because of one reference to BLM at the start of the 2,200-word statement.
6) Because journalists mentioned BLM, management concluded that they had “taken a position” and had compromised their journalistic neutrality. SR also concluded that not only could some not cover BLM, they could also not cover “issues pursued by the BLM movement.” Such as racism.
7) To illustrate the absurdity, after an SR journalist originally sent to the US to cover racism & BLM and the elections signed the statement, she was no longer allowed to cover either issue. There was even a discussion if she could report on economic inequality & Latino voters.
8) In addition to being banned from covering BLM/racism, journalist was told that if an interviewee even mentioned BLM she should edit the comments out afterwards. Or, if it was live, to steer the conversation to another topic. The journalist called this “ethically questionable.”
9) When SR staff signed a #MeToo statement in 2017, they were banned from reporting on the statement...but were allowed to cover the #MeToo movement and related issues. When asked why there were different standards for the statement on racism, the SR management offered no answer.
10) Swedish Radio case illustrates disturbing heights to which demands for “neutrality” can rise. Staff at SR sign statement with concerns about poor coverage of racism, and possible racism at SR, and are then banned from covering the very issues about which they are concerned.
11) When issues of racism/discrimination highlighted, many of the staff were banned from covering racism, playing on prejudice that minority reporters can't cover minority issues “objectively." This is a position never applied to white reporters covering white people...or anyone.
12) Most disturbing part is idea that there even exists a position of “neutrality” or "balance" in the coverage of overt racism. It is cases like this that highlight how slavish obsession with neutrality can be counter-productive. Much to be said, and far to go, on these issues.
13) Here is the original statement from the journalists. https://t.co/BaExrb9qZQ
14) And here is the story in @Journalistense revealing what happened to many of those who signed. https://t.co/spdYOKNyDa

More from World

1/10 With respect, multiple straw men here:
A) If you mean by "legally questionable" either that Senate is barred by constitution from trying an official impeached while in office, or that there are even very strong arguments against it, I have to differ...


2/10 Constitutional structure, precedent & any fair reading of original intent dictate that argument for jurisdiction is far stronger than argument against. On original intent, see

3/10 If you mean argument against jurisdiction is plausible, sure, it's plausible. It's just weak. In practical fact, Senate can try Trump now, find him guilty & disqualify him from future office if there are sufficient votes. And no court would presume to overturn that result

4/10 b) The argument from resources is awfully hard to take seriously. Fewer than a dozen House members act as Managers for a few weeks. They are staffed, as are Senators hearing case, by folks whose job it is to do stuff like this...

5/10 Yes, Senate floor time will be taken up. But it's past time for us to stop thinking of members of either house as feeble, fluttering, occupants of a nationally-funded convalescent home. There are nearly 500 of these people with 1000s of staff and a bunch of big buildings...

You May Also Like

1/12

RT-PCR corona (test) scam

Symptomatic people are tested for one and only one respiratory virus. This means that other acute respiratory infections are reclassified as


2/12

It is tested exquisitely with a hypersensitive non-specific RT-PCR test / Ct >35 (>30 is nonsense, >35 is madness), without considering Ct and clinical context. This means that more acute respiratory infections are reclassified as


3/12

The Drosten RT-PCR test is fabricated in a way that each country and laboratory perform it differently at too high Ct and that the high rate of false positives increases massively due to cross-reaction with other (corona) viruses in the "flu


4/12

Even asymptomatic, previously called healthy, people are tested (en masse) in this way, although there is no epidemiologically relevant asymptomatic transmission. This means that even healthy people are declared as COVID


5/12

Deaths within 28 days after a positive RT-PCR test from whatever cause are designated as deaths WITH COVID. This means that other causes of death are reclassified as