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

A quick thread on #Myitsone dam & #MyanmarChinaRelations in light of the SAC announcement that they would be restarting some stalled Chinese projects in Burma. This announcement has led to speculation about Myitsone, which has been suspended since 2011. Let’s go! ➡️ China has


consistently misunderstood & underestimated popular opposition to Myitsone. First and foremost, to the Burmese people, this is about the “mother river” of Burma - the Irrawaddy- and it’s nearly sacred importance to them as a lifeline of their country. This is what drove the

organic anti-dam movement that started locally in Kachin but +/- 2007 was effectively picked up & nationalized by Burmese environmental CSOs. Instead of understanding this, the Chinese lashed out and blamed the United States when Thein Sein suspended the project. I assure you

the USG was as surprised as China when the project was suspended. But China never believed it was truly the desire of the Burmese people that stopped the project. Today, the dam doesn’t make sense economically for Beijing & will definitely alienate Burmese, yet they stubbornly

continue to push it. Why? Let’s unpack a bit further. In addition to Myitsone, there were other campaigns & protests targeting Chinese projects such as Letpadaung copper mine & Kyaukphyu pipeline, port & SEZ. While these campaigns had varying levels off effect, none was as

You May Also Like

@EricTopol @NBA @StephenKissler @yhgrad B.1.1.7 reveals clearly that SARS-CoV-2 is reverting to its original pre-outbreak condition, i.e. adapted to transgenic hACE2 mice (either Baric's BALB/c ones or others used at WIV labs during chimeric bat coronavirus experiments aimed at developing a pan betacoronavirus vaccine)

@NBA @StephenKissler @yhgrad 1. From Day 1, SARS-COV-2 was very well adapted to humans .....and transgenic hACE2 Mice


@NBA @StephenKissler @yhgrad 2. High Probability of serial passaging in Transgenic Mice expressing hACE2 in genesis of SARS-COV-2


@NBA @StephenKissler @yhgrad B.1.1.7 has an unusually large number of genetic changes, ... found to date in mouse-adapted SARS-CoV2 and is also seen in ferret infections.
https://t.co/9Z4oJmkcKj


@NBA @StephenKissler @yhgrad We adapted a clinical isolate of SARS-CoV-2 by serial passaging in the ... Thus, this mouse-adapted strain and associated challenge model should be ... (B) SARS-CoV-2 genomic RNA loads in mouse lung homogenates at P0 to P6.
https://t.co/I90OOCJg7o