Europe: Journalists Against Free Speech

Authored by Judith Bergman via The Gatestone Institute,

  • Gone is all pretense that journalism is about reporting the facts. These are the aims of a political actor.
  • Being bought and paid for by the EU apparently counts as "press freedom" these days.
  • According to the guidelines, journalists should, among other things, "Provide an appropriate range of opinions, including those belonging to migrants and members of minorities, but... not... extremist perspectives just to 'show the other side'.... Don't allow extremists' claims about acting 'in the name of Islam' to stand unchallenged.... where it is necessary and newsworthy to report hateful comments against Muslims, mediate the information."

The European Federation of Journalists (EJF), is "the largest organization of journalists in Europe, represents over 320,000 journalists in 71 journalists' organizations across 43 countries," according to its website. The EJF, a powerful player, also leads a Europe-wide campaign called "Media against Hate."

The "Media against Hate" campaign aims to:

"counter hate speech and discrimination in the media, both on and offline... media and journalists play a crucial role in informing...policy ... regarding migration and refugees. As hate speech and stereotypes targeting migrants proliferate across Europe... #MediaAgainstHate campaign aims to: improve media coverage related to migration, refugees, religion and marginalised groups... counter hate speech, intolerance, racism and discrimination... improve implementation of legal frameworks regulating hate speech and freedom of speech..."

Gone is all pretense that journalism is about reporting the facts. These are the aims of a political actor.

A very large political actor is, in fact, involved in the "Media against Hate" campaign. The campaign is one of several media programs supported by the EU under its Rights, Equality and Citizenship Programme (REC). In the REC program for 2017, the EU Commission, the EU's executive body, writes:

"DG Justice and Consumers [the EU Commission's justice department] will address the worrying increase of hate crime and hate speech by allocating funding to actions aiming at preventing and combating racism, xenophobia and other forms of intolerance... including dedicated work in the area of countering online hate speech (implementation of the Code of Conduct on countering illegal hate speech online)... DG Justice also funds civil society organisations combatting racism, xenophobia and other forms of intolerance".

This political player, the EU, the biggest in Europe, works openly at influencing the "free press" with its own political agendas. One of these agendas is the issue of migration into Europe from Africa and the Middle East. In his September State of the Union address, the president of the EU Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, made it clear that whatever Europeans may think -- polls repeatedly show that the majority of Europeans do not want any more migrants -- the EU has no intention of putting a stop to migration. "Europe," Juncker said, "contrary to what some say, is not a fortress and must never become one. Europe is and must remain the continent of solidarity where those fleeing persecution can find refuge".

The EU, the biggest political player Europe, works openly at influencing the "free press" with its own political agendas. In September, EU Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker (pictured) made it clear that whatever Europeans may think -- polls repeatedly show that the majority of Europeans do not want any more migrants -- the EU has no intention of putting a stop to migration. (Photo by Dan Kitwood/Getty Images)

The European Union's REC Program also recently financed the publication of a handbook with guidelines for journalists on how to write about migrants and migration. The guidelines form part of the RESPECT WORDS project -- also EU-financed -- which "aims to promote quality reporting on migrants and ethnic and religious minorities as an indispensable tool in the fight against hate". The new guidelines are "aimed at strengthening quality media coverage of migrants and ethnic and religious minorities". The handbook was launched on October 12 by the International Press Institute (IPI) -- an association of media professionals" representing leading digital, print and broadcast news outlets in more than 120 countries. IPI boasts that it has been "defending press freedom since 1950". (Being bought and paid for by the EU apparently counts as "press freedom" these days.) Seven other European media outlets and civil society groups based in Europe participated in the project and presented it at an event at the European Parliament in Brussels attended by MEPs and civil society experts. According to the press release, the guidelines are "supplementary to standards already in place at news outlets".

The guidelines state that, "journalism cannot and should not 'solve' the problem of hate speech on its own" but that it can help to prevent its "normalisation". However, "meeting this challenge requires the involvement of many actors, in particular the European Union, which must reinforce existing mechanisms and support new tools designed to combat hate speech..."

Why do journalists, who claim to fight for the freedom of the press, now appeal to the EU to help bring an end to freedom of speech in Europe?

According to the guidelines, journalists should, among other things:

"Provide an appropriate range of opinions, including those belonging to migrants and members of minorities, but... not... extremist perspectives just to 'show the other side'... Avoid directly reproducing hate speech; when it is newsworthy to do so, mediate it by...challenging such speech, and exposing any false premises it relies on. Remember that sensitive information (eg race and ethnicity, religious or philosophical beliefs, party affiliation or union affiliation, health and sexual information) should only be mentioned when it is necessary for the public's understanding of the news".

Is that why news reports always refer to perpetrators of rape or terrorism simply as "men"?

Specifically, with regard to Muslims, the guidelines recommend:

"Challenge existing anti-Muslim stereotypes that have become pervasive in public discourse... Increase the visibility of Muslim men and women in your general reporting... Take care not to further stigmatise terms such as 'Muslim' or 'Islam' by associating them with particular acts... Don't allow extremists' claims about acting 'in the name of Islam' to stand unchallenged. Highlight... the diversity of Muslim communities... where it is necessary and newsworthy to report hateful comments against Muslims, mediate the information. Challenge any false premises on which such comments rely".

Not even Orwell could have made that up.


Blue Steel 309 svayambhu108 Wed, 10/25/2017 - 05:34 Permalink

The only people opposed to "free speech" are the fucking kikes. Can we at least be honest about that?

They don't want their holohoax to be found out. They also don't want it found out that all the "blood libel" were true. and also pretty much every accusation ever aimed there way is true. They really don't want that much free speech to happen, because the facts are NOT on their side.

In reply to by svayambhu108

giovanni_f Blue Steel 309 Wed, 10/25/2017 - 08:09 Permalink

I stopped arguing with adults (counted by years) who are too brainwashed, dumb, authority-abiding to realize that Western media is a branch of the government, a few short-lived (and fastly rectified) examples notwithstanding. Just look at the reporting on Syria or Ukraine or how the so-called free press keeps on lashing out at people like Edward Snowden or Julian Assange when they do their fucking job and get punished for it. The Austrian election results are unanimously framed as a despicable trend towards populism - almost no trace of any substatial critique of the rotten EU bureaucracy Junta, the pro-banker, pro-social engineering politicians parasitizing the populace.

In reply to by Blue Steel 309

wildbad Blue Steel 309 Wed, 10/25/2017 - 08:20 Permalink

CIA has been controlling MSM for decades and feeding their spin into every area.

The basic lie which has been pushed regarding Islam since 911 is that there are radical muslim philosophies and benign ones.

There is only one and it means submision. it means believe in the rapist, murdering pedophile founder and his words without question or you are out of the house of islam.

it is a totalitarian system that our ancestors understood well. only the current generations are so naive to believe the soothing words of their rapist, murderous, lying advocates.

jihad is the only certain way into heaven, and it is not about "inner struggle" it is about killing anyone who does not submit to their barbarity.

In reply to by Blue Steel 309

Squid-puppets … Ghordius Wed, 10/25/2017 - 04:44 Permalink

So we cant talk hate against Islam? OK I'll get my message over with sarcastic love:I LOVE that Mohammed married a 6 year old, and fucked her when she was 9, providing an example of behaviour that cant be criticised without risking DEATH PENALTY. Gotta love that. I LOVE that he explicity permitted the taking of SEX SLAVES from the women of the men you conquer. I LOVE the idea of TAQQIYA - the pretence of integration until you are strong enough to overtake your host's community. I FUKKN LOVE IT YEEEEEHAH love me some fukn diversity.

In reply to by Ghordius

Ghordius 07564111 Wed, 10/25/2017 - 04:03 Permalink

rubbish, my Russian Cousin
"cultural marxist" is, btw, a 100% American label. like "Political Correctness", something that has to be exlained here on this Continent, including your Russia
go on, check on this. wikipedia has excellent articles on both. you might not agree with parts, but the facts around my point are solid: both terms have a long history of being 100% part of an American debate, and can't be applied on our debates here in their full form and meaning. they do get here, as imports, but their meaning becomes garbled, because here, including in your Russia, the political stances are different

In reply to by 07564111

Haus-Targaryen Ghordius Wed, 10/25/2017 - 04:25 Permalink

Glad to know terms defined in one part of the world are inapplicable in a other. Next time an American calls me a Nazi I'll remind them of this. I mean, it's not as if the press here would shape their coverage around certain unspoken and unwritten social rules a society has around political debate. 

In reply to by Ghordius

Ghordius Haus-Targaryen Wed, 10/25/2017 - 04:41 Permalink

"some" is not "all"
and yes, up to a certain point, an "American Nazi" is really something different (while similar in points)
and it's not something you have not experienced yourself, that "this label means something different, here". your comments are full of such examples

yes, every society, every culture has it's unwritten rules. again, you are making that experience yourself

In reply to by Haus-Targaryen

kellys_eye Ghordius Wed, 10/25/2017 - 04:45 Permalink

We all expect Ghordius to pop up and defend the EU and all its actions no matter what the criticism may be or how odiously the EU propagate their brand of dictatorship.Very clearly - and very clearly indeed - the article illustrates how the truth is to be masked by EU-inspired instruction and God forbid that any journalist dare to work outside such parameters if they value their jobs.How Ghordius sleeps at night (probably on a matress stuffed with EU payments) is beyond comprehension.

In reply to by Ghordius

Ghordius Ghordius Wed, 10/25/2017 - 05:05 Permalink

I see I hit on a rock of "can't be, never heard that before"well, I repeat: "Cultural Marxism" is a 100% American-origin expression. it contains "Marxism" as a word, but it's only faintly related to Marxism the way Marxists understand itWikipedia has an article on that. it's called... Frankfurt School ( ), which is Marxist in it's originthe gist of why "Cultural Marxism" is 100% of American origin is here:… there is a better article, where all this is more clear cut: about Political Correctness"The phrase was widely used in the debate about Allan Bloom's 1987 book The Closing of the American Mind,[7][9][12][13] and gained further currency in response to Roger Kimball's Tenured Radicals (1990),[7][9][14][15] and conservative author Dinesh D'Souza's 1991 book Illiberal Education, in which he condemned what he saw as liberal efforts to advance self-victimizationand multiculturalism through language, affirmative action, and changes to the content of school and university curricula.[7][8][14][16] The term was also the subject of articles in The New York Times and other media throughout the 1990s.[17][18][19][20][21][22] "note who debated using this term. all Americans. part of a debate of American origin, specifically in the conservative spectrum

In reply to by Ghordius

Ghordius BigJim Wed, 10/25/2017 - 06:51 Permalink

we are "in the grip" of several things. but the application of this foreign label......does not fit in the same way as where this label was inventedmy goodness, it's really hard to argue about shades of gray with people that paint everything in stark black or stark white onlywe have the damn real Marxists, for example

In reply to by BigJim

Vageling Ghordius Wed, 10/25/2017 - 05:57 Permalink

Wut? You really need to get out more often occidentophobe. How is that for a term. Not sure about cultural-marxism but PC is an soviet gimmick. Just like the fucking kollektiv you're preaching.What you are claiming is nonsense. Are we going to debate the tones of an color now? Please.

In reply to by Ghordius

Vageling Ghordius Wed, 10/25/2017 - 07:54 Permalink

You are correct that the soviets did not used that term. It is indeed an western term to describe that practice. And that's my point. I can't quickly recall the soviet term but the terms refer to a surten practice. Yes, it's a misleading term. I agree since it has little to do with being "politically correct". I have not yet read what you wrote below for the record.To it's like potato, patato. As long as a person understands the proper concept. The concept is the same on both continents. And I don't like " fucking ants" as that's how I perceived your comment.Edit: Political correctness (the creation of a 'common mind') is a Soviet concept: 'Political correctness' means the exact reverse of what it says: it means that lies, or an 'imposed truth', supplant the objective truth.As long as folks get that. You can call it Political buttfucking for all I care. I want to deal with the issue at hand. Not all the garbage around it. Many people don't get you. I see that. You have valid points sometimes but you are full of tricks as well. I see that too. We agree on what PC means? 

In reply to by Ghordius

Ghordius Vageling Wed, 10/25/2017 - 08:17 Permalink

no. we don't. I'm still in the process of finding out what Americans really mean, with PC, for exampleI sometimes think I get the gist, but then, suddently, some details makes me go "Uh?"why? my explanation is the basis, the unspoken agreements that were the foundation of that termthey originated in US conservative thinking, which is again something still a bit alien, to meand so I warn about applying non-european concepts on european realities because... they don't really fit, imoI am way more familiar with Marxist thought, for example. there, I know the arguments, and I use counter-arguments that have already been used for decades, heresome of those counter-arguments... they make Americans go "Uh?". or getting suspicious because of the unfamiliar argumentation, like your "but you are full of tricks as well"

In reply to by Vageling

Vageling Ghordius Wed, 10/25/2017 - 08:28 Permalink

Fine with me. I use the term to describe the soviet concept. You see it different? Well, yes you do. Because I get to the root. You rather "divide and rule". Whatever another person calls PC is their problem. Study the concept, not the word. I know the hidden agenda of PC. Because that is where people get fooled. You are talking about how words become a "bastard". Well I know many more examples. As for full of tricks. You obfuscate, smoke and mirrors, always "fucking the ants" (Where I hail from we mean by this that you're focusing on minor things and disregarding the bigger things) and dragging "everybody and their mum" in who are not directly relevant. Full of tricks. You're a smart man. That I acknowledge. I don't have the English proficiency to effectively debate you. That I admit.   

In reply to by Ghordius

TheReplacement quadraspleen Wed, 10/25/2017 - 09:17 Permalink

What is interesting is that events are pushed to the point where telling the truth brings about horrible reprecussions.  I think we are reaching that point.  (((They))) have framed the situation so that now (((they))) can start to come out with some truth and make everything actually get worse. It is like a (((central banker))) printing money like crazy, retiring, and then saying the central bank should not print money.

In reply to by quadraspleen

medium giraffe Ghordius Wed, 10/25/2017 - 08:02 Permalink

There was little pretense to start with.  A brief investigation suggests some potential for bias.....from wiki:The Gatestone Institute (formerly Stonegate Institute and Hudson New York) is a right-wing[2][3][4] think tank that publishes articles, particularly pertaining to Islam and the Middle East. The organization has attracted attention for publishing false articles.[5][6][7] Gatestone was founded in 2012 by Nina Rosenwald, who serves as its president.[8] Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John R. Bolton is its chairman. Nina Rosenwald?: Nina Rosenwald is an American political activist and philanthropist. An heiress to the Sears Roebuck fortune, Rosenwald is vice president of the William Rosenwald Family Fund and co-chair of the board of American Securities Management....A descendant of philanthropists and Jewish refugees from Eastern Europe, Rosenwald has focused on donating to pro-Israel organizations. She has been described as "an ardent Zionist all her life"....Rosenwald's grandfather, Julius Rosenwald, was an early investor in Sears, Roebuck & Company, and served as president of the company from 1908-24. Thereafter until his death in January 1932 he served as chairman....According to the Right Web (Institute for Policy Studies) website, Rosenwald's donations to pro-Israel organizations have "earned her a place of considerable influence in the 'pro-Israel' firmament"...She is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, a founding member of the Board of Regents for the Center for Security Policy, and a former board member of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC)...Her family fund has given financial support to two settlements in the West Bank: the Beit El yeshiva, which counsels its students to defy government orders to evacuate illegal outposts, and Ariel University. It also donates to the Central Fund of Israel, a New-York-based NGO which reportedly serves as a major vehicle for the transfer of American donations to hard-core settlements on the West Bank.

In reply to by Ghordius

directaction Wed, 10/25/2017 - 03:38 Permalink

Journalists in Europe are solely concerned about rendering extinct the indigenous peoples of Europe and destroying European culture as fast as possible. This is the prime directive of European media.

Ghordius directaction Wed, 10/25/2017 - 03:49 Permalink

"european media"?

does such a thing even exist? is it even remotely comparable with the US media landscape, one language, one nation state, one set of national laws,, 6 megacorporations and a "guerrilla infowar" of websites?

nope. it's dozens of languages, it's 28 sets of national laws, it's a much more diverse landscape, including State Media (like RT, note)

this article tries to make you think "it's the same as in the US". well, it's not. Junckr's appeal is just that: words. a handbook is not a Law, not even a Directive. it's only more words. relevant, mostly, for State Media employees but not for the private sector

yes, we do have different laws on media. every country has a set. that's... sovereignty too, btw

In reply to by directaction

Ghordius correr Wed, 10/25/2017 - 04:12 Permalink

zionists? explain UK's Labour party, then
owned by the same people? explain then why Murdoch has so many problems whenever he tries to get a solid foothold in the european media landscape. see his latest issues with Sky, in the UK, the only EU country where he has influence and company stakes

nope. we do have Media Barons. the Czech Republic just elected one as Apparent Next Prime Minister. Berlusconi is another example that you might recognize

but... it's per country. and per language. again: "this ain't Kansas, Toto", it's a utterly, completely different landscape. alien is perhaps the right word, for you

In reply to by correr

AurorusBorealus Ghordius Wed, 10/25/2017 - 04:32 Permalink

Do not bother trying to reason with schizophrenics who suffer from paranoid delusions and have created false realities.  Challenging their delusions simply makes them angry and start shouting profanities.  Just nod your head in the affirmative.Here is how it works.  The Jews are trying to kill all the Muslims.  The Jews are trying to send all the Muslims to Europe to destroy Europe.  The Jews are allied with the Muslims.  The Jews are controlling the U.S. and using the U.S. to fight Israel's wars.  The Jews are trying to destroy the U.S.  The Jews control the banks.  The Jews are trying to destroy the world's financial system.  The Jews control the media.  The Jews control Hollywood.  The Jews are trying to bring down Harvey Weinstein.  The Jews are lying about the Holocaust.  The Jews promoted the Holocaust to gain support for Israel.If you are confused by any of this, just remember that you listening to the ravings of lunatics.

In reply to by Ghordius

HenryKissinger… AurorusBorealus Wed, 10/25/2017 - 04:57 Permalink

Do not bother trying to reason with schizophrenics who suffer from paranoid delusions and have created false realities...  Kalergi, Spectre, Soros, you can read it all by yourself.I do not need spirits or foreign imaginary entities like demons and or angels, green or gray aliens, or lizards explain that there are groups of individuals that have had for thousands of years their own traditions, books, languages, elders and academics, mainly focused on obtaining and maintaining power via multiple methods like raising themselves while stomping on everyone else,such groups may even temporary get agreements between themselves to develop common goalsthe jews are a VERY easy to document historic example of such deedsa.k.a. zionists rabbinic talmudic frankist khazarians whateverby simple documentation of their multiple iterations they can get better at it,Israel power on the planet is a humongous example.

In reply to by AurorusBorealus