Showing posts with label Censorship. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Censorship. Show all posts

Thursday, 6 December 2018

Tumblr Tosh




According to my archives, I joined Tumblr on 13th April 2014, heading towards five years ago. I created my tumblr due to difficulties artist friends had encountered on Facebook. Artists had found a more tolerant platform in Tumblr. I myself fell foul of the former’s rules when in an article on penile health-issues I used a photograph of a diseased penis, surely a relevant use of such an image. Who knew that attempting to assist and educate on health-issues could be so contentious in the twenty-first century!



My Tumblr-blog is very personal to me. I have collated images, writings & poetry that have influenced my past and those pieces that speak to me today. Some speak to me intellectually; some emotionally; some spiritually & religiously; and some sexually. I have shared artworks from Ancient Egypt, Greece & Rome amongst other cultures all the way to the avant-garde of the contemporary Art-world.

I deliberately flagged it to Tumblr as “explicit”, because there are images that might cause offence to the uneducated and illiberal of whom there are many in this world.

As of midnight on 5th December 2018 there were 108,052 posts on my tumblr. Over the past two days I have scoured each & every post to determine whether there have been any issues up to now and, if so, what type of problem.

1 item was removed as it breached someone’s privacy.


1 item was removed as it breached someone’s copyright.

2 items were removed as they breached Tumblr’s community guidelines.


4 items had disappeared at source, so I cannot determine whether or not there was a breach of Tumblr’s acceptable posts.



If one includes the latter category, there were a total of eight removed items. Thus less than 0.008% of the images I have blogged have proved problematic heretofore.

I cannot be exact, but I would hazard an educated guess that some 5-10% of my posts will be in breach of the new guidelines. I quote below the full guidance as notified to users on Tumblr (I was advised 5th December).



Today we announced some big updates to our Community Guidelines and what kind of content is permitted on Tumblr. Adult content will no longer be allowed here. While we do not judge anyone for their desire to post, engage with, or view this stuff, it is time for us to change our relationship with it.

We expect you may have some questions on how this will affect you, and we’re here to make sure those questions get answered.

When does the new policy take effect?

Our new Community Guidelines will go into effect on December 17, 2018.
Newly uploaded content flagged as adult will no longer be allowed on Tumblr. We’ll also begin flagging and removing existing adult content with the ultimate goal of removing as much of it as we can.

What is considered adult content?

Adult content primarily includes photos, videos, or GIFs that show real-life human genitals or female-presenting nipples, and any content—including photos, videos, GIFs and illustrations—that depicts sex acts.

What is still permitted?

Examples of exceptions that are still permitted are exposed female-presenting nipples in connection with breastfeeding, birth or after-birth moments, and health-related situations, such as post-mastectomy or gender confirmation surgery. Written content such as erotica, nudity related to political or newsworthy speech, and nudity found in art, such as sculptures and illustrations, are also stuff that can be freely posted on Tumblr.

What about Safe Mode?

Our new policy negates the need for Safe Mode so this feature will no longer exist. These new policies are the same regardless of your age. Read more here.

My content was flagged, but I don’t think it should be. What should I do?

If you feel that we have categorized your post incorrectly, you can appeal this decision with the form that was sent to you via email or use the button on the post in question. Please note that this process is only possible to complete on the web or with Tumblr app version 12.2 or higher.

Read more about how to review your content and appeal here.

What goes into classifying content as adult?

This work requires a mix of machine-learning classification and human moderation by our Trust & Safety team—the group of individuals who help moderate Tumblr. We’ve been expanding the team to handle the increased workload, and we will continue to expand as needed.
Computers are better than humans at scaling process—and we need them for that—but they’re not as good at making nuanced, contextual decisions. This is an evolving process for all of us, and we’re committed to getting this right. That’s why when you appeal a post we’ve marked as adult, it gets sent to a real, live human who will look it over with their real, live human eye(s).

Will I see any adult content on Tumblr after December 17, 2018?

Due to the technical challenges that come with moderation at scale you may continue to see some adult content. This is true for all types of content that might be in violation of our guidelines. At any given moment, millions of people are posting to Tumblr. To review everything and to get it right is complex, but we’re committed to continuously improving.

As always, if you see a post with adult content that you don’t want to see, you can report it directly to our Trust & Safety team. Learn about how to report content here.

What will happen to my adult content already on Tumblr?

Starting today, we will begin sending out email notices to members of the Tumblr community whose content has been flagged as adult. This email will provide a link to the post(s) in question and a form to appeal our decision if you think we have made a mistake. Starting on December 17, 2018, any post(s) that have been flagged will be reverted to a private setting viewable only by you. If you want to learn more about how to see those posts, please visit our Help Center.
As always, please make sure the email associated with your Tumblr account is one you use regularly. It’s how we get in touch when we need you!
You can also download the contents of your blog(s) before these policy changes take effect. Find out how here.

What if my blog (not to be confused with posts) was marked as “explicit” before December 17, 2018?

Blogs that have been either self-flagged or flagged by us as “explicit” per our old policy and before December 17, 2018 will still be overlaid with a content filter when viewing these blogs directly. While some of the content on these blogs may now be in violation of our policies and will be actioned accordingly, the blog owners may choose to post content that is within our policies in the future, so we’d like to provide that option. Users under 18 will still not be allowed to click through to see the content of these blogs. The avatars and headers for these blogs will also be reverted to the default settings.

You can check and see if your blog is marked as explicit per our old policy in your visibility settings. If you think your blog has been erroneously marked as explicit, please send an appeal here.

Will I get kicked off of Tumblr if I’ve uploaded adult content in the past?

We’re removing content, not people. However, those who repeatedly and deliberately post new content that violates our updated guidelines may have their account deactivated per our Terms of Service. If you feel you’ve been incorrectly suspended, you can appeal here.

What if I reblogged adult content?

The original poster of the content will be notified of its removal, and it will no longer be on your blog.

What if I have more “What if” questions?

We got you. You can review our updated Community Guidelines right over here. If you still haven’t found an answer to your question, you can ask our support team.


I hope the reader took the time to read the full guidelines. I shall now endeavour to demonstrate the guidelines are ill-thought-through and show that they are by no means “full”.

Nipples:

What is the rationale behind permitting male nipples but not female nipples?

Women’s nipples are as natural as men’s.

Women’s nipples can be seen on beaches throughout Europe and many countries elsewhere in the world, such as Brazil. Women’s nipples can be seen in public when breast-feeding almost anywhere in the world. They can also be seen in people’s homes and any establishment or place where nakedness is permitted.

This ban additionally effects many images of tribal women because of the nipple issue. Why? This is Tumblr moving into racist territory if it does not expand its exclusions. Tumblr has already shown itself to be sexist in its different treatment of men and women’s physiologies.

Genitals:

What is the rationale for banning genitalia?

We all have genitals: some have penes; some have vulvæ; some have both; some are born with none. Being able to see genitalia normalises them. This is also educative. I still occasionally see an erect penis type I have not previously encountered.

As a teenager I thought I had a congenital STI due to the way hair-follicles appear on my erect penis. It was only through seeing erect penes like my own, that I realised I have a perfectly healthy penis. We need to see the vast panoply of genitalia: for self-identity; for sex-education; and for sexuality.

All erections are NOT sexual. As I discovered at age thirteen in my first sex-education classes, I was not some kind of sexual pervert because I constantly experienced erections on diesel-powered ‘buses. Vibrations can quite easily stimulate an erection with no thought of sex. This is one type of non-sexual erection, another is morning-wood. This latter erection men experience when rousing from slumber with the need to urinate. Again boys need to know and learn this is perfectly normal and not some kind of sexual-perversion.

Why should we not be permitted so see the erect penis? Tumblr has not justified its ban. Fundamentally we all have genitalia: why should we not see images of them? Why such prudery? Prudery is what leads to prurience. But Tumblr is demonstrating just how prudish it has become.

I wonder how Tumblr is going to deal with images from Japan’s annual Kanamara Matusuri festival, when giant phalli are openly paraded through the streets!

Nakedness & Nudity:

Apparently nudity is now only acceptable if it is a piece of Art. Nudity within Art that illustrates sexual acts are not explicitly prohibited nor are they precluded from prohibition. There are a great deal of artworks, including by very famous artists, that depict naked/nude figures, sex-acts and even rape. Will all these artworks be banned? I should point out here that I can take a child into art-galleries & musea across Europe where all sorts of images that are now banned on Tumblr are publicly viewable. Tumblr demonstrates that it is Philistine, despite its superficial aim of not precluding artworks, it is inevitable that it will do so.

Here in Europe we see nudity on beaches, in the changing-rooms & showers at public swimming-pools, gymnasia and so on, and specialist campsites & establishments for nudists/naturists. Some countries in Europe have very permissive laws on nudity, such as Germany, where public nudity is in the main allowed. Many countries permit public nudity within certain constraints, for example annual naked bike-rides. Even some areas of the US, e.g. Folsom Street Fair in San Francisco. And so on. Even in the UK I am entitled to sunbathe naked in my own garden or move around naked in my own home without ensuring all curtains and blinds are drawn to. Nakedness is ubiquitous. Tumblr is being anti-European.

Being without clothes is our natural state. Being obsessed about covering up is what leads to perverted and wrong-thinking about body, gender and sex issues. Tumblr is imposing a very narrow, infantilist and Puritanical view of the body and sex upon the rest of the world.

Art:

Art is meant to challenge us. Art is meant to shock us. Art is meant to show us what has not been seen or has been forgotten. Art is meant to be free to explore anything and everything. Art is meant to create works that speak to us on all sorts of levels about the artist’s discoveries, explorations and even their unanswered questions.

Ostensibly Artworks are protected by the new guidelines. But if one looks closely, it can be seen that Tumblr is particularly attacking photography and illustration. It is the artists, whether professional or amateur or hobbyist, working in these areas who will suffer the most. It is photographers & illustrators who are going to be the artists constantly picked upon for depicting the human-body, for exploring gender-issues and sexuality. Art-lovers who share photos or illustrations are going to find themselves rapped over the knuckles and ultimately banned if they do not kowtow to Tumblr’s edicts. Established artists from history appear to be protected. But why is older artwork acceptable, but not that of up-and-coming, non-established artists who are working hard to establish and advance their careers? 

As stated earlier, Tumblr has not clarified how it is going to treat artworks that portray sex or sexuality.

So then, why is Tumblr obsessing about sex and sexuality, why has it not set out how it is going to purge racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic posts. What about violence? Let’s face it, the US has a huge problem with violence. The harms from violence massively outweigh the harms from openness about sex & sexuality.

Community:

Tumblr talks about community. Tumblr welcomed me when I signed up. Tumblr thanked me when I marked my blog as explicit. Tumblr has consistently issued me with reminders of how much I have liked & shared and exhorted me to carry on. The last was 17th June this year when I had reached 100K posts.

Now Tumblr turns volte face, and I am a pariah because of what I share. This is completely unacceptable: it is unreasonable, indeed I should go as far as to say irrational.

Tumblr states that it has “been expanding the team to handle increased workload” due to these changes. This means they have known about these changes for some time, as businesses to not normally employ folk overnight. Why then could they not at least have had the common-courtesy to give we users proper advance warning rather than a few short days. Indeed, one could read the changes as no forewarning at all given that some changes were effective from publication of the new guidelines. This is Tumblr being discourteous.

What was acceptable heretofore is now not. I have been given less than a fortnight (two weeks) to check over 100,000 images to try and salvage anything I suspect may be deleted.

As a long-standing member of the Tumblr community I was not asked for my opinions, thoughts, my in-put. I, and I suspect most Tumblr-users, have been completely overlooked, ignored. What kind of a community does that? Only a totalitarian one. This all reminds me very much of the book-burnings in pre-WWII Germany: let’s get rid of anything that does not fit the current Zeitgeist.

I am a member of the queer community. We LGBTI folk are much more open to exploring issues of gender, sex & sexuality. Sex is a huge part of our culture. These moves by Tumblr will disproportionately effect my sub-community. Folk will invariably decide to move elsewhere, away from Tumblr, to more accepting platforms. Whether intentionally or not Tumblr’s new guidelines and the outcomes of same are homophobic.


Tumblr has shown itself to be irrational, discourteous, prudish, infantilist, Puritanical, totalitarian, anti-European, Philistine, sexist, potentially racist, and homophobic.


I can only hope that Tumblr comes to its senses and revisits these ill-advised changes.



___________________________________________________


Now try to determine whether or not the image below, currently on my Tumblr-blog, should be banned. Is a man resting his eyes whilst bathing or is he masturbating in the tub? Why do you think I gave this example?






Tuesday, 18 August 2015

P*ss*d Off With Facebook's Censorship

I have just posted and ranted on Facebook:
Nut & Geb: ancient Egyptian creation myth; and yes, that is an erect #penis.
Facebook is obsessed with policing what adults can view, constantly censoring Art, health and academic posts that allegedly do not fulfil the requirements of its community rules. We are the community, we are adults and we ought to be permitted to share adult-themed materials. This puritanical vein is a hang-over and in some sense a puerile attempt at staving off maturity. It is anti-intellectualism. It is anti-freedom. It is cultural colonialism. Grow up #Facebook!

[Image description: papyrus image of Nut about to be impregnated by her husband, Geb; note the website jungy was unable to credit any copyright.]

Yesterday, a Facebook chum, author, artist and illustrator, Daniel Mainé was asked by Facebook to remove an alleged problematic image. The guy has never once posted anything that could be considered pornographic or contentious, let alone inappropriate. Recall, I was a primary-school teacher, I am quite aware of what might be appropriate.

Today, I discover, my good chum, artist Eric Lacavalerie has had his personal account closed for twenty-four hours for sharing the following image:

[Image description: a naked man doing press-ups on a bed; below him sits an at least partially naked man; the top man's unseen gentitals are on or above the seated chap's face/head; © Eric Lacavalerie aka GayArtbyEric]

In deference to Facebook's absurd puritanism, Eric had self-censored the naked buttock cheeks.

I myself was subjected to a rap over the knuckles for a health-related article (one of a series) I posted on damaged penes, despite the images being available on Wikipedia.

"If thine eye offends thee, pluck it out!" cites the Bible. Well, in the modern world, I would suggest that if something is visually offensive to someone, that they refrain from looking at it. Just because one person is offended, does not mean the majority are.

I have written elsewhere how I consider taking offence is a deliberate action by the emotionally &/or intellectually immature, so I shall not repeat myself. See my blog-post "Offensive language" if you are so inclined.

Grow up folks! Stop reporting things you do not like or are against your so-called beliefs. Your holier-than-me attitude does not win me or others over to your cause. If you have a problem, say so and debate it publicly. What faith to hide behind tell-tales!

Rant over.

Tuesday, 13 August 2013

BBC deliberately censoring the news?

Yesterday I was at hospital, but did my best to follow the story of the Local Government Association's latest report from the Centre for Economic and Social Inclusion (CESI) on the impact of the UK Government's (satirically labelled the ConDems) welfare reforms or in old speak, social security cuts.

I shall be quoting large amounts of text from articles in order to highlight how remiss the BBC has been in not covering the story.

Firstly, the press release for the report itself:



Less than one quarter of welfare recipients will be in a position to mitigate reductions in benefit payments by finding work or moving to cheaper accommodation, a ground-breaking independent study commissioned by the Local Government Association (LGA) and carried out by the Centre for Economic and Social Inclusion has revealed.

The study, which is the first ever assessment of the cumulative impact of the government's welfare reforms, compares the financial impact on benefit recipients in a given area with the local job opportunities and potential to move into cheaper accommodation.
Carried out by the Inclusion for the LGA, the study shows that by 2015–16 the income of households claiming benefit will be lower on average by £1,615 per year (£31 per week). However, a shortage of jobs and affordable homes in many areas means that four out of every five of those households are likely to need some form of assistance from their council to help them cope with the reduction in welfare.
It is estimated that the combined impact of housing reforms on these tenants is likely to be £1 billion each year. So far £155 million has been made available to councils via Discretionary Housing Payments, which represents just £1 in every £7 of the impact of housing reforms on tenants. The government's recent announcement of an additional £25 million to support tenants is welcome, but does not significantly alter the picture.
The LGA, which represents more than 370 local authorities in England and Wales, warns that unless more is done to generate new jobs and build much needed affordable and social housing, helping households cope with the welfare reductions will syphon money away from local services such as caring for the vulnerable and elderly, fixing the roads and picking up the bins. Local services are already facing the deepest cuts in the public sector, with a 42 per cent real terms reduction in councils' grant from central government across the life of this Parliament.
The report's findings have prompted the LGA to demand that the government introduce three major policy initiatives to deliver the new homes and jobs the welfare reforms require. They are:
  1. Help councils deliver new homes by relaxing the rules which severely limit how much councils can borrow against their existing housing stock. Recent research shows that councils could build up to 60,000 new homes over the next five years if they were allowed to invest in housing under normal borrowing guidelines. This would deliver a 0.6 per cent boost to gross domestic product (GDP), create new jobs and reduce the benefit bill by increasing the provision of much-needed new social housing.
  2. Give councils and their partners in business more influence over employment schemes so that training providers produce more people with skills that are closely matched to what employers in the area need. Earlier this year a report by the LGAshowed that personalised local approaches are most effective in reducing the number of young people out of work and training, but that such schemes are undermined by national funding, performance and procurement systems driven by Whitehall. The report showed that a localised approach would cut youth unemployment by 20 per cent, result in savings of £1.25 billion a year to the taxpayer and contribute an additional £15 billion into the economy over 10 years.
  3. Immediately re-evaluate the Discretionary Housing Payments fund to ensure supply better matches demand in local areas. The government has committed to the ‘new burdens doctrine' which is supposed to ensure that any new costs or administrative burdens that are passed from central to local government are matched by the appropriate funding. The scheme should be redesigned to ensure that the government meets its responsibility.
Cllr Sharon Taylor, Chair of the LGA's Finance Panel, said:
In many areas welfare reform is not encouraging people into work because the jobs simply don't exist, while the opportunities for people to downsize their homes to cope with reductions in benefits are severely limited by a lack of affordable accommodation. Unless more is done to create new jobs and homes, households will be pushed into financial hardship and we will see a huge rise in the number of people going to their councils asking for help to make ends meet.
Local government can help generate the necessary jobs and new homes but the government has to give councils more influence over employment schemes and more freedom to borrow to build new houses.
Demand for Discretionary Housing Payments will significantly outstrip the money the government has made available to councils to mitigate the changes. This will have a massive impact on local government budgets, which are already stretched to breaking point by the deepest cuts in the public sector. Ministers must ensure councils have enough resources to meet demand. Local services have already taken the biggest cuts in the public sector and it would be wrong if councils had to reduce spending on other services such as caring for the vulnerable and fixing the roads to meet the new costs brought about by these changes to national policy.’

The Independent newspaper (affectionately referred to as the Indy) under the headline The real cost of benefits squeeze: £1,600 per family produced the following article as the headline story on its front cover:

Welfare cuts that are meant to get the jobless back to work are driving down the living standards of hundreds of thousands of people who are in no position
to find a job, an assessment of the Coalition’s welfare reforms says today.

Researchers, who have used data to forecast what will happen to the 1.18 million households where no one works, have calculated that 155,000 (roughly one in eight) can mitigate the effect of the cuts by finding work near their home, while another 115,000 will have the opportunity to move to more affordable housing. The rest – more than three-quarters of the total – will simply see their incomes drop, according to an independent study carried out for the Local Government Association by the Centre for Economic and Social Inclusion.
The effects will be felt all over the country, with fears that, were councils to make up the shortfall in benefit expenditure, it could force them to cut spending on roads, refuse collections and care for the elderly. The planned cuts in housing benefit are most likely to affect the South, where housing costs are higher.
The study calculates that most families on benefits will receive £1,615 a year less than they would have done under the old system – except in London, where high housing costs will reduce the incomes of households on benefit by £1,965 a year. In Westminster, in the heart of London, the average loss will exceed £5,000 a year.
Government ministers have been keen to stress that social security reforms are not supposed simply to be a cost-cutting exercise. They are also meant to encourage people to find work, for example by eliminating anomalies that mean that some people are actually better off at home claiming benefits than if they were in low-paid jobs.
“Welfare reform is about much more than saving money, vital though that is,” the Chancellor, George Osborne, told MPs in June, when he set out this year’s Spending Review.
“It is about reducing dependency and changing people’s lives for the better … Where is the fairness in condemning people to a life on benefits because the system will not help them to get back into work?” However, researchers examined the potential impact of the reforms in areas covered by 325 local councils, and found that, in 314 of them, most of the savings would come from reducing benefits paid to households where somebody works – especially in the North, where wages are lower than the South.
Sharon Taylor, chairman of the LGA’s finance panel, warned councils would be forced to raid other budgets, which were already being squeezed, in order to help tenants suffering as a result of housing benefit changes. “Demand for discretionary housing payments will significantly outstrip the money the Government has made available  to councils to mitigate the changes. Local services have already taken the biggest cuts in the public sector and it would be wrong if councils had to reduce spending on other services such as caring for the vulnerable and fixing the roads to meet the new costs brought about by these changes to national policy.”
Overall, the social security reforms will save taxpayers £11.8bn in 2015-16, but it is reckoned that 59 per cent of that will come out of 530,000 households where there is someone working, compared with 41 per cent coming from 1.18 million households where no one works. Almost half of the total savings, £5.3bn, will come from a tightening up of tax credits.
The parts of England where the reforms will hit hardest are the North-east, Lancashire, the central North-west, Birmingham, parts of London and coastal towns such as Great Yarmouth, Scarborough, Plymouth and Torbay.
Councils will be able to make discretionary payments towards the housing costs of families affected, but the £155m that the Government has made available represents just £1 for every £7 that tenants have lost.
Ms Taylor added: “In many areas welfare reform is not encouraging people into work because the jobs simply don’t exist, while the opportunities for people to downsize their homes to cope with reductions in benefits are severely limited by a lack of affordable accommodation. Unless more is done to create new jobs and homes, households will be pushed into financial hardship and we will see a huge rise in the number of people going to their councils asking for help to make ends meet.”
The TUC’s general secretary, Frances O’Grady, said: “The Government has tried to sell its welfare reforms on the back of mistruths and nasty stereotypes. However, this research exposes what a devastating impact its policies are having on communities throughout the country.
“Ministers are not cracking down on cheats as they claim, but destroying the safety net that our welfare state is meant to provide for those who fall on hard times through no fault of their own. The Government’s attack on social security provision is not only hurting those unable to find work. Millions of working families are seeing an even bigger reduction in their financial support. Rather than addressing the shortage of jobs and affordable housing that are blighting many areas, ministers are slashing local authority budgets and expecting councils to deal with the fallout from their reforms.”
A DWP spokesperson said: “Crucially this research, as the LGA itself acknowledges, doesn't take into account the combined impacts of the Government’s reforms, including the raising of the personal income tax threshold, and the benefits of Universal Credit which will make 3 million households better off.
“The fact remains that the benefits bill has become unsustainable and it’s only right we take action to bring it under control, but we are bringing in all our reforms in ways that protect pensioners, vulnerable and disabled people.”
Welfare reform: The changes
Most benefits now paid to welfare claimants are being phased out.
Six of the main ones, including the jobseeker’s allowance, income support, tax credits and housing benefit are to be merged into one, called universal credit, which will be paid monthly into a bank account.
Disability living allowance is being abolished for all adults under 65, and replaced with a personal independence payment. Claimants will not be assessed on how serious their condition is but on how it affects them.
There is also to be a cap on the total amount of benefits that can be paid to one family, equal to the average wage for working families, or £26,000 for a couple or single parent with a child, which will apply equally everywhere, regardless of the cost of housing.
The so-called “bedroom tax” applies to tenants living in homes with more bedrooms than the Government thinks are necessary – with children under 16 of the same gender and all children under 10 expected to share.
This is not strictly a tax, but a cut in benefits. One “extra” room will cost the tenant 14 per cent of their housing benefit. Two or more will cost 25 per cent.
Introducing the changes in March last year, the Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith said: “Universal credit will mean work will pay for the first time, helping to lift people out of the endless cycle of benefits, whilst those who need our support will know they will get it.”"



[Image description: front cover of Indy 12th August 2013 © The Independent]


At 01.13 yesterday ITN posted the following under the title
Housing benefit changes 'will affect 1.71million households':

"A study carried out by the Centre for Economic and Social Inclusion, into the impacts of the Government's radical reform of the welfare system found:

  • The income of households claiming benefit will be an estimated £1,165 a year, or £31 a week, lower in 2015/16 as a result of reforms excluding the Universal Credit.
  • the effect of housing benefit changes will affect 1.71 million households, 1.18 million of which contain no one in work.
  • Overall 45% of working age households receive one of the main benefits or tax credits and 59% of welfare cuts will fall on households where someone has a job.
  • The study also suggested that just 155,000 workless households may mitigate the effects by finding employment, and 115,000 by moving."


At 01.28 yesterday ITN posted the following under the title

Areas where welfare reforms to be 'most strongly' felt:

"A study into the impacts of recently introduced welfare reforms has said identified areas where they are likely to be "most strongly" to be felt.

The Local Government Association commissioned report said:
"The impacts of the reforms are likely to be most strongly felt in areas with the highest dependence on benefit - the North East, parts of London and a swathe of coastal towns and cities including Thanet, Tendring, Great Yarmouth, Scarborough and Torbay.""


At 12.44 yesterday ITN posted the following under the title
Welfare reforms 'will hit councils', says report:

"Councils could be forced to cut spending on roads and elderly care to support households losing out through the Government's welfare reforms, town hall chiefs warn.

The study looked at the impacts of the radical shake-up of the welfare system. Credit: ITV News
A study estimated less than a quarter of the 1.18 million English workless households affected by housing benefit cuts would be able to mitigate the impact of the reforms by moving to a cheaper property or finding a job.
This could lead to councils having to pay out to support them, according to the report, commissioned by the Local Government Association
It also cast doubt on the effectiveness of the universal credit scheme, aimed at ensuring claimants are always better off working, suggesting it was "unlikely to significantly increase employment"."


I subscribe to the Beeb's newsfeed and have it co-ordinated by feedly. At no point yesterday nor today did any post appear from the BBC covering this or even part of the story. This is really newsworthy stuff: millions of individuals affected.

Just to be fair to the BBC, in case they did post something, but somehow it got missed, I today checked using the following search terms:

"Local Government Association"


As can be seen from the screen-shot, the last item was posted on 9th August about an unrelated topic.

"LGA"


As can be seen from the screen-shot, the last item was posted on 1st August about an unrelated topic.

"CESI"


As can be seen from the screen-shot, the last item was posted on 9th May about an unrelated topic.

"Centre for Economic and Social Inclusion"



With this search I actually obtained a hit. Under the headline Newspaper review: Miliband headline woes, which hardly gives the game away for the subject sought, half way down the item the reader encounters:


The paper quotes a study by the Centre for Economic and Social Inclusion, which suggests that most families on benefits will receive £1,615 a year less than they would have done under the old welfare system.
The researchers also found that, of the 1.2 million households in which no-one works, only one in eight was likely to be able to find work near home."

And that, as far as I can ascertain, is the total BBC coverage of this story. Millions of Brits are affected; but the BBC does not consider this newsworthy. (Although oddly enough today, the BBC has published a tale of Welsh attitudes as to who should control their social security - "welfare" per BBC - budget.)
Even charities such as DRUK and AfME managed to cover it and they do not have the media resources of the BBC.


I cannot help but wonder why the BBC failed to adequately cover this story either yesterday or thus far today. Many believe it is because the organisation is now riddled with Tory or at the very least neo-liberal grandees and protégés.  It seems that Auntie only wants to include items on social security or "welfare" (to use their preferred term lifted straight from the ConDems' book of spin and propaganda) when it conveys government policy and/or perspective only.
Of course, there is another possibility. Former Times editor, and thus Murdoch man, James Harding commenced his new position as editor of all BBC news yesterday. Perhaps no-one at the BBC dared cross him?

For those interested in reading the full report it can be found on the LGA's website.