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...
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

**Thread on Bravery of Sikhs**
(I am forced to do this due to continuous hounding of Sikh Extremists since yesterday)

Rani Jindan Kaur, wife of Maharaja Ranjit Singh had illegitimate relations with Lal Singh (PM of Ranjit Singh). Along with Lal Singh, she attacked Jammu, burnt - https://t.co/EfjAq59AyI


Hindu villages of Jasrota, caused rebellion in Jammu, attacked Kishtwar.

Ancestors of Raja Ranjit Singh, The Sansi Tribe used to give daughters as concubines to Jahangir.


The Ludhiana Political Agency (Later NW Fronties Prov) was formed by less than 4000 British soldiers who advanced from Delhi and reached Ludhiana, receiving submissions of all sikh chiefs along the way. The submission of the troops of Raja of Lahore (Ranjit Singh) at Ambala.

Dabistan a contemporary book on Sikh History tells us that Guru Hargobind broke Naina devi Idol Same source describes Guru Hargobind serving a eunuch
YarKhan. (ref was proudly shared by a sikh on twitter)
Gobind Singh followed Bahadur Shah to Deccan to fight for him.


In Zafarnama, Guru Gobind Singh states that the reason he was in conflict with the Hill Rajas was that while they were worshiping idols, while he was an idol-breaker.

And idiot Hindus place him along Maharana, Prithviraj and Shivaji as saviours of Dharma.