SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Hundreds of British artists and media personalities argue that the film "deserves recognition, not politically motivated censorship."
Hundreds of U.K. artists and media personalities have signed an open letter decrying the British Broadcasting Corporation's removal of a documentary film about the horrifying impacts of Israel's Gaza onslaught on children.
The BBC pulled Gaza: How to Survive a War Zone—which was produced by Hoyo Films—after the broadcaster learned that its 14-year-old narrator was the son of a Hamas official.
Juliet Stevenson, Gary Lineker, Khalid Abdalla, Anita Rani, and Miriam Margolyes are among the more than 800 film, television, and media workers who, as of Friday, have signed the Artists for Palestineletter condemning what signers called the censorship and racism behind the BBC's cancellation.
"We are U.K.-based film and TV professionals and journalists writing in support of the BBC documentary Gaza: How To Survive A War Zone, which aired on February 17 on BBC Two and was subsequently made available on iPlayer," states the letter, whose signatories include a dozen BBC employees.
"This film is an essential piece of journalism, offering an all-too-rare perspective on the lived experiences of Palestinian children living in unimaginable circumstances, which amplifies voices so often silenced. It deserves recognition, not politically motivated censorship," the letter continues.
Why have the BBC apologised for & removed the documentary 'Gaza: How to Survive a Warzone'? Because it went some way to humanising Palestinians. Here some young children flee in terror from Israeli bullets.
[image or embed]
— Saul Staniforth (@saulstaniforth.bsky.social) February 28, 2025 at 3:24 AM
"Beneath this political football are children who are in the most dire circumstances of their young lives," the signers added. "This is what must remain at the heart of this discussion. As program-makers, we are extremely alarmed by the intervention of partisan political actors on this issue, and what this means for the future of broadcasting in this country."
The Gaza Health Ministry said more than 17,000 Palestinian children have been killed and thousands more wounded by Israeli attacks on the coastal enclave, 10,000 of them in the first 100 days of the war, according to the charity Save the Children. The International Rescue Committee published a report last October revealing that as many as 50,000 children in Gaza have been orphaned or separated from their parents.
Hundreds of thousands more children have been forcibly displaced, with some dying from exposure to cold, windy, rainy conditions. Many other Gazan children have been sickened and starved, sometimes to death—their deaths partly attributed to the "complete siege" imposed on the strip by Israel, which is facing genocide charges at the International Court of Justice in the Netherlands.
The Israeli assault has wrought what Save the Children called the "complete psychological destruction" of Gaza's children, 96% of whom feared imminent death, according to a survey conducted last December by the Gaza-based Community Training Center for Crisis Management, and supported by War Child Alliance.
The international charity Doctors Without Borders has called Gaza "the most dangerous place in the world to be a child."
Another documentary about Palestine, No Other Land, has been nominated for an Academy Award but is unavailable to stream in the United States because no distributor was willing to take it.
"If major media outlets succumb to intimidation from the Trump administration, the First Amendment is in serious danger."
Independent U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont on Monday took aim at both President Donald Trump's attempts at "suing the media into submission" and news outlets' willingness to settle such cases and self-censor as "incredibly dangerous" precedents.
In a video posted on social media, Sanders highlighted that CBS News parent company Paramount is in talks with Trump's lawyers to possibly settle a $10 billion lawsuit filed by the president just days before the 2024 election accusing "60 Minutes" of deceptively editing an interview with Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democratic nominee.
Sanders also noted how ABC Newsagreed last year to pay a $15 million settlement that included a letter of regret after veteran anchor and political commentator George Stephanopoulos said Trump had been found "liable for rape" of writer E. Jean Carroll. A federal jury in Manhattan found Trump civilly liable for sexual abuse and defamation of Carroll, but not rape—even though Caroll testified in graphic detail that Trump raped her in a department store dressing room in the 1990s.
"I regard that as an incredibly dangerous precedent, both of those, ABC and CBS," Sanders said in the video, denouncing "major media outlets succumbing to pressure from the Trump administration."
"People have a right to express their own point of view," Sanders asserted. "Yeah, networks are wrong all of the time. They're wrong about me, wrong about Trump. But if you use the power of government to intimidate networks, they're not going to do the big stories. They're not going to do the investigations. Why should they go out on a limb and tell you something if they're afraid about being sued by the Trump administration?"
The video also notes Trump's lawsuit against pollster J. Ann Selzer, her polling firm Selzer & Company, The Des Moines Register, and the Iowa newspaper's parent company, Gannett, alleging fraud and "brazen election interference" over a November 2 poll showing Harris beating Trump by 3 points in the 2024 election. Trump won Iowa by 13 points.
"If major media outlets succumb to intimidation from the Trump administration, the First Amendment is in serious danger," Sanders stressed. "We need an independent press that reports the truth without fear of retribution."
Major media outlets have also been accused of self-censorship. Jeff Bezos and Patrick Soon-Shiong, the billionaire owners of The Washington Post and Los Angeles Times, respectively, have come under fire for prohibiting or restricting opinion pieces critical of Trump or supportive of his adversaries.
"If you believe The Washington Post's slogan that 'Democracy Dies in Darkness,' their owner was the first to switch off the light," journalist David Helvarg wrote last month for Common Dreams.
The Nation justice correspondent and columnist Elie Mystal wrote last month that "recent events have shown that Trump does not have to impose a new regime of censorship if the press censors itself first."
"And that, I believe, is what we are witnessing now: a press that gives away its First Amendment rights before Trump takes them away," he continued. "A press that will not speak truth to power if power threatens to kick their owners off a cocktail party list or gum up their operations."
"The debasement of the press will continue until readers and viewers reject the media that would rather lie to them than tell the truth to Trump," Mystal added. "The people who run these publications and news organizations are betting that we won't."
"How can the government decide what words a journal can use to describe a scientific reality? That reality needs to be named," one journal editor said.
Employees at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have been ordered to pull any articles under consideration for publication in medical or scientific journals so that they can be checked for certain "forbidden terms" including gender, transgender, and LGBT.
The order was sent in an email to CDC division heads on Friday by the agency's chief science officer, a federal official toldReuters on Sunday. Inside Medicine broke the news on Saturday and provided a screenshot of the full list of terms that needed to be scrubbed.
"It sounds incredible that this is compatible with the First Amendment. A constitutional right has been canceled," Dr. Alfredo Morabia, editor-in-chief of the American Journal of Public Health, told Reuters. "How can the government decide what words a journal can use to describe a scientific reality? That reality needs to be named."
"We can't just erase or ignore certain populations when it comes to preventing, treating, or researching infectious diseases such as HIV."
The order is an attempt to ensure that CDC is in compliance with U.S. President Donald Trump's executive order mandating that the U.S. government only recognize two sexes: male and female. The papers will be withdrawn so that a Trump appointee can review them.
The "forbidden terms" CDC employees are supposed to avoid are, in full: Gender, transgender, pregnant person, pregnant people, LGBT, transsexual, non-binary, nonbinary, assigned male at birth, assigned female at birth, biologically male, and biologically female, according to Inside Medicine.
The order covers both papers under consideration and those accepted but not published. According to Reuters, if a CDC employee worked on a paper with nongovernmental scientists but did not initiate it, they have been asked to remove their names.
The new order is separate from a demand two days into the administration that government health agencies including CDC freeze all communications with the public. It follows reports on Friday that CDC webpages and datasets involving HIV, the LGBTQ community, youth health, and other topics were no longer accessible as the agency attempts to comply with the Trump executive order on transgender identity and another on banning government Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion initiatives.
"It is Orwellian, it really is," Steven Woolf, director emeritus and senior adviser at Virginia Commonwealth University's Center on Society and Health,
In response to the purges, scientists, science journalists, and public health advocates have worked to preserve the datasets, with everything on the CDC website as of January 27, 2024 preserved at ACASignups.net and downloaded data sets also available on Jessica Valenti's Substack Abortion, Every Day.
"Censoring data on ideological grounds is wrong. It is unscientific, and it is designed to eliminate opposition and erase dissidents," virologist Angela Rasmussen, who was involved with the data preservation efforts, wrote on social media.
The journal article retraction order has created uncertainty and confusion at the agency, Inside Medicine reported:
How many manuscripts are affected is unclear, but it could be many. Most manuscripts include simple demographic information about the populations or patients studied, which typically includes gender (and which is frequently used interchangeably with sex). That means just about any major study would fall under the censorship regime of the new policy, including studies on Covid-19, cancer, heart disease, or anything else, let alone anything that the administration considers to be "woke ideology."
Meanwhile, chaos and fear are already guiding decisions. While the policy is only meant to apply to work that might be seen as conflicting with President Trump's executive orders, CDC experts don’t know how to interpret that. Do papers that describe disparities in health outcomes fall into "woke ideology" or not? Nobody knows, and everyone is scared that they'll be fired. This is leading to what Germans call "vorauseilender Gehorsam," or "preemptive obedience," as one non-CDC scientist commented.
There are also concerns that censoring such a broad list of terms would have unintended consequences for public health.
"We can't just erase or ignore certain populations when it comes to preventing, treating, or researching infectious diseases such as HIV. I certainly hope this is not the intent of these orders," Carl Schmid, the executive director of the HIV+ Hepatitis Policy Institute, told Reuters.