Mediaboss Marketing

November 11, 2020

Fox News won the ratings war in the US election hands down. But its candidate lost, even if that is taking a while to sink in. Ironically, Foxs statisticians were the first to call the poll for Biden, something that has brought them condemnation from the stations headbanger Alt-Right poster boys who are wildly popular with its audience and have been made wildly wealthy by the station.

Approaching his 90th year, Rupert Murdoch might have thought he couldnt face a new kind of problem; how do you steer a rabid product that has served its purpose back towards the mainstream now that its cause celebre has gone? And how do you do it without shedding its audience of unreconcilables. Particularly as Mr Trump, as he will soon be, seems likely to bring a new TV channel to market to the right of Fox. Perhaps the character of Fox will naturally evolve as some of its unreformable anchors jump ship to Trump TV. Mind you, well as they would know their new boss, they might be rather worried about their maga (I mean mega) wages being paid.

Since the departure of Roger Ailes first from Fox for sex assaults, then from the mortal coil Fox has been leaderless and somewhat out of control, as can been seen by the rats in a sack infighting now. The election of Biden is a time for Murdoch managers to get it reined back in and go for a refresh. Hes already doing it for his newspapers with the New York Post suddenly seeming sane and reasonable, just as he has done it before with The Sun in the UK.

Murdoch wants to make governments in order they owe him something. He prefers they are right-wing, but he doesnt mind going off-piste; see Tony Blair. The important thing is he is on the inside, or at least onside.

And, at least hes pretty open about. Its a you might not like me but at least I stab you in the front kind of attitude. Sadly, despite undoubtedly being a fan of journalism, Murdochs strained relationship with the truth has recently seemed to break down altogether. But he is still a publisher and broadcaster and so has some fundamental legal constraints on him. Unlike, say, the Russians, or Facebook, for example.

Read the original here:
FOX will find another of its faces | - Advanced Television

It seems at last that the cruelties committed on the U.S.-Mexico border, especially those involving the separation offamilies and children, may have taken their toll on the President with the loss of a small margin of undecided voters that couldve decided a tight outcome.

The latest outrage is in, no surprise, a scenario where conspiracies like QAnon and crypto-fascist speeches coexist for one of Donald Trump's most alt-right advisors.Californian Stephen Millerchooses to add fuel to the fire with obscene predictions of a second term where all kinds of border measures will be intensified.

In a telephone interview for NBC News, Miller said that they would limit asylum permits and persecute "sanctuary cities" by expanding visitation limits. His goal would be, plain and simple, to increase any criteria that would ensure the U.S.'s impermeability.

The main fear that such electoral measures provoke is that they may require a new legal apparatus, which excludes some of those already living and working in the United States. They're also legal changes that are especially challenging to undo later and a jigsaw for future governments.

Rolling Stone reportedthat to date, 400,000 people have been forced to leave the U.S.,2,654 children have been taken from their families, and more than half a million people have been left in legal limbo. It is also very pertinentto mention, as VICEreported, the hundreds of cases of racism and eugenics that occurred in the ICE facilities.

Miller's promises work both as propaganda and as fuel for his alt-right followers who have taken the streets in recentdays over the election results. The most progressive sectors have screamed blue murder from the very same moment some media planners appeared. Still, in political terms, they were never their audience, so they lived proudly with the fury of adversaries that gave them screentime. But there is a small margin of the population that changestheir supportfrom one election to the next.These are the voters most-targeted by presidentialcampaigns. It's not only the campaigns that change their vote, but also the actions of administrations. Under President Trump, terrible, inhumane treatmentof children at the borderrecently exposed again in Hatemonger: Stephen Miller, Donald Trump and the White Nationalist Agenda (Jean Guerrero, 2020), are actions that havenot goneunnoticed.

However, this lack of solidarity has been a considerable burden on his image for the small margin of undecided and independent voters, as a poll published by Public Opinion Strategies revealed. Among all this tangle of Machiavellian proposals, the most serious red line for up to 65% of those polled, especially for men and women from suburban areas, is the separation of families on the U.S.-Mexico border.

It seems like, in the end, their alt-right advisors and actions turned out to be little Icarus who ended up burning themselves with such fateful predictions, making a small margin of voters make the difference.

Original post:
How did the Trump administration's immigration policies impact election results? - AL DIA News

As the electoral drama unfolded on the evening of November 3, the nation held its breath. Civil society groups prepared for turmoil, journalists for rapid response and tech companies to stem the spread of disinformation.

In the early hours of the morning, the networked factions that back President Donald TrumpDonald John TrumpFeds charge Staten Island man over threat to Schumer, FBI Pence cancels vacation in Florida: report Romney shoots down serving in Biden Cabinet MORE disparate groups united by their support of the president applauded his premature declaration of victory. Some turned to conspiracy theorists, operating in hives online, to make sense of the unfolding turmoil. Then they amplified the misinformation created in these spaces.

One group associated with such conspiracy theories is QAnon, which has contributed to the spread of misinformation in the 2020 election. The QAnon movement is centered around an individual (or group), referred to as Q, who claims to be part of a secret U.S. intelligence operation, disseminating esoteric propaganda to encourage support for Trumps imaginary crusade against forces of the so-called deep state. It originated from the 4chan, migrated to 8chan, then found a home on 8kun, which are message boards designed to share memes and anime not foster extremism. But their characteristics made them attractive homes for groups ranging from the hacktivistAnonymous collective, the reactionary Gamergate movement to white supremacist terror. They also have been a home for anti-democratic speech and celebrating political violence.

The growth of the QAnon conspiracy is the work of media manipulation by a small group of motivated actors, who move the storyline along across networked platforms. Like networked social movements that have used the internet as an advocacy platform, QAnon followers have managed to create a resilient cross-platform ecosystem of content and influencers that has shuttled misinformation across its various hubs for the last three years. Eventually Trump, who QAnon followers largely support, acknowledged and tacitly defended the conspiracy. As 2020 has shown us, political representation is on the horizon several Q candidates were on ballots across the country, including Marjorie Greene, who won a seat in the House, and Sen. Kelly Loeffler (R-Ga.), who is facing a runoff election to retain her seat in the U.S. Senate.

In 2020, the limited data we have from polling and critical reporting suggests millions are now aware of and may be on board with this movement. QAnon has become a fully networked conspiracy complex with numerous entry points for new followers, such as breaking news events, celebrity gossip and political intrigue. The movement uses pseudonymity to avoid attribution on social media, distributed amplification to quickly spread disinformation and fostered by fringe alt tech platforms like 8kun and Gab. Sheltered by these platforms known to harbor extremist groups, QAnon punches well above its weight, affecting our media, democratic institutions and public health.

While QAnon is not the alt-right, both movements grew in the same places. QAnon first came to popular attention when its supporters became visible at Trump rallies, and it spread globally during COVID-19 lockdowns. Steeped in ancient antisemitic tropes, QAnon members engage in misguided research, networked harassment of politicians and blind support for Trump. They are not the originators of these conspiracy theories, but the amplifiers often look to Trump himself for tacit recognition, and they rely on social media to grow their ranks.

Social institutions around the world are struggling with anti-democratic movements weaponizing social media. A few people can rapidly deploy disinformation across networks to deadly results QAnon was initially spread by three conspiracy influencers before it was taken up on large platforms. This network of influence is much like fandoms, and mimics the form of activist groups. We see how these methods were used to deadly effect by white nationalists.

After Charlottesville in 2017, platforms finally removed many of the extremists who used their systems to organize the deadly Unite the Right Rally. QAnon, unlike the alt-right before it, is not focused on ethnonationalism, but rather the acceleration of civic decay in the form of political and medical disinformation, including vaccine hesitancy. While the vast majority of QAnon influencers and believers do not advocate violence, some have taken matters into their own hands.

Just as QAnon co-opted the fight against human trafficking with the #savethechildren hashtag, the movement isnt bound to the 2020 elections. On their dock now is Agenda 21, the belief global leaders are plotting a depopulation genocide to favor elites.

How are platforms responsible

The manipulation of social media by unknown actors fundamentally disrupts democratic communication. This lack of identity leads to lack of attribution, leaving our political communication in the so-called new public square of social media vulnerable to both domestic and foreign interference. As power and wealth is consolidated around these platforms, they show us time and time again they are unable to successfully mitigate these campaigns. Now, as we see the impact on electoral politics, we must consider the true cost of disinformation and brace for its continual impact on our democractic institutions long past the elections. Internal leaks from facebook suggest the movement was allowed to grow, unfettered, for far too long despite internal concern.

In the chaos that exists between breaking news and verified information, disinformation thrives. Most recently, two individuals associated with the QAnon movement were arrested in Philadelphia for an alleged plot to attack the site of ballot counting. As liberals call for regulation, and conservatives rally around the abolition of Section 230, which governs liability on platforms, we cannot lose sight of what is at stake. Coalitions, like Change the Terms, have long worked to hold platforms accountable by creating model policies on hate speech. While debates about content moderation are about QAnon and Trump right now, it will not always be. The enduring influence of QAnon on political communication is a symptom of how social media platforms remain unable to adapt to evolving use cases, and the only way to counter it is to recalibrate how platforms moderate content, especially conspiracy and medical misinformation.

Brian Friedberg is a senior researcher of the Technology and Social Change Research Project at the Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy at Harvard Kennedy School. Merging academic methods and Open Source Intelligence techniques, he is an investigative ethnographer, focusing on the impacts alternative media, anonymous communities and unpopular cultures have on political communication and organization.

See the rest here:
QAnon proves internet companies aren't up to the task of defending democracy | TheHill - The Hill

Opponents of an Auckland art exhibition which featured neo-Nazi flags and symbols of white nationalism have received an apology from one of the exhibition's co-facilitators, but say it doesn't go far enough.

The exhibition by Mercy Pictures gallery closed last week, but has come under intense scrutiny by locals and activist group Tmaki Anti-Fascist Action who believe the display, which did not include context or justification, was deeply hurtful.

In a statement, a spokesperson for the group said many of the images used were clearly symbols of oppression, disguised as art.

"We were profoundly troubled by its extensive and uncritical use of neo-Nazi symbols, which is a form of platforming their ideology. We've found this especially frustrating when we and other community groups have put in so much effort to deplatform fascists before and following the Christchurch massacre," they said.

"In addition, we were deeply concerned that the exhibition's introduction was written by British transphobe Nina Power who has also collaborated with the alt-right, as a form of platforming her transphobic and alt-right ideology."

The group was also concerned that neo-Nazi symbols were displayed alongside the Tino Rangatiratanga and Ngi Thoe flags, without permission from tangata whenua.

"I would like to sincerely apologise for the harm and re-traumatisation brought about by the exhibition I played a part in putting together ... I deeply regret the way Mercy Pictures has responded to criticism and the pain that this show has bought about. It was irresponsible of me to assume these symbols and our action in displaying could deny their meanings and histories to extended communities," he said in an open letter.

"I regret in the strongest way possible the display of images and symbols related to terrible violence inflicted upon marginalised communities in the name of art. I recognise now this was a form of platforming fascist symbols. I apologise whole-heartedly for any detraction from the strength, mana and resilience of those people and for any pain that the exhibition caused them."

He also acknowledged that he would not work with Nina Power in the future, and said he would meet with the communities he had harmed face-to-face.

An open letter is circulating online to condemn the exhibition, and demand an apology from the entire company.

The letter also calls for the company to refuse to work with Nina Power in the future, no longer platform fascist and other far-right figures, and to apologise to tangata whenua for displaying their flags without permission.

Mercy Pictures is expected to release a statement.

See more here:
'We have put in so much effort to deplatform fascists before and following the Christchurch massacre' - Otago Daily Times

For many years, social media firms like Facebook (NASDAQ:FB) and Twitter (NYSE:TWTR) courted controversy over accusations that they deliberately censor or otherwise stymie conservative and right-wing voices. In fairness, I can appreciate why big tech firms have a vested interest in cleaning up their content. Frankly, bigotry is bad for business. But this years election cycle has only ramped up contentions over content arbitration, clouding the narrative for FB stock.

Source: Ink Drop / Shutterstock.com

As you know, President Donald Trump garnered notoriety for his constant criticism of fake news and mainstream media suppression of conservative ideologies. Moreover, Republicans havent been messing around, leveling all kinds of accusations against big tech, putting the sectors executives on the hot seat. Now, the common charge is that the underlying business model of FB stock violates in spirit the First Amendment.

I say in spirit because the First Amendment only applies to the government restricting free speech, not private corporations. And before you send me hate mail, please note that Im using private in the sense that these companies are not government entities. I fully realize that Facebook is a publicly traded company.

Essentially, then, the argument is that social media firms are using a constitutional technicality to censor conservative ideas. But if the overall impact results in free speech suppression, wouldnt that essentially be a constitutional violation? Because if were being intellectually honest, social media firms today have unfathomable influence in directing the national discourse.

On the other hand, Im not really sure if conservatives will be able to win the war against big tech, which may seem to bode well for FB stock. Heres the deal nothing is stopping Republican voters from creating their own Facebook or Twitter.

For instance, the alt-right (you can look this up yourself, Im not going to give these organizations oxygen) offers dating websites for white people only. While this notion sounds like something out of the Third Reich, the U.S. government cannot prevent far-right wing organizations from creating a race-based dating site.

Since the opportunity exists for conservatives to create their own platforms, the First Amendment ruckus probably wont work. Still, censorship is probably not in Facebooks or big techs interest and heres why.

In recent years, two stories piqued my interest. First, Tracy Jones article about his challenges rearing his biracial daughter in Japan, and second, the death of Christian missionary John Allen Chau at the North Sentinel Island. I found both narratives to be heartbreaking. But there are also two sides to every story.

Underlining these two seemingly disparate topics is the idea that the American foreigner has the right to assume that their permanent presence is welcome in a land not their own. In Chaus case, the indigenous Sentinelese tribe made it abundantly clear that they did not want the Gospel message. With Jones, some Japanese made it clear (in a far nicer way than the Sentinelese) that he was not appreciated.

Mainstream media coverage was generally sympathetic toward the Sentinelese. Though the indigenous tribe murdered Chau, there was an inherent risk of spreading disease to an uncontacted people group. Further, the Sentinelese expressed their displeasure at every attempt made at contact.

Similarly, the Japanese would probably continue embracing their homogeneity and nationalism had it not been for U.S. Navy Commodore Matthew Perry. For Japan, diversity of ideas and eventually people came at the threat of annihilation.

But the raging hypocrisy is that the Sentinelese murdered Chau, whose only crime was to preach salvation through Jesus Christ. Im sorry folks but thats not worthy of a death sentence; you can just say, no thanks! Yet the media emphasizes that ultimately, the Sentinelese have the right to protect their heritage at any cost.

However, the mainstream media has made it clear that the Japanese do not have that same right. Here, I am deeply troubled when Americans go to foreign countries to promote American-style virtue signaling. I mean, we wouldnt like it if Japanese commentators came to America and called us a bunch of gun-loving loons.

You know what wed say? Our guns, our business, go fly a kite. But in turn, dont the Japanese have the right to say the same thing about race relations in Japan?

But by censoring counterarguments and opposition speech on the faulty, reactionary notion of racism, only one side of the narrative is broadcasted. That feeds into deep resentment, contributing to characters like Donald Trump becoming leaders of the free world. And thats why capricious censorship of any conservative idea, no matter how well-reasoned, may be unfavorable for FB stock. It not only leads to blowback in the worst possible way but its bad for business (just like outright bigotry and racism is bad for business).

Youre losing an audience that is actually much more vocal and voluminous than coastal liberal elites assume. Just look at how close Trump came to winning reelection, even with fake ballots.

I like to consider myself a world traveler, although I havent had much time to do so in recent years. Still, I fondly remember my very brief time in Slovakia.

I was in a rundown part of the country. Honestly, the place looked like a warzone. And scrabbled all over the walls were the numbers 14/88. Thats code for if youre not white, you better run.

Did I find this offensive? Of course! But at the same time, I didnt run around to every Slovak and demand that they accept me. Look, its a white country and they want to keep it that way. Who am I, a foreigner, to demand they accept diversity with open arms?

I tell you this story because racial diversity is not a moral virtue. Its merely a choice: some people embrace it, but others do not. Whats wrong is to assume that those who dont embrace diversity which to be clear is far different from racism or fighting words are somehow morally flawed and must either be punished or censored.

Thats not the American way. And I would argue that its probably not good for FB stock. Again, youre denying voices that have every right to speak. Further, these voices often have hefty wallets. While Facebook can censor, it doesnt necessarily mean that it should.

On the date of publication, Josh Enomoto did not have (either directly or indirectly) any positions in the securities mentioned in this article.

A former senior business analyst for Sony Electronics, Josh Enomoto has helped broker major contracts with Fortune Global 500 companies. Over the past several years, he has delivered unique, critical insights for the investment markets, as well as various other industries including legal, construction management, and healthcare.

See original here:
Facebook Can Censor But Heres Why It Shouldnt - InvestorPlace