Mediaboss Marketing

REDLANDS >> Shaun King, an influential voice in the Black Lives Matter movement, is scheduled to appear Sept. 27 at University of Redlands.

King was originally scheduled to speak at U of R in February, but an injury sidelined his plans. He was expected to discuss The New Civil Rights Movement.

Kings appearance next month is part of the Associated Students Convocation and Lecture Series, which brings newsmakers to campus to share their perspectives with U of R students and the public. Past speakers have included retired soccer superstar and Redlands native Landon Donovan and former U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer.

Kings visit begins at 7 p.m. at the universitys Memorial Chapel, 1200 E. Colton Ave.

Shaun King is clear that he is only one voice articulating unease with the current state of civil and human rights in the United States, said Leela MadhavaRau, associate dean for campus diversity and inclusion. His ability to tell micro-stories of injustice in his terminology through prolific use of all forms of social media has extended his message beyond that of many activists.

King announced the new date on Facebook. The university confirmed the date by email on Monday.

Advertisement

Read the original here:
Shaun King, influential in Black Lives Matter movement, announces ... - Redlands Daily Facts

By Dr. Melina Abdullah

Until Nov. 9, 2016, the night of the presidential election, Black Lives Matter (BLM) was a force that not only demonstrated in the streets, disrupted business as usual and organized in black communities. It also was constantly on the air of virtually every media outlet in the nation. Brown faces, with the Black Lives Matter activist title chyroned beneath their names, regularly occupied at least one of the four quadrants filled by talking heads on MSNBC, CNN and local news shows, and any reference to policing or race in this nation was thought to be invalid without comment from Black Lives Matter.

The voices of BLM co-founders Patrisse Cullors, Alicia Garza and Opal Tometi were in high demand, and on-the-ground BLM organizers were regularly pulled into conversations about local efforts that had garnered national attention. We said the names of blacks killed by police and hashtagged them on social media so they reverberated through intense echo chambers, humanizing the victims and pushing back against police attempts to posthumously assassinate their characters.

Then, like the turning of a page, the changing of a channel, the dropping of a curtain, Black Lives Matter disappeared from the public sphere. The day after Donald Trump was named the newest occupant of the White House, Black Lives Matter no longer mattered to the mainstream press. And it must be framed that way: Black Lives Matter has been whited out of the national media, even as the work intensifies and the movement continues to grow. Media has either been duped by Trumps weapons of mass distraction or is actually complicit in shifting public attention away from what is arguably the most significant movement of this generation.

Of course, the initial singular focus was to be expected. There was the shock of it all. No one expected President Trump to be an actual titlemaybe an interesting hypothetical laughter-filled conversation over cocktails, but not the current frightening reality. Many believed the nation had evolved further than it had and could not fathom that blatant racismfar beyond polite anti-blacknesscould strike a chord with the majority of white voters.

Somehow, liberals and progressives missed, or chose to ignore, the suppressed yet seething vitriol of a huge swath of white Americans who traded their grandfathers white sheets for their own red caps. For these white people, Make America Great Again was like holding up a noose, reminding black people of the targets seared onto their backs and affirming the disposability of indigenous people and brown folks. MAGA meant that (white) women knew to keep themselves pretty with blonde hair, red lipstick and closed mouths; that queer and trans folks were swept back into closets; and that the disabled were nuisances, not people. Under Trumps America, poor people are poor because they deserve to be, and religious freedom means the right to recite Christian prayers in the Oval Office and lock Muslims out of the country while bombing their homelands. All this was jarringespecially to whites who see themselves as open and liberal.

For the Trump regime, the constant media attention is a second victory. Trump thrives off continual coverage of his agenda. The larger impact of this shift is the way power is being redirected away from the people and growing mass movements and monopolized by the white-supremacist-patriarchal-heteronormative capitalism as embodied by Trump and his regime. Trumps tweets, shake-ups and meltdowns are weapons of mass distraction meant to draw attention, diverting it from the resistance movements he loathes. They are an attempt to quash any viable alternatives to his intention to swiftly sweep virtually all resources and power into the hands of his own class. For Trump, Black Lives Matter must be brought down because it not only directly challenges his agenda but also calls for the end of a system of policing that protects his class interests.

Media is not without agency in this. If media is truly free (and that is questionable given the corporate ownership of mainstream media), it must challenge the Trump agenda in two important ways. First, those who would be most impacted by the new regimes agenda must be asked for perspective on what all this means to them. Next, at some point (like now), the shock of the Trump presidency must subside and we must engage in real discussions about the future of this nation, with movement organizers talking about agendas and positions those agendas define.The media is vital to resistance movementsand to black resistance movements in particular. Media has been a tool since the antislavery movement. David Walkers Appeal, published in 1829, was distributed to black free and enslaved people. It encouraged them to rise up against chattel slavery, possibly serving as an impetus for the 1831 Nat Turner rebellion. During the first anti-lynching era in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, black independent papersbest represented by Ida B. Wells Memphis Free Speech and Headlightcalled for black outmigration, armament and economic independence.

As television news entered the homes of 90 percent of Americans by 1960, so, too, did the civil rights movement. The rise of television and coverage by print news and radio were a constant consideration for strategists like Martin Luther King Jr. who used images of black pure nonviolence to elicit emotion, grow the movement and appeal to the morality of the masses. Images of strong young black people wearing black berets and leather jackets and carrying guns into the California State Capitol helped push the Black Power movement into full swing. And the haunting image of 12-year-old Hector Pietersons lifeless body being frantically carried away from a South African police force that had opened fire on schoolchildren took the anti-apartheid movement global.

Most recently, we saw the innocence that danced out of the eyes of Tamir Rice; the sobs of Lezley McSpadden crying out for her murdered son, Mike Brown; the attempt of Diamond Reynolds 4-year-old to soothe her as they both witnessed the murder of Philando Castille; and the way Korryn Gaines attempted to mother and comfort her 5-year-old soneven as she died from bullets fired by Baltimore police. And there were so many more heartbreaking, enraging images, words and phraseslike Eric Garners I cant breathethat poured life into the Black Lives Matter movement.

Media, when done responsibly, amplifies voices and perspectives that might not otherwise be heard. It is a check on power, a balancing of moneyed interests with those who have fewer resources. For resistance and other transformative movements, demonstration and mass action are meant to disrupt systems of oppression and raise public awareness. Resistance has a theatrical component that meets its fullest potential when there is an audience. When organized actions are not covered by media, when voices are muted and perspectives are drowned out, it severely limits the reach of movements. Demonstrations might disrupt the status quo and get messages out to immediate circles, but the ability to elicit mass support is significantly thwarted.

In the little more than six months since Trump has taken office, 594 people have been killed by police, 22 percent of those people black (double the proportion of the black population) and an additional 19 percent of unknown race. These are almost identical numbers to those of 2016, when news coverage of these killings was at a high.

Black Lives Matter has responded to new killings and continuing cases through mass demonstrations and constant pressure at public meetings. It bird-dogs elected and appointed officials, calls for the firing of police chiefs (like LAPDs Charlie Beck, who leads the most murderous department in the nation), demands the prosecution of officers who kill and brutalize our people and provides support to families most impacted by state violence. BLM also engages in acts of nonviolent direct action, doing policy work, conducting community canvasses, making budget demands, proposing community-based solutions, making independent media (like the clapback against the National Rifle Association), engaging in spiritual work (like the national #SacredResistance effort launched in April), participating in political artistry and much more. Since its founding just four years ago, the ranks of Black Lives Matter has swelled globally to 40 chapters and upward of 10,000 members.

Black Lives Matter is moving from its infancy to its institution-building stage, with a sophisticated platform and abolitionist agenda that calls for the dismantling of prisons and policing as we know them and intense investment in the resources that make communities safe, peaceful and healthylike permanent housing, mental health services, quality education, youth programs, good jobs with good wages, and arts and culture programs. The method is called disrupt and build: At the same time hundreds of folks pour into the streets and successfully demand the firing of the officers who killed Kisha Michael and Marquintan Sandlin in Inglewood, Calif., BLM is also preparing the next generation for leadership with Youth Activist Camps and Freedom Schools offered worldwide this summer. There is plenty for mainstream media to cover.Instead, though, the faces that occupy television screens have faded back to pre-Obama-era monochrome, with the occasional media person of color incestuously plucked from other network news programs and one or two network contributors peppered in. The talking heads now speak exclusively to the latest Trump anticswith no mention of Charleena Lyles who was killed by Seattle police in front of three of her children after she called for help with a suspected burglary, or of the in policy rulings in the separate deaths of 14-year-old Jesse Romero and 18-year-old scholar-athlete Kenny Watkins, both killed by Los Angeles police. Networks say news-show ratings are at an all-time high, but public opinion surveys show there is a public desire to shift away from the singular focus on Donald Trump.

Public Black Lives Matter forums continue to draw capacity crowds, like the recent standing-room-only crowd at Politicon. There is no shortage of items that require a Black Lives Matter perspectiveeven within the Trump agenda: the recent call for increased police brutality by Donald Trump (and the giddy laughter and applause of police receiving the message); the deploying of federal troops to Chicago, making black communities literally occupied territories; calls for an end to affirmative action and the erosion of public education; and the contrast between the swift action taken against Minneapolis police officers when they killed Justine Damonda white bride-to-beand the closing of ranks when members of the same department killed Jamar Clark and Philando Castille. If media is to be a check on institutional power, then mainstream media must be challenged to not become the public relations arm of the Trump regime, either intentionally or tacitly.

While coverage by mainstream media has been a useful tool, mainstream media is also corporate media and essentially shares the class interests of the regime we seek to topple. As movements grow and evolve, it is imperative that we recognize, support, utilize and invest in independent media that is more willing to offer alternative perspectives that challenge the existing hegemony.

Black Lives Matter must refuse to give power to Trump or complicit media to white out our movement. We cannot become demoralized and actually believe the movement is dead stories in the media. We must commit ourselves more fully to the movement and on-the-ground efforts, and we must apply the disrupt-and-build model to our media strategybuilding alternative outlets and disrupting media that advances oppressive propaganda and attempts to mute our voices. Black Lives still Matter, whether it makes news headlines or not.

Dr. Melina Abdullah is a California State University professor at the forefront of the Black Lives Matter movement in Los Angeles.

More:
Whiting Out Black Lives Matter - Truthdig

A recent Harvard-Harris poll reveals that 57 percent of Americans have an unfavorable opinion of Black Lives Matters protests and protesters. Broken down further, the results only get worse for the Democratic party, which has made support for the movement a litmus test for its candidates.

Over 60 percent of whites, suburbanites, rural voters, and people aged 35 and over share the unfavorable opinion of Black Lives Matters, according to the poll. Most strikingly, 60 percent of self-described independents and 55 percent of moderates join them. Hispanics, who tend to vote Democratic in large numbers, are evenly split.

This means that opposition to the Black Lives Matter movement is not just for Fox News viewers, right-wingers, or racists, as the Left likes to imply. It is a widespread view shared by voters whom Democrats need to win.

But the problems do not end there. The Democratic partys support for the Womens March Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, Cory Booker, and many others publicly praised and endorsed it may prove just as damaging. Conservative media have long criticized the outrageous views and associations of the Marchs organizers, especially those of Linda Sarsour, its most visible leader. But the New York Times has lately joined in.

Last week, Times staff editor Bari Weiss wrote that the solidarity of the Womens March had moved her. In that, she definitely is not alone. One poll from February showed that 60 percent of Americans supported the March. But after finding out about the Marchs leadership, Weiss could no longer support it. What I stand against, Weiss wrote, is embracing terrorists, disdaining independent feminist voices, hating on democracies and celebrating dictatorships. If that puts me beyond the pale of the progressive feminist movement in America right now, so be it.

But this is about more than the progressive feminist movement. The question is: What if opposing the Womens March movement may put moderates beyond the pale of the Democratic party itself? So be it, many might say.

Weisss article in the New York Times will help spread the word about the organizers of the Womens March. Soon, and with help from other moderates in the mainstream media, Americans of all stripes will realize that they were swindled by the Womens March.

That is what happened with Black Lives Matter. Originally, it was a fairly popular movement. But over time, the movement discredited itself with its actions and support for cop killers, Fidel Castro, and a boycott of Israel. What seemed to be a movement protesting the polices seemingly disproportionate use of force against black people which the American people still believe to be true, according to the Harvard-Harris poll came to be associated with violence and hatred of police.

The Womens March, if it does not quickly change direction and leadership, may also come to be associated with disreputable radicalism. But all the evidence suggests that its leaders are choosing to double down instead.

In response to Weisss criticisms, Womens March co-president Bob Bland wrote a long, self-discrediting letter to the New York Times. Bland offered no defense of her organizations support for cop killers, anti-Semites, and racists. Instead, she excused it as a feature of the inclusive and intersectional movement, and made wild accusations: Ms. Weiss is endorsing a sensational alt-right attack, she wrote. But Bland would go even farther: Critics like Ms. Weiss, she concluded, remain apologists for the status quo, racist ideology, and white nationalists.

Did you catch that? If you are a liberal who thinks that, in 2017, enthusiastic support for Fidel Castro and Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan is a bit much, a co-president of the Womens March will call you an apologist for racism and white nationalism. Hows that for a campaign pitch to undecided voters and winnable independents?

But this is the Womens Marchs modus operandi. In response to Jake Tappers criticism of her support for Assata Shakur, a cop-killer and one of Americas most-wanted fugitives, co-president Linda Sarsour accused Tapper, a CNN anchor, of join[ing] the ranks of the alt-right to target me online.

Her false victimization was as transparent as her accusation was ridiculous. But no more ridiculous than when the official Womens March Twitter account repeatedly and incoherently defended Assata Shakur in the face of strong criticism.

These two movements are not going to shape up anytime soon. Nor are they likely to lose the support of progressives. These two facts combine to leave Democrats with a difficult choice. When they are pushed, will they stand with Black Lives Matters? Will they stand with Sarsour, Bland, and the rest of the Womens March radicals?

Abandoning them would incur the wrath of the party faithful. Not abandoning them could incur the wrath of nearly everyone else. Either way, Republicans will exploit the issue, and Democrats will embarrass themselves.

Astonishingly, the Democratic party may have found a way to squander the moral high ground and scare off the moderates gifted to them by President Trump.

READ MORE: A Detailed Evisceration of the Womens March from the New York Times The Lefts Love Affair with Radical Extremism The Jihad-Loving Left Loves Linda Sarsour

Elliot Kaufman is an editorial intern at National Review.

View post:
Black Lives Matter and the Women's March movements, lauded by Democratic leaders, are discrediting themselves ... - National Review

Last November, Johnnie Walker seemed to make an ill-timed bet. The whiskey brand launched an ad on the theme of Woody Guthries This Land Is Your Land. It included standard Americana, including cowboys on horseback.

There was also a prevalence of Hispanic faces. Guthries lyrics were spoken by a narrator in accented English that eventually merged into fluent Spanish. Brown faces and Spanish speakers, their daily work completed, were invited to kick back with a scotch and dream American dreams.

This land was made for you and me, the narrator assured them.

President Donald Trump, that paragon and parody of white-bro culture, was not expected to become president of this emergent America. Yet November happened. Now, the Johnnie Walker ads dim lighting seems less a conduit for shared intimacy, more a darker shade of uncertainty.

So it was interesting to see the Procter & Gamble Co., the worlds largest consumer-goods manufacturer, home to familiar all-American brands such as Tide, Mr. Clean and Old Spice, wade last month into what looked to be fraught waters.

The corporation launched a web video featuring black parents and children having the talk. In P&Gs conception, the talk isnt just about black kids avoiding police brutality, its about dealing with racial bias as an inescapable, constantly evolving fact of American life.

In an email, Crystal Harrell, a P&G senior manager for communications, wrote:

The Talk highlights the impact of racial bias from the viewpoint of African-American mothers across several decades. It depicts the inevitable conversations many black parents have had with their children to prepare them for challenges they may face in the world, and importantly to encourage them to achieve despite these obstacles. It shows that while society and times change, bias still exists.

Showing consumers that you understand them is basic marketing. I think its existence tells us a great deal about whats on the minds of black consumers (rising tides of racism and vulnerability in public), emailed Lizabeth Cohen, author of A Consumers Republic: The Politics of Mass Consumption in Postwar America.

But that understanding exists in a political context shaped by a president who doesnt share it. Trump ignores racial bias unless its perceived against whites. Many of his supporters dispute that bias against blacks is a genuine problem at all: Republicans tell pollsters they believe that whites face more racial discrimination than blacks do.

P&Gs video message may be subtle, discreet and narrow-casted to a black audience. But it still confronts such views head on.

P&G is obviously targeting African-American consumers and their growing spending power, but theyre also crowning themselves with a halo you can feel good about the Charmin or Tide, because P&G is not just some distant, staid, white-bread conglomerate. It cares, said Leslie Savan, author of The Sponsored Life: Ads, TV and American Culture, in an email. And maybe a bit of that is real. With a spot so overtly political, P&G does risk alienating a swath of angry white people who are sick and tired of being called racists.

I asked Harrell about the political implications of the videos. A corporate spokeswoman for brands that cross every geographic, class and racial line, Harrell was understandably cautious in her response. But she wasnt mealy-mouthed.

P&G and P&G brands are apolitical. We dont have a point of view on politics, but we do have a point of view that advocates for all our consumers. We know that bias exists in our society across age, sex, gender, race and many other dimensions of difference. And we know that acknowledging this fact may make some people uncomfortable. Our approach, with The Talk, and with other campaigns, has been to spark that dialogue in an inspirational and empowering way not in a way that places blame.

Of course, if someone is a victim of racial bias, someone else must be a perpetrator. Trumps electoral success suggested a new birth of prejudice across the land, at least for a while.

How powerful institutions respond to that invitation matters. Its hard to conceive of a more mainstream, ubiquitous, middle-of-the-road American company than the Ohio-based Procter & Gamble, which also enjoys a stellar reputation for marketing savvy. So the messages it sends, and the reputational investments it makes, seem significant.

Heres the bottom line, wrote Harrell. At P&G, we aspire to create a better world for everyone a world free from bias, with equal representation, equal voices and equal opportunity. Our hope is that people see our messages in this light.

Noted.

Francis Wilkinson writes editorials on politics and U.S. domestic policy for Bloomberg View.

Original post:
P&G isn't afraid to say black lives matter - Fairfield Daily Republic

6:29

Adam Gases bond with Jay Cutler got him to sign with Dolphins for cheap

1:44

Green Bay Packers are not mediocre, but rather underachievers

9:18

New York Giants won't start rookies as incentive

4:51

Cleveland Browns name Brock Osweiler as starting quarterback in preseason

Posted by Charean Williams on August 5, 2017, 8:02 PM EDT

Getty Images

Kenny Easley waited 25 years to earn induction into the Pro Football Hall of Fame, so he was going to make the most of his allotted time behind the microphone.

Easley didnt mention Colin Kaepernick by name, but the former Seahawks safety used a minute of his 21 minutes and 50 seconds to take a similar social stance as the former 49ers quarterback.

Please allow me this opportunity and this moment for a very serious message for which I feel very strongly about, said Easley, who went into the Hall as a seniors nominee. Black lives do matter, and all lives matter, too. But the carnage affecting young black men today from random violence to police shootings across this nation has to stop. Weve got to stand up as a country, as black Americans and fight the good fight to protect our youth and our American constitutional right not to die while driving or walking the streets black in America. It has to stop, and we can do it, and the lessons we learn in sports can help.

Easley, 59, long faced comparisons to Ronnie Lott, who entered the Hall in the Class of 2000. Easley continued the debate on stage.

Im going to settle it now publicly and for good, Easley said. In the last 30 years, there has no better thumper, ball-hawking, fiercely competitive or smarter defensive back in the NFL than Ronnie Lott. He was the best. There, its settled and because I said so.

Easley also thanked Seahawks owner Paul Allen, who ended the franchises 15-year estrangement with Easleys Ring of Honor induction.

I believe in the old adage: Water runs downhill, Easley said, and thus winning starts at the top, and you have run a great organization with a terrific head coach in Pete Carroll. How about the Seahawks back to the Super Bowl in 2018?

See original here:
Kenny Easley: Black lives matter, and all lives matter, too ...