Mediaboss Marketing

It seems so obvious why Captain (later Major) Sir Thomas Moore mattered. Why should we even ask? He was so decent, raised so much money for charity, served in the war defending India and what was then Burma. And he was so modest. It is really no wonder that he became a national hero.

But there is something more. He stood for a kind of Britishness that resonated with Middle England. First, he linked the war and the coronavirus crisis. Each year on Armistice Day we realise how few survivors there are from those two extraordinary generations who gave their lives for their country. Those wars dominated the lives of British families for more than a century. Nearly 900,000 military dead in World War One. Nearly 400,000 in World War Two, not counting 70,000 civilian dead. In Blake Baileys new biography of Philip Roth, he describes VJ Day. As he celebrated with the other youngsters, writes Bailey, Roths jubilation tempered somewhat by the sight of older people sobbing on benches probably the parents of boys who had been killed, he thought. The war was over and it was a wonderful thing, but not for them. They would have this grief forever.

Hence the shock when young demonstrators desecrated the Cenotaph and the statue of Winston Churchill last year. For so many British people, these were disgusting, unforgivable acts. This brings us to the second reason why Tom Moore was regarded as a national hero. Without ever wishing it, he had become part of the culture wars, the growing divide about what kind of country Britain is or should be.

I cant remember any moment in my lifetime when Britishness has been so bitterly contested. Which statues of the past should be torn down? Is Britains past something to be celebrated a story of freedom, tolerance and democracy or is it something to be ashamed of, a dark story of slavery, racism, colonialism? The older you are, the more likely you will see it as the former. The younger you are, the more inclined you will be to see it as the latter. Of course, its not just a generational conflict. If youre black or brown you will wonder why generations of British historians and politicians have been so silent about the legacy of slavery and Empire.

What does any of this have to do with Tom Moore? On Twitter I saw this by @JarelRB just after Moore died: The cult of Captain Tom is a cult of White British Nationalism. I was appalled. No, it isnt, I replied. People wanted to pay their respects to a fine man. Its as simple as that. @JarelRB turns out to be the Reverend Jarel Robinson-Brown, a young black clergyman still in his 20s. He has now deleted his tweet and apologised; the Church is investigating. But what fuelled his anger?

Many want to build a statue in Tom Moores memory. Who would bet against that statue being desecrated in no time? Why? Because some (many?) would share Robinson-Browns anger and see respect for an old army veteran who raised so much money for charity as a cult of White British Nationalism. Too white, too male, too old, too patriotic. This is what we have come to. We shouldnt pretend otherwise.

Is it a coincidence that this response to the death of Sir Thomas Moore took place at the same time as a debate about patriotism in the Labour Party? It is clear that one reason Labour lost so resoundingly in 2019 was not just because Jeremy Corbyn associated with Holocaust deniers, anti-Semites and terrorists, but because there was a sense among many ordinary British people that he preferred the Palestinian flag to the Union Jack, the IRA to British veterans.He didnt know (or care) when the Queen gave her speech on Christmas Day. Sir Keir Starmer knows this cost Labour hugely in the last election and has started to speak about patriotism and the British flag. But then a video from 2005 appeared of Starmer boasting of supporting the abolition of the monarchy. Guido Fawkes commented: It wont go down so well in Bishop Auckland or Ashfield.

This isnt just about one quote. YouGov published a poll about patriotism. It asked people, How patriotic would you say you are? A 61 per cent majority of British people polled said Patriotic. 88 per cent of Conservative voters but only 44 per cent of Labour voters called themselves Patriotic. There was a similar divide between Leavers (81 per cent) and Remainers (54 per cent).

Middle England took Captain Tom to its heart. Rightly so. There is so much to admire and respect. But another England would, I fear, disagree. Much of the political debate over years to come will be over these issues.

We are the only publication thats committed to covering every angle. We have an important contribution to make, one thats needed now more than ever, and we need your help to continue publishing throughout the pandemic. So please, make a donation.

Read the original post:
Why Tom Moore mattered: a culture war over the Captain - TheArticle

Who edits The New York Times? This is not, at least at first glance, a particularly complicated question. Dean Baquet has been the executive editor of the newspaper of record since 2014, a period of profound growth, when the company amassed six million subscribers (it had about 1.5 million the year Baquet took over). While The Washington Post has made strides in recent years, the Times is still an agenda-setting newspaper like no other. In recent years it has become an industry-swallowing behemoth, hiring whoever it wants whenever it wants, while dominating a number of media formatsaudio, visual, and, of course, text.

But the question Who edits The New York Times? has taken on a different dimension in recent years. While the obsession over the Times foibles and fuck-ups has long been a cottage industry, it is now firmly entrenched in the culture wars. According to the anti-woke contingent, the Times is increasingly run by a pitchfork-wielding mob of scolds demanding ideological purity and adherence to faddish identity politics. Last year, in the wake of a controversial op-ed by Senator Tom Cotton calling for troops to quell violence associated with the George Floyd protests, the mob was able to force out the papers opinion editor (who was pushed out) and a controversial employee (who resigned). This mob, the argument goes, is holding the rest of the paper hostage. Baquet is only nominally in charge.

On Friday, there were anti-woke howls across the internet after the Times announced that Donald McNeil, a prize-winning health care reporter, was leaving the paper he had worked at since 1976. McNeil had recently received widespread acclaim for his reporting on Covid-19, but a report from The Daily Beast two weeks ago alleged that he had repeated a racial slur in front of teenagers while accompanying a high school trip to Peru. (The Times apparently sends its reporters on these trips, which cost $5,500 each, as guides. Fancy!) McNeil had initially been given a reprieve by Baquet but was pushed out after 150 staff members objected to his light treatment in a letter to management. Here was another smoking gun: The paper of record devouring its own on command from a legion of woke, illiberal scolds.

See more here:
Can We Stop Obsessing Over Every Personnel Decision Made by The New York Times? - The New Republic

TribLIVE's Daily and Weekly email newsletters deliver the news you want and information you need, right to your inbox.

Last Monday night, nearly a month after Trump-supporting insurrectionists stormed the U.S. Capitol looking to overturn a democratic election and, in some cases, kill U.S. lawmakers, New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez took to Instagram Live to share her harrowing account of that day.

Traumatized not only by the close encounter with people who were there to harm her but also the PTSD she suffers as a result of a previous sexual assault, Ocasio-Cortez said that as she hid in another congresswomans office, she thought she was going to die.

She was inarguably right to be terrified. Terrorism was, in part, the goal of the Capitol insurrection. Last month, in fact, a 34-year-old Texan named Garret Miller was arrested for taking part in the riot and posting violent threats online, including a tweet that simply said, Assassinate AOC.

But to the many on the right who have told her and other Democrats to move on from those events, Ocasio-Cortez says they were using the same tactics of every other abuser who just tells you to move on. Just a cursory scroll through Twitter in the wake of her powerful testimony proves her point.

This is a masterclass in emotional manipulation, journalist Michael Tracey says.

Only AOC can make the Capitol riots all about herself, Breanna Morello tweets.

Members of congress lie, including AOC. Especially AOC, Austin Petersen says.

Sadly, this is not surprising. In the ugly, divisive and tribal political hellscape in which we are currently living, AOC is a reviled figure on the right, ergo we shouldnt expect even the revelation that shed been sexually assaulted, or that she was fearing for her life on Jan. 6, cowering in a closet and wondering aloud if shell live to be a mother one day to be met with basic decency or empathy by some hardened partisans who see only enemy avatars, not actual people.

The rioters who breached the Capitol, the ones who shouted hang Mike Pence, the women who went looking for Speaker Nancy Pelosi to shoot her in the friggin brain, the man who beat a police officer with an American flag, another who attacked a police officer with a hockey stick, another who etched Murder the Media into a door inside the building, the people who planted pipe bombs around Washington, D.C., that day, the ones who marched swastikas into the peoples house, the ones who carried Confederate flags and white pride signs they werent thinking about the people in that building, only their own hate.

They werent thinking about moms and dads, daughters and sons, grandparents and grandchildren in that building when they went looking for scalps. They didnt see Officer Brian Sicknick as Charles and Gladys son, or Ken and Craigs brother, when they killed him with a fire extinguisher. They didnt see Pelosi as Bellas grandma or Pence as Charlottes dad.

The Republican lawmakers like Sens. Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley, and Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, who taunted their supporters into fighting the election results, hyping baseless claims of fraud and stolen elections, werent thinking about the people on the other side of the anger they were stoking. They werent thinking about the human cost of all that frothing, fearmongering and incitement. Remarkably and chillingly, they dont appear to be even now, as they continue to spread the lies.

This kind of unconscionable moral rot has infected America deep in its core. Its in our partisan politics, our self-destructive culture wars, our hysterical media and our addiction to hate.

Its becoming clearer with every passing day that amid all the things posing an imminent threat to our way of life disease, climate change, war its truly our inability to see each other as people before politics thats going to destroy us.

S.E. Cupp is the host of S.E. Cupp Unfiltered on CNN.

Categories:Opinion | S.E. Cupp Columns

TribLIVE's Daily and Weekly email newsletters deliver the news you want and information you need, right to your inbox.

More S.E. Cupp Columns Stories

Follow this link:
S.E. Cupp: Bitter, partisan reactions to AOC are proof American politics has lost its way - TribLIVE

Charities that support politically or culturally contentious causes should expect their charitable status to come under regulatory scrutiny even if they are acting within the law, according to the outgoing chair of the Charity Commission.

The peer Tina Stowell, who is stepping down after three years in the post, warned charities against being captured by unnamed people who wish to push a partial view of the world and use charity platforms to wage war on political enemies.

The commission, whose remit covers England and Wales, has recently pursued high-profile investigations against charities after Tory MPs complained they had strayed into ideological dogma or a woke agenda on issues such as race equality.

Charities can challenge things, charities can shake things up, they can even change the world, but they cant and they shouldnt go out of their way to divide people, Lady Stowell said in a speech on Thursday hosted by the Social Market Foundation.

Investigations were launched into the National Trust over its publication of a report on some of its properties past links to slavery, and against the childrens charity Barnardos which was accused of political activism for publishing a blogpost on racial inequality and white privilege. Both investigations are continuing.

Charity figures responded furiously to the speech, accusing Stowell of demonstrating the very attitudes she was warning charities against. One charity leader told the Guardian: Lady Stowell warns charities against being divisive and yet she is drawing them into a culture war by saying they cant legitimately make a stand on issues.

Stowell, who some believe lost the trust of the charity sector after using rightwing newspapers to warn charities against getting involved in politics or culture wars, said charities had to be more respectful of public expectations of what they were for.

If charity is to remain at the forefront of our national life, it cannot afford to be captured by those who want to advance or defend their own view of the world to the exclusion of all others, she said. Charities can adapt to the latest social and cultural trends but there is a real risk of generating unnecessary controversy and division by picking sides in a battle some have no wish to fight.

Many seek out charities as an antidote to politics and division, not as another front on which to wage a war against political enemies, and they have the right to be respected.

Charity Commission guidance states that campaigning and political activity can be legitimate and valuable activities for charities to undertake within limits that require charities not to have a political purpose and to be independent of political parties.

Asked after her speech whether charities with a political agenda should lose their charitable status, Stowell suggested that party politics was too narrow a definition of the limits of charity political activity. Not everything which is contentious is defined as a particular partys position on something, she said.

So in that respect what charities have to be mindful of is there are risks to adopting or getting involved in particular sorts of movement or causes that are outside of their objects and then they start to make people question whether or not they really are entitled to retain that status of charity.

Stowell was appointed as the Charity Commissions chair in 2018 despite a unanimous parliamentary select committee recommendation that her nomination should be rejected on the grounds that she lacked experience of both charity and regulatory roles.

Stowell, a Conservative politician and former civil servant, became a peer in 2011. She was leader of the House of Lords before resigning the Tory whip upon her Charity Commission appointment. The commission was unable to say whether she would have the whip restored after her term ends.

Responding to Stowells speech, Sue Tibballs, of the campaigning charity the Sheila McKechnie Foundation, said: Throughout her tenure Tina Stowell has been a leading voice amongst those who accuse charities of stoking culture wars by not reflecting public opinion. Charities by law, however, are required to act in the public interest, not to reflect public opinion.

Andrew Purkis, a former Charity Commission board member, said it was important that Stowells successor as commission chair focused on what the law said charities were allowed to do, not what he or she thought they ought to do. The guidance is clear: charities are allowed to be political with a small p if we are in pursuit of our charitable objects, he said.

This article was amended on 5 February 2021. An earlier version described Tina Stowell as a Tory peer. Text has been added to clarify that Lady Stowell was the Conservative leader in the Lords, but resigned the party whip on her appointment to the Charity Commission. Text was also added to clarify the commissions remit covers England and Wales only.

Read the rest here:
Commission chief tells charities not to be 'captured' for politics - The Guardian

By David M. Greenwald

It looks increasingly like a recall effort will get the matter of Gavin Newsom on the ballot. But, while his standing has fallen from 64 percent approval in September to 46 percent now (against 48 percent disapproval), it does not appear right now that there are the votes to remove him from office.

An IGS (Institute of Governmental Studies from UC Berkeley) poll released last week shows only 36 percent of votes support removing him from office, but there is a large number of undecided at, 19 percent.

These results should provide a strong warning to the Governor, IGS co-director Eric Schickler said in a release accompanying the poll. If the recall election does go forward, the states response to the pandemic needs to be seen as more successful for the Governor than it is now for him to be confident of the election outcome.

IGS poll director Mark DiCamillo said that the trendline is not great, but he is in a far stronger position than Gray Davis was in 2003 when he was removed from office.

I would say that a lot depends on the events of the next three or four months. Whats unusual about the measure on his recall is the relatively large proportions of voters still undecided, DiCamillo said. I think that the job rating hit is serious, but if things start to improve on the pandemic front I think the recall will be less of a problem for him.

The partisan split is interesting. A PPIC Poll (Public Policy Institute of California poll) released on February 2 showed 71 percent of Democrats versus 46 percent of independents and 16 percent of Republicans support his job approval. But Republican dislike is not enough in a state where they only represent 24 percent of all votes and where Trump received just over one third of the vote.

Newsom can survive by shoring up his base71 percent Democratic voter approval is worrisome for the governor.

One thing to watch potentially is the appointment for attorney general. He is under pressure from various groups to name a reformerthe question is which one, as the reform community seems divided.

However, one thing is clearthere has been speculation that he could name either Sacramento Mayor Darrell Steinberg or Los Angeles area Congressional Leader Adam Schiff.

For Steinberg, once the States Senate leader, there was grumbling even before the city botched shelter for homeless people in the arealeading to a potential push for a recall of the mayor by homeless advocates.

Meanwhile, Adam Schiff would serve as a lightning rod both on the left and the right. The right sees his outspoken opposition to former President Trump as a huge negative, while the left is unimpressed with his record on criminal justice reform matters.

The justified anger from the left has not been getting enough attention, Kate Chatfield tweeted on Saturday. The right is upset with Newsom as they fight their increasingly bizarre culture wars, but the anger on the left is real and deep.

Chatfield, a Senior Legal Analyst with the Appeal who helped draft SB 1437 legislation, believes that whomever Newsom appoints as AG will speak volumes.

She said, If he appoints Adam Schiff or some carceral DA, or someone who has done nothing against mass incarceration or who has been supported by right wing law enforcement, he will (again) be telling so many communities that they do not matter to him.

A letter the Vanguard published last week from a coalition of reformers noted, When Adam Schiff was a member of the California legislature, he was not only supportive of, but deeply invested in, creating our current system of incarceration. This system of incarceration has continued to devastate communities of color and continues to take resources away from our schools, cities, and from all Californians in need.

They continue: We know that many Democratic politicians in the 1990s and 2000s espoused a tough on crime platform. However, even President Biden, one such politician, campaigned on ending the federal death sentence and acknowledged that his prior tough on crime policies were a mistake.

They point out that, in contrast to Biden who has moved toward justice reform and opposition to the death penalty, Schiff has continued to support legislation that would expand the size and scope of our system of incarceration, including voting recently to expand the federal death penalty, legislation that was part of a right wing narrative against Black Lives Matter and calls across the United States for police accountability.

For example, Schiff was one of just 48 Democrats to vote for The Thin Blue Line Act of 2017, a bill that would expand the federal death penalty when a law enforcement officer is killed, despite there already being laws that allowed for this.

This bill was was strongly opposed by the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights and the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund.

They argue, This bill fed into a right-wing narrative against the Black Lives Matter movement and the movement for police accountability, suggesting that these racial justice groups were putting law enforcement lives in danger. The dog-whistle was heard by many.

One problem that reformers facethey seem divided on whom to support.

For instance, two weeks ago the Vanguard published a letter with over 160 signatures from the Asian American community pushing for California Supreme Court Justice Goodwin Liu.

On and off the bench, Justice Liu has distinguished himself as a leading voice for racial justice and inclusion in the legal profession and beyond, said Mia Yamamoto, LGBTQ+ rights advocate and co-founder of the Multi-Cultural Bar Alliance of Southern California. Asian Americans too often remain an invisible minority. Justice Lius pathbreaking 2017 study on Asian Americans in the legal profession enabled our communitys accomplishments to be celebrated and our challenges to be addressed.

Meanwhile, public defenders are pushing for Assemblymember Ash Kalraa former public defender.

Signed by, among others, Yolo County Public Defender Tracie Olson and San Francisco Public Defender Mano Raju, they write: As public defenders who represent people and serve families most impacted by our criminal legal system, we call upon Governor Gavin Newsom to appoint Assemblyman Ash Kalra as Californias next Attorney General.

Others are supporting Rob Bonta,

As a career-long advocate for justice and equality, Rob Bonta has led the fight in the Legislature to reform the criminal justice system and treat people with dignity, Assemblymember Evan Low said in a statement. Ive known Rob for years, and he would lead the California Department of Justice with distinction.

The Legislative Black Caucus is supporting Contra Costa DA Diana Becton.

Becton, a strong progressive prosecutor, was endorsed in a unanimous vote by the legislative group, who called her a well-respected jurist and litigator with an exceptional statewide and national reputation among her colleagues, Californias law enforcement, and social justice communities.

She is an experienced executive leader of large organizations, a strong supporter of progressive policies aligned with CLBC priorities, and has a track record of working with Californias diverse communities, according to the CLBC.

For Newsom to survive, the pandemic in California will have to improveas people are vaccinated, numbers go down, and schools and businesses open, his standing will improve. But maintaining his base in a state where Biden was a +29 over Trump is critical and the AG appointment could be a signal to progressives as to whether Newsom is worth saving.

David M. Greenwald reporting

To sign up for our new newsletter Everyday Injustice https://tinyurl.com/yyultcf9

Support our work to become a sustaining at $5 $10- $25 per month hit the link:

See the original post:
Monday Morning Thoughts: AG Appointment Could Be Pivotal for Newsom - The Peoples Vanguard of Davis