Mediaboss Marketing

By Katie Spencer, Arts and entertainment correspondent @SkyKatieSpencer

Sunday 9 April 2023 16:52, UK

From Agatha Christie to Enid Blyton, the modernisation of much-loved classics has turned fiction into another frontier in the culture wars.

Take Roald Dahl, for instance.

When plans emerged to print re-edited versions of some of his classics to remove words like "fat" and "ugly" it caused an uproar, which drew in the likes of Sir Salman Rushdie who described the decision as "absurd censorship".

The prime minister even had his say.

With battle lines drawn, there is growing online outrage about how publishers are increasingly inviting 'sensitivity readers' to provide a sounding board to authors on areas they may have overlooked.

Experts like Helen Gould make suggestions for edits to publishers.

She told Sky News: "Despite the name, [we're] not looking for offence - we're looking for harm."

Gould mostly works with authors early on before their books go to print and, of the 200 projects she's worked on to date, just two works were in print already.

She explained: "People who do not experience oppression maybe don't understand how important it is not to be reminded of all the atrocities that you and people who share your identity have gone through over and over again."

She believes the media's portrayal of sensitivity readers as "unqualified outside forces" is, in part, fuelling online outrage.

"We are more like specialized editors in the same way that if you're writing a book about a hospital, you might want to go and talk to a doctor about what they do

"A white author writing about black characters might want to go and talk to a black person about what it's like to be black.

"I have absolutely no power over what an author or an editor wants to do," she insists. "I just give them my opinion. They can take it or leave it as they want. My job is to give them advice."

But how do authors see it?

Harlan Coben, best known for writing more than 35 thriller novels, has sold somewhere in the region of 80 million books. His latest is called I Will Find You.

Speaking to Sky News about the subject of sensitivity readers, he said: "I haven't worked with one yet, so I can't really judge but I'm always willing to. It doesn't mean that I have to agree with what they have to say, does it?

"I have editors who tell me what to say, in a sense, and that's not necessarily censorship.

"I'm still learning and developing as a human being. I mean, things that I thought when I was a kid or things that I wrote years ago, I probably wouldn't write today, but it was a snapshot of what it was like in 1989 and 1997 or 2004 or whatever. So, I think you have to change with the times.

"The world is different, and so you have to reflect that. My novels take place in the present day, so my characters will speak now differently than when I wrote a book in 1989 or something like that. They should speak differently. The world is different."

This is a limited version of the story so unfortunately this content is not available. Open the full version

For BAFTA-award-winning writer Abi Morgan - best known for penning the scripts to The Split and The Iron Lady - giving an honest and unfiltered account of what happened to her family for her latest book, This is Not A Pity Memoir, was essential.

While she hasn't yet worked with a sensitivity reader, she told Sky News she sees their value.

"In the same way as, you know, I think we're trying to revise and look at history and really re-examine the way we've looked at history, for example, we're going to do that with literature.

"But also, it's important I think, that those things exist so that we can name them and expose them and say 'that was the time when those things were written and that's not the way we would choose to write now, but that's what was acceptable in that time.' And so, for me, it's a real balance."

Click to subscribe to Backstage wherever you get your podcasts

Of course, in reality, modifying what's written with sensitivity is likely to be less about publishers riding a wave of political correctness and more practically about sales. Ensuring books have a longer shelf life, and that what's written stays relevant.

"I think the dialogue is the most important thing that's come out of those [debates]," Morgan explained.

"We're talking about those books and how relevant they are or not and we're revisiting and re-examining language that's just not acceptable anymore.

"And I think that's really interesting to have those conversations."

Read more here:
Sensitivity readers: How fiction became the latest frontier in the culture wars - Sky News

Earlier this month, Floridas governor (and likely Republican presidential candidate) Ron DeSantis, who has introduced legislation to ban the use of a federal digital currency in the state, claimed a central bank digital currency (CBDC) would be exploited by the Federal Reserve Board to impose an ESG (environmental, social and governance) agenda.

He said that the Fed could use the digital currency to stop Americans buying too much petrol, or preventing them from buying guns.

Not in my state! Floridas governor (and likely Republican presidential candidate) Ron DeSantis has railed against the use of a central bank digital currency. AP

Congressional Republicans have even introduced bills seeking to prohibit the Fed from developing a direct-to-consumer, or retail model, for a CBDC because of their concerns that it could be used to create a kind of Orwellian, Big Brother-type comprehensive surveillance of the everyday finances of everyday Americans.

All that politicking is quite peculiar, given that both US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen and Fed chair Jerome Powell have made it clear that while considerable research is being undertaken on a US CBDC they are not yet convinced that one is needed, or that the risks of introducing a digital currency outweigh the benefits.

Our Reserve Bank, which oversees one of the worlds more sophisticated payments systems, has a similar open-minded attitude to CBDCs. What problems would they solve? Could the apparently relatively modest potential gains in efficiency and competitiveness offset the risks?

The Reserve Bank is exploring whether it should back a central digital currency to rein in booming, unregulated cryptocurrencies.

Nevertheless, galvanised by the threat of privately issued digital currencies most notably , as well as those being developed or already on issue from other governments the worlds major central banks have accelerated their investigations and developments of their own CBDCs.

According to the Atlantic Council, 114 countries representing more than 95 per cent of global GDP are exploring a CBDC. All the G7 economies have moved from research to a development stage and 18 of the 20 G20 countries are at an advanced stage of development.

Eleven countries have actually launched a digital currency, with C and set to expand to the entire country this year. China has also been trialling a cross-border platform for digital currencies with other countries in its region.

The sense of urgency and inevitability is evident, which makes the key challenges raised by the prospect of central bank-issued digital currencies starker and more political.

The most obvious concerns from a central bankers perspective are financial system stability and cybersecurity, given the chequered history of cryptocurrencies.

Both those involve technology and design solutions. Whether the CBDC operates on an account-based or token-based platform and whether it is available only at a wholesale level to banks and other institutions or is issued directly to individuals are vital issues, but there appears to be a range of options for dealing with them.

Most of the major central banks appear to be focusing on the less radical and less disruptive course of adopting a wholesale CBDC, where existing institutions would retain ownership of the customers and their data, and the existential threat existing intermediaries would face if they were cut out of the process by their central bank issuing currency directly to their customers would be reduced.

Both US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen and Fed chair Jerome Powell have made it clear that they are not yet convinced a CBDC is needed. AP

The more sensitive and complex and more political of the issues the central banks confront in persuading politicians and communities of the benefits of CBDCs (assuming they themselves have been convinced) is the one that DeSantis and other Republicans have seized on.

Whether the CBDC is issued at a wholesale or retail level, there will be some centralised collection of transaction data that could be used to surveil private citizens financial transactions. In China, that would be a core appeal of the CBDC to its authorities. In Western democracies, privacy issues loom larger.

Government agencies in those democracies, of course, already collect and analyse a lot of individuals financial information. Anti-money laundering and anti-terrorism financing laws require banks and other financial institutions to identify suspect transactions and alert the authorities.

CBDCs, however, could take the collection of data to another level and, while there are tools that could be used to authenticate transactions in CBDCs while shielding the identity of those involved, that would be unacceptable to governments because of the potential for criminal activity.

From the moment central bankers started taking digital currencies seriously, privacy issues were identified as a major stumbling block to the issuance of CBDCs because it was very clear that there would need to be trade-offs and compromises if privacy concerns and the risk that data could be used inappropriately by authorities were to be addressed.

Inevitably, there will be compromises. The European Union and others have suggested that there could be anonymity for lower-value payments, which couldnt be seen by the central bank or anyone not identified by the user, with higher-value transactions subjected to the existing thresholds for anti-money-laundering and terrorist financing checks.

In other words, while the technology underlying the payments system might have changed radically, and CBDCs substituted (albeit not entirely) for cash that carries inherent anonymity, from the users perspective not that much would change.

Banks can and do monitor their customers transactions in real time today. They can and are required to hand over information to the authorities if they see suspicious activity. There are, however and would be in a CBDC environment legal and regulatory protections to balance individual privacy rights and the authorities desire for a level of transparency.

In well-functioning democracies like Australia, the UK, Western Europe and (most of the time) America, those protections would be legislated and policed. Indeed, a CBDC couldnt be issued here, the UK or in the US without legislation.

The privacy concerns about CBDCs in well-functioning democracies are probably over-blown when viewed against the intrusions already faced by consumers, whose financial transactions are not only available to their banks and other financial institutions but increasingly to social media and e-commerce companies.

In most of the jurisdictions considering CBDCs, the debates about their design have been left to the central banks and those in the community with a particular interest in digital assets and currencies, which isnt surprising given the technological complexities and the as-yet inconclusive nature of the discussion of the values, like privacy, that will have to be incorporated into whats essentially a completely new payments system architecture.

It hasnt been something that has sparked much broader or more populist discussion, at least until very recently in America. As we move from theoretical discussions of CBDCs to their issuance by the major central banks, however, that could change quite quickly particularly if it gets caught up in the identity and values battles that rage within the Anglosphere.

The Business Briefing newsletter delivers major stories, exclusive coverage and expert opinion. .

Read more:
Central bank digital currencies are the latest front in the culture wars - Sydney Morning Herald

Did anyone notice the whole thing was a ruse? A long con designed to use the right-wing noise machine to promote candy. Were talking of course about M&Ms, and how they generated millions of dollars in free publicity simply by manipulating outrage-prone Americans who are stupid enough to listen to anything that comes out of the mouths of Tucker Carlson and the rest of his Fox News nincompoops.

It started early last year when M&Ms tweaked their candy mascots in order to make them more inclusive and unifying. Carlson was the rube who saw a lefty plot where there was none, and soon took to ranting on-air about the sexiness or lack thereof, of non-human, animated bits of chocolate. M&Ms, seeing theyd grabbed our attention, upped the ante by introducing a new, somehow polarizing purple M&M and soon Tucker, Fox and every other aggrieved moron snowflake was off to the races to see who could accuse M&Ms of being more woke.

Which was when M&Ms announced that, heaven forbid, they had no idea the ruckus theyd be causing, so they would terminate the candy mascots entirely and replace them with a human spokesperson. Except that, during the M&Ms Super Bowl television ad it became clear that the spokesperson was a bait and switch. The mascots were back, and the whole thing was a scam to generate buzz for the company at the expense of the American freedumb lemmings who will now fall for anything their bubble-wrapped media overlords tell them is woke.

Like your Xbox. Recently, Microsoft introduced a software patch to help conserve energy when the console isnt being used. But Fox and the rest of the conservative media morons determined that in reality, Microsoft was pushing woke climate ideology on children. Forget for a moment that most Xbox players are adults, but if Microsoft hadnt announced this update, no one wouldve known about it, because its a stupid software patch. But following Foxs lead, various senators and congressmen breathlessly determined that they are coming to take your game consoles.

Poll after poll finds that voters prioritize inflation and the economy over the culture wars.

And remember how for 15 minutes earlier this year the woke mob was coming to take your gas stove? A study was released pointing out that gas fumes are dangerous (no kidding) and that stoves should be more efficient (well, duh), so of course, according to the usual collection of idiot congresscritters and media outrage peddlers, they are coming to take your stove.

See the pattern? They want to take away your all-American stoves and Xboxes. M&Ms and now Legos are woke. Welcome to the newest chapters of the completely made-up culture wars, all contrived hoaxes created for the express purpose of cranking the outrage meters of the gullible up to 11.

Stupid culture wars over stupid things such candy and toys, making it easier for Americans to swallow the bigger, more dangerous lies. Like election denial, and the double-speak that says finding no evidence of election fraud is obviously proof that there was fraud. Completely made-up plots to kill off conservatives with vaccines. Scaring people with phony garbage about pedophiles and drag queens. Denigrating actual history as woke when it challenges authority. Books not approved by the thought police are woke and should be eliminated. Racist, homophobic or violent rants are free speech, but condemning those rants is woke. Clean energy, electric cars, and a fairer, more equitable economy and society all woke, and therefore evil.

Woke: resentment manufactured by the awful Red Hats and amplified by Fox News.

Fox, now fully exposed as a hypocritical repository of false information developed in cahoots with the banana Republican leadership, where hosts and guests know what they say on-air isnt true, but lie to you anyway because its good business. Yet travel around educated, sophisticated Greenwich and Fox still blares out from TVs behind bars, in delis and restaurants and who knows how many private homes. What does that say about us? Now that we know theyre all frauds; now that we know both national and local Red Hat freedom fascists are deliberately and maliciously using their playbook of lies and deception to tear our town and country apart, you really have to ask: what kind of people would knowingly go along with this?

David Rafferty is a Greenwich resident.

See the rest here:
David Rafferty (opinion): Stupid culture wars over stupid things - Greenwich Time

OPINION: It was a passing strange post-Cabinet prime ministerial press conference on Monday evening. Prime Minister Chris Hipkins stood up to make some non-announcements on the very non bread and butter issue of lobbyists.

Then, in the middle of it all, broadcaster Sean Plunket lobbed in a question about how the Government and Hipkins in particular defined a woman. The usually unflappable Hipkins, clearly surprised by the question, looked a bit uncomfortable and ummed and ahhed, until he finally said that people define their own genders.

Plunket pressed, referring to UK Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer, who had said in the past week that he thought 99.9% of women do not have penises.

Penis is not a word you regularly hear in post-Cabinet press conferences with prime ministers. Who knows, maybe it was the first time? There was a sort of stunned silence in the room.

JUAN ZARAMA PERINI/Stuff

Prime Minister Chris Hipkins marked the official start of the winter flu vaccination campaign at the Queen St Medical Centre in Upper Hutt.

READ MORE:* Chris Hipkins' delicate balancing acts over Stuart Nash scandal, and the 'white cis men'* Arch-pragmatist Chris Hipkins is dragging Labour back to the centre - and the left into election contention* Christopher Luxon set to take aim at government consultant 'gravy train', promises $400 million cut if elected

The question evidently came about in the wake of the Posie Parker pro-women/anti-trans protest and is essentially an imported culture wars issue from overseas. In the UK, this is a live political issue heading into the election in 2025. In New Zealand, however, it was effectively put to bed in December 2021 with a law passed that allows for gender self-identification on birth certificates. It will come into effect in 2023.

The interesting thing about this is that there appears no real appetite among elected officials to get into a culture war on this issue leading into the election.

We asked Christopher Luxon how he would answer the question and he said pretty simple: adult female human. When pressed on who gets to define this he said there is a very small number of people who identify with a gender thats different from the sex that they had at birth. They need to be respected as well.

And so you know, that's pretty straightforward for me to think about.

In other words, not an issue for him. He was also at pains to point out that voters dont raise it with him as an issue when he is out and about.

It is clearly something that Luxon and National are trying to stay as far away from as possible. Whereas a couple of Nationals recent previous leaders, Simon Bridges and Judith Collins, would quite cheerfully jump into the odd culture war scrap, Luxon has demonstrated no such enthusiasm.

Indeed, within the National Party election machine there is a simple view on this: people care about their economic prospects and that of their families. And they are mostly live and let live. Getting stuck into no-win issues over gender and trans rights, which simply bewilder many, does not make the list.

Likewise, Chris Hipkins does not wish to wade into these waters. He too is a pretty live and let live character who wont want to be talking about it.

Neither the ACT Party nor the Greens appeared to want to turn it into a debate or an issue either. There are fish-hooks here for everyone, and its a very easy issue where someone could say the wrong thing. While ACT is obviously happy to wade into other culture wars issues especially around the role of the Treaty of Waitangi in law and society, for example this isnt one of them. After all, Parliament unanimously passed the gender self-ID law in 2021.

The UK has its own political context, including the tricky politics of trans rights within the UK Labour Party, which Starmer is trying to manage. Importing that into the New Zealand context is unlikely to head anywhere quickly.

Instead, the bigger-than-expected interest rate hike by the Reserve Bank on Wednesday which came hours before Jacinda Arderns final speech, brought the significant election issues back into relief. And that is inflation and the problems it causes, including significant interest rate rises.

While the Government is continuing to try to make the case that it isnt its fault, but a global phenomenon, National and ACT are trying to lay blame squarely at the feet of Grant Robertson.

It was a reminder about the very issue both Chrises are fighting to own in the public mind. The very opposite of the lobbying changes Hipkins talked about on Monday afternoon. Hipkins himself admitted that theres no evidence of any problems with lobbying, and it was really just a question of perception.

But lobbying is basically the epitome of a beltway issue, and about as far away from bread and butter as you can get. The political wisdom of making it the issue of the day especially after the Stuart Nash saga the week before had made Labour look a bit dodgy seemed questionable. Talking about lobbyists just seemed to reinforce that, conflating two separate issues.

While Hipkins himself continues to grow into the job, looking more confident, a bit of drift that characterised Labours past year has now kicked back in. On the central political question of inflation, Labour has had little to say, and sometimes you could be forgiven for thinking its not in Government with an absolute majority.

The challenges arent just internal. On Thursday afternoon tension within the Green Party which has been simmering for quite some time accidentally made its way out into the open when MP Dr Elizabeth Kerekere called Chle Swarbrick a crybaby in what appeared to be a case of replying to the wrong WhatsApp group.

Kerekere has been known to be unhappy since she was dobbed in to authorities for breaking Covid-19 rules while the Green Party's health spokesperson. And all has not seemed well for some months.

While Kerekere will now apparently be investigated, it is something both the Greens and Labour can do without. Labour needs an electable Green Party that wont spook too many middle voters into staying away from Labour.

It is this sort of peripheral issue that Labour is now having to deal with, not some sort of culture war. There was a relatively high degree of shock in Parliament on Wednesday over the size of the Reserve Banks interest rate hike and the fact that there now might be more this year.

Thats where the real political battle is.

Read more from the original source:
This election may be negative, but it won't be about imported culture ... - Stuff

Two South Carolina Republicans are hitting the presidential campaign trail in Iowa this week, with both trying to appeal to GOP voters who are looking for new leadership.

Former Gov. Nikki Haley and Sen. Tim Scott, who announced Wednesday hes launching an exploratory committee, campaigned in the Hawkeye State making their pitches to voters, NBC News Ali Vitali and Jillian Frankel report from the trail.

The same man whos pitching a hopeful vision of America, also leaned into culture wars and demonized the opposing partyfrom spending more time on CRT than they do on ABC to wide open borders, Vitali and Frankel wrote following Scotts event in Cedar Rapids.

The good news is the American people are just fine. Its the American government that we have to fix, Scott said.

Vitali and Frankel also caught up with Haley in Fort Dodge on Tuesday, where Haley pledged to shake every hand and talk to every person.

Vitali and Frankel note that Haley didnt mention Trump by name, but made a veiled reference to him by saying, Youre not gonna see me come in and do a rally and leave.

The two events underscorethe emerging rivalry between Haley and Scott, who are looking to pitch themselves as alternatives to Trump and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, the Washington Post reports.

In other campaign news

Lifes a beach:NBC News Matt Dixon reports that Florida Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis is reaching out to Florida members of Congress to try to get themnot to endorse former President Donald Trump. And Politico reports DeSantis isholding a meet-and-greetwith Republicans in D.C. this month.

Trump talk:Trumpis in New York to testify in a civil lawsuitrelated to his real estate business. And one of Trumps lawyers is asking to delay his civil rape and defamation lawsuit a month,requesting a cooling off periodafter Trumps unrelated indictment last week.

Debate night in America:Fox News willhost the first GOP presidential debate, with the Young Americas Foundation and the conservative video-streaming site Rumble, in Milwaukee in August.

Friends forever?The Associated Press reports on howIowas evangelical communityis approaching the 2024 presidential bid amid the bond thats developed with Trump over the last seven years.

Exploratory explainer: Sen. Tim Scotts decision to launch a presidential exploratory committee might have you wondering what an exploratory committee is. NBC NewsMegan Lebowitz has you covered.

A challengers challenge:Florida lawyer Keith Grossannounced a Senate bidas a Republican, an uphill bid against GOP Sen. Rick Scott.

A Trump bump:Trump posted on his Truth Social platformpraising businessman Bernie Morenosnewly announcedSenate bidin Ohio, saying he would not be easy to beat.

Peach State primary:Georgiais hoping to experience an economic boostif it becomes an early primary state, NBC News Alex Seitz-Wald reports.

Bridget Bowman is a deputy editor for NBC's Political Unit.

Ben Kamisar is a deputy political editor in NBC's Political Unit.

Read the rest here:
Eyes on 2024: South Carolina meets Iowa - NBC News