Mediaboss Marketing

A significant challenge to democracy and trust is emerging in 2024 globally and nationally. With 49% of the worlds population heading to the voting polls, its the biggest election year in history.

Here in Australia, the Northern Terririty, the Australian Capital Territory and Queensland head to state-election booths, and Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland have local government elections. The latter notably represents 52% of all Australian councils. Millions of people will be deciding what kind of future they want and who they can trust.

But escalating polarisation, mistrust, vigilantism, misinformation and digital manipulation is a dangerous melting pot that threatens democracy. As mayor of SAs most populated local council, I have witnessed first-hand how these melting pots seek to destabilise and pervert communities, electorates and commerce.

The 2024 Edelman Trust Barometer Report,A collision of trust, innovation, and politics, shows that 63% of government leaders are not trusted to tell the truth and are rated as purposely trying to mislead people by saying things they know are false or gross exaggerations.

This has significant implications when people are going to the polling booths. Essentially, 2024 will be a global referendum on trust.

Our democratic practices need to keep up with the speed of AI, social media algorithms, and disruptive bots. And even speaking for myself, navigating cyber security is a real challenge.

The juncture of truth, facts & trust

Over the past decade, truth has been a casualty of discourse and now, in a post-truth world, the bold and the brazen are seemingly allergic to facts.

As Maria Ressa Noble Peace Laureate and global democracy advocate, said:

If you dont have facts, you cant have truth. Without truth, you cant have trust. Without these three, we have no shared reality. We cannot attempt to solve any problem. You cant have democracy if you dont have integrity of facts.

Without facts, fear is the fuel that divides and polarises voters. But there are hopeful divides emerging. People who can discern fact from fiction; empathy and kindness from cruelty and greed and the digitally literate and illiterate.

Moises Naim in his book The Revenge of Power How Autocrats are Reinventing Politics for the 21st Century sums up the three dangers of our times as being polarisation, populism and post-truth.

The destructive power and explosion of social media bots, fake news and deep fake identities disrupting democracy and fuelling polarisation is tacit. The Edelman Barometer Report further found that 64% of Australians consider governments as lacking competence in regulating these kinds of emerging technologies.

The lack of trust in government on this front puts democracy further at risk because innovation is vital for a sustainable and flourishing future. Taking this a step further, there is evidence that resistance to innovation is political.

In Australia, this divide sits at 37% on the right and 14% on the left. This is second only to the US in exhibiting greater resistance to innovation from the right to the left. Culture and identity politics are on the ballot paper.

It was predicted in the 2023 Edelman Trust Report that Australia will become further polarised due to forces weakening our social fabric and the creation of increased divisions. This certainly played out in the Voice to Parliament referendum.

This clearly demonstrates the fragility of our shared identity real and perceived unfairness in our systems. It spotlights a lack of confidence in what might lie ahead economically, which leads to further pessimism and low national self-esteem.

In his inaugural presidential address, Abraham Lincoln called on our better angels from the graves of patriots and history to unite a nation. Maybe we should take some advice from the past and call upon all of those who gave their all to build up trust in democracy and who must be at risk of turning in their graves this year.

If the platforms on which information is being shared cant be trusted, the voices who are seeking election cant be trusted. Nor can regulatory bodies be trusted by default to keep up with technologies.

Responding to the challenge

How we build trust and hope into our institutional responses to fear, fake news and straight-out lies is far more than a communication or marketing challenge.

It runs deep into the bedrock of what it means to be human. We need to feel connected and heard; that we belong and that we count.

The challenge for all elected members is how to keep the system levers and conversations buoyant with civility and compassion. It means building safe places for those conversations to take place and holding each other to account for the decisions made.

And it means ensuring the resources and infrastructure are in place to bring the outcomes as intended. Keeping a tone of respect is central.

Inoculating against othering is critical in strengthening democracy. Othering can be a real challenge on the days when disruptions and distractions seek to derail and threaten. This has been witnessed personally at state and local levels to undermine confidence.

I have had my share of death threats, hacks, clones, electoral corruption and disruption. The scale of my experience, whilst localised, is a tiny window into what the world has seen and will further witness in elections and democracy this year.

We must rigorously encourage fact-checking at every data point and communicate what is and isnt acceptable with respect. Holding up truth to scrutiny is essential to confront polarisation at all levels.

Community engagement and civil discourse are booster shots for democracy. Similarly as are keeping the facts in front of people, showing up with values of empathy, fairness and hearing all voices. We must encourage the quieter to contribute not just the most vocal.

We need to learn how to disagree, build arguments and persuade constructively.

Two-time world champion debater Bo Seo, at the 2023 Asian Pacific Cities Summit shared that to win a debate and be heard, start by listening first to uncover what is at the root of your opponents argument. We must foster respectful debating skills in our educational institutions and boardrooms.

We also need truth in political advertising laws. Recent research by The Australian Institute (Overwhelming support for truth in political advertising laws following the referendum) found 9 out of 10 Australians would support this democratic innovation.

How it pans out

One of the tests of 2024 will not only be the results of all the elections but also the number of people who actually go out to vote. The global problem is how to shake inertia to action where voting is not compulsory.

Other countries could learn from Australias voting laws. Former prime minister Julia Gillard has been a staunch advocate of compulsory voting because it has helped Australia remain out of the hands of small highly motivated minorities.

By the end of 2024 we will know how well we have done in keeping the democracy scales balanced, and if voters have been enabled by our institutions, governments, and technologies to find the truths, stay in relationship with different points of view and be able to resist three-word slogans.

Democracy and trust are facing watershed times. How it pans out is yet to be decided.

READ MORE:

Can tackling misinformation strengthen cohesion and contribute to a national defence?

See the original post here:
Democracy & trust face a global tipping point in 2024 - The Mandarin

President Biden greets staff and patrons at Regal Lounge, a Men's Barber & Spa, in Columbia, S.C., before speaking at a political event in the area on Jan. 27. Kent Nishimura/AFP via Getty Images hide caption

President Biden greets staff and patrons at Regal Lounge, a Men's Barber & Spa, in Columbia, S.C., before speaking at a political event in the area on Jan. 27.

Preserving democracy tops the list of issues for voters in this election year, but not for Republicans, who are most concerned with immigration, a new NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll finds.

For Democrats, they said preserving democracy is top of mind for them when thinking about voting in this November's election, followed by inflation. For independents, it was preserving democracy, followed by immigration and inflation. After immigration for Republicans, it was inflation, and nothing else came close.

The results explain the evident divide when it comes to what the candidates are campaigning on.

Former President Donald Trump routinely talks about the threat from immigration, often in nativist and xenophobic ways. Immigration was fundamental to his initial political rise in 2015, and there's a clear split in the survey on Americans' mentality toward it. A majority said the country's openness to people from all over the world is essential to what it means to be American. But nearly three-quarters of Republicans said being too open risks America's identity.

President Biden and Democrats see Trump as that very threat to democracy given his increasingly pro-authoritarian rhetoric on the campaign trail. That follows the Jan. 6 riot at the Capitol carried by Trump supporters after Trump tried to remain in office by spreading lies about the American voting system.

But nine months from Election Day and with the GOP primary continuing both men, if they are the nominees, face challenges. Biden is not well-liked and is struggling to reassemble his winning coalition from 2020. He's lagging with independents, younger voters and nonwhites. And he's facing a skeptical electorate when it comes to his handling of the economy and immigration in addition to persistent concerns about his age.

Trump, who is not much younger, is also contending with the fact that most Americans continue to say they don't like him very much, either. He struggles particularly with women and suburban voters and both groups would vote more heavily for Biden if Trump is convicted of a crime, the survey found.

If Trump is convicted as a result of the dozens of charges against him, Biden goes from a 1-point lead in the poll a statistical tie to a wider 6-point lead. Contributing to that are 9-point swings in Biden's favor with both women and suburban voters, as well as a 6-point decline for Trump with independents and a 5-point drop with Republicans.

As a panel of federal judges unanimously decided Tuesday, two-thirds of respondents don't think Trump should have immunity from criminal prosecution for things he did as president and almost half of respondents continue to say they already think he has done something illegal. Three-quarters said he has at least done something wrong.

At the same time, more than two-thirds of Republicans said Trump should have immunity from criminal prosecution.

Despite Trump's vulnerabilities, 93% of Republicans said they would vote for Trump over Biden, as opposed to just 78% who said they would vote for former Trump U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley over Biden (15% said they're unsure or don't know how they would vote).

Because Republicans who otherwise support Trump withheld support for Haley in the survey, Haley is in a statistical tie just like Trump.

Plus, more Republicans and Republican-leaning independents said they were concerned that Haley is "too extreme" to win in a general election than those who said they were concerned about Trump being too extreme.

Haley has made her electability against Biden a principal argument in her case against Trump, but Republicans aren't buying it. It just shows the stronghold Trump has on GOP voters. If Republicans were fully with her in the survey as they likely would be if she won the primary she'd certainly be leading Biden in this theoretical match-up, because she significantly cuts into Biden's lead with suburban voters and wins independents by double-digits.

Trump could have real problems in a general election, as general-election voters view him very differently than Republicans alone.

But Biden's not in a great position, either. His job approval remains low (40%) as does his handling of the economy (41%) and, especially, immigration.

Only 29% of respondents said they approve of how Biden is handling immigration, and Republicans hold a 12-point advantage on the question of which party Americans think would do a better job when it comes to dealing with the issue.

It's not too surprising then to see why some Republicans, especially Trump, aren't willing to go along with a congressional border deal that was negotiated by a bipartisan group of lawmakers.

"Let me tell you, I'm not willing to do too damn much right now to help a Democrat and to help Joe Biden's approval rating," Rep. Troy Nehls, R-Texas, told CNN last month. "I will not help the Democrats try to improve this man's dismal approval ratings. I'm not going to do it. Why would I?"

When Trump came out against it, you might say he built a border wall of GOP opposition.

As far as what respondents think should be the top immigration priority, they said they want border security increased (41%), followed by allowing immigrants who were brought to the U.S. illegally as children (also known as DREAMers) to have a path to legalization (28%), taking in refugees trying to escape war and violence (15%) and increasing deportations of immigrants in the country illegally (14%).

Republican respondents overwhelmingly said the top priority should be border security (60%) followed by increasing deportations (22%). But the plurality of Democrats think giving DREAMers a path to legalization should be top (44%), followed by taking in refugees (25%).

Biden is underperforming with lots of key groups.

He won independents in 2020, according to exit polls, but loses them in this survey by 8 points to Trump. Biden won women by 15 points in 2020, but only leads by 4 with them in this poll.

Plus, just 57% of Black voters, 38% of Latinos and only 30% of those 18 to 29 approve of the job he's doing, the lowest of any age bracket. In 2020, Biden won almost 9 in 10 Black voters, two-thirds of Latinos and roughly 60% of young voters.

When it comes to his handling of immigration, Latinos give Biden an abysmal 27% approval.

To be clear, whether respondents say they approve of Biden's handling of a given issue is not necessarily an indication of how they would vote in the end. But the numbers do give signals about where Biden is most vulnerable.

Suburban voters are buoying Biden, as he leads Trump by 16 points with them. Trump has been and continues to be toxic with the group.

Despite younger voters disapproving of the job Biden is doing by big margins, Gen Z/Millennials provide Biden with the largest lead of the generational groups against Trump 7 points.

Biden also continues to perform well with older voters. He's up 6 with the Silent/Greatest Generation and up 2 with Baby Boomers. Those results are notable, because older voters have traditionally been strong GOP voters. Trump won those 65 and older by 5 points in 2020.

The survey of 1,582 adults and 1,441 registered voters was conducted from Jan. 29 through Feb. 1 by the Marist Poll via cell phone and landline using live interviewers, by text and online and in both English and Spanish. When all adults are mentioned, the survey has a margin of error of +/- 3.4 percentage points.

When voters are mentioned, results have a margin of error of +/- 3.6 percentage points. There are also 601 Republicans and Republican-leaning independents included in the survey. Results noting these groups specifically have a +/- 5.5 percentage-point margin of error.

The rest is here:
Here's what matters to voters and what could change their minds if it's Biden-Trump - NPR

New Atlanticist

February 4, 2024

By Parker Novak

In 2024, elections are everywhere all at once. Dozens of countries, stretching from Mexico to the Solomon Islands, are holding crucial contests, including the worlds three largest democracies, India, Indonesia, and the United States. Between rising authoritarianism, growing institutional mistrust, and rapid spread of artificial intelligence, these elections are set to present a cumulative stress test on democracy worldwide.

Already the fourth-largest country by population, Indonesia is projected to become the worlds sixth-largest economy by 2027 and an increasingly important geopolitical player to match its size and wealth. Thus, the outcomes of its February 14 presidential and legislative contests carry far-reaching implications for the future not only of the country host to theworlds largest Muslim population, but also of Southeast Asia and the world.

With more than two hundred million eligible voters, Indonesias massive electorate appropriately reflects its sprawling geography, stretching 3,200 miles from its easternmost to westernmost points. This makes electoral administration a logistically complex affair, with ballots cast at more than eight hundred thousand polling stations across the countrys six thousand inhabited islands.

The most recent nation-wide elections were held in 2019, when 80 percent of eligible voters turned out to re-elect incumbent President Joko Widodo, popularly known as Jokowi. In the five years since, millions of young people have reached voting age, joining an already young electorate, in which 50 percent of eligible voters are classified as millennials or Gen Z.

With more than 1.7 million people entering the workforce annually, economic development and job creation are unsurprisingly atop the list of voters policy priorities, both of which Jokowi has been laserfocused on during his two terms in office. Foreign affairs issues are also on voters radars, as reflected by the January 7 presidential debate dedicated to them. Among other subjects, the candidates debated Indonesias place in the world, geopolitics, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

That said, voter behavior is ultimately driven by personalities, not policies. In a December survey from Lembaga Survei Indonesia, respondents were asked to state their reasons for choosing to support a presidential candidate. Their responses overwhelmingly reflected interpersonal dynamics, such as experience, leadership ability, and trustworthiness, whereas policy issues barely registered.

Naturally, the presidential race is receiving the lions share of attention from voters and the media. Under the Indonesian constitution, the president is limited to two terms in office. Thus, Jokowi cannot run for re-election, and three high-profile figures are vying to succeed him: Prabowo Subianto, Ganjar Pranowo, and Anies Baswedan. Each are paired with a vice presidential running mate: Prabowo with Gibran Rakabuming Raka, Ganjar with Mahfud MD, and Anies with Muhaimin Iskandar.

Alongside this, voters will cast ballots for all 580 members of the House of Representatives (DPR), the lower house of the national legislature; 2,372 members of provincial legislatures (DPRDs); 17,510 members of regency and city DPRDs; and all 152 members of the Regional Representative Council, the upper house of the national legislature. All legislative candidates run under the banner of one of the twenty-four political parties contesting the election, eighteen of which are national in scope.

Ballots, especially those from far-flung islands, can take days to count. Official results are scheduled to be released more than a month after the election, on March 20. On election day, quick counts and exit polls will provide helpful, but not necessarily perfect, barometers. The 2019 election was the first in which presidential and legislative ballots were cast on the same day, and the administrative burden it put on election workers contributed to hundreds dying from exhaustiona tragic outcome that administrators are seeking to avoid repeating.

Indonesian elections are broadly seen as free and fair. Historically, candidates and parties have ultimately accepted the results, albeit sometimes after tense hand-wringing that can turn violent. After losing the 2014 and 2019 elections, Prabowo contested the results in court, and the aftermath of the 2019 elections saw riots in Jakarta during which several people were killed.

Prabowo, the frontrunner, currently serves as the minister of defense. He is backed by a coalition of eight national parties, led by Gerindra, for which he serves as general chairman. Having run against Jokowi in 2014 and 2019, this is his third campaign for the top job. This time around, Prabowo is seen as tacitly backed by Jokowi and is framing his candidacy as a de-facto continuation of the incumbents presidency.

A retired lieutenant general, Prabowo symbolizes the resurgence of Suharto-era and military-aligned figures. He displays a fierce nationalisma potent factor in Indonesian politicsand faced credible accusations of human rights violations during his military career. To inoculate against this, he has worked to change his image, especially among young voters. As two correspondents in Southeast Asia recently put it, hes rebranding himself as a cute grandpa with awkward dance moves and a softer side.

Ganjar, who served as the governor of Central Java until last September, is backed by a coalition of four national parties that is led by Indonesias largest, the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDIP). Elected as governor in 2013, he built a national profile and came to be seen as a politician in the mold of Jokowi. Some expected the president to endorse Ganjar, but this did not happen, partially due to an apparent breakdown in Jokowis relationship with Megawati Sukarnoputri, PDIPs chair.

A former two-term DPR member, Ganjar has sought to project an everyman image and play up his humble beginnings. He is charismatic and knows how to play to the cameras; qualities that some of his critics argue mask a lack of policy depth. His focus on grassroots events and spontaneous public appearances emulate Jokowis well-known blusukans, or unscheduled visits, albeit in a manner that PDIPs secretary general insists are blusukan plus.

Anies, who served as the governor of Jakarta until 2022, is backed by a coalition of four smaller national parties. Elected as governor in 2017, he leveraged his countrys most prominent governorship to build a national profile that he hopes to use as a launching pad to the presidency, much as Jokowi did in 2014. Anies has sought to position himself as the candidate of choice for voters who desire change.

A former university rector who served as minister of education and culture in Jokowis first cabinet, Anies projects a studious, policy-minded image. While he controversially drew support from hardline Islamists during his first campaign for governormuch as Prabowo did in 2014 and 2019Anies has sought to moderate his image, appeal to young voters, and play to his image as an intellectual and an Islamic scholar.

With just days to go until the election, a lot can and will happen. On policy, there isnt a lot of daylight between the candidates, who have sought to differentiate themselves more on the basis of image and personality. But there certainly are some differences. According to recent polls, Prabowo holds a commanding lead, but is falling just short of winning the outright majority required to avoid a runoff, while Anies and Ganjar are locked in a tight contest for second place.

In the event of a runoff, Prabowo will start as the favorite to win and may benefit from institutional support. It will be competitive, though, if Anies and Ganjar unite behind whichever of the two advances to face Prabowo. As the old adage goes, a week is a long time in politics, and the time between now and a runoff election would be an eternity. The intrigue, twists, and turns that characterize Indonesian politics will surely make for a fascinating election.

Parker Novak is a nonresident fellow with the Atlantic Councils Global China Hub and Indo-Pacific Security Initiative, where he specializes in Southeast Asia, the Pacific Islands, Indo-Pacific geopolitics, and US foreign policy. He previously served as the Indonesia and Timor-Leste country director for an international non-governmental organization.

Image: Three presidential candidates, Anies Baswedan (R), Prabowo Subianto (C), and Ganjar Pranowo (L), are posing for photos after the first presidential candidate debate at the General Election Commission (KPU) office in Jakarta, Indonesia, on December 12, 2023. Indonesia is preparing to hold general elections for president and vice president for the 2024-2029 period in February 2024. (Photo by Aditya Irawan/NurPhoto)

Read more:
Who will lead Indonesia after Jokowi? The world's third-largest democracy is about to decide. - Atlantic Council

Listen, observe and be patient those were the words Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward said to me when I asked them what their advice would be to a young eager reporter who wants to follow in their footsteps in investigative journalism.

What seems to be three everyday, simple things that not only journalists but every good professional is supposed to be doing have become a real challenge. In an era of immediate information, internet and the rise of social media, we have forgotten the importance of connecting with others, reading their body language, looking them in the eye and treating them as humans.

Obviously, the digitalization of the world has also put the basic practices of journalism in jeopardy. Its easier to text than call and send an email instead of interviewing, we have forgotten that the key in journalism is to show up.

Good reporting takes commitment and time, and accuracy will always be more important than speed.

Investigative journalism did not begin with Watergate. Yet, its firm establishment in American journalism and its gradual proliferation globally can be largely attributed to the scandal. In fact, Watergate has been an inspiration for young journalists around the globe, myself included, to stick to the idea that no matter how unpopular the news media may sometimes be, rigorous and ethical journalism will hold accountable those with power and influence over the rest of us. In other words, good journalism will be the backbone of a healthy democracy.

Woodward and Bernstein remind us that theres no such secret key in investigative journalism. In fact, all journalism should be about knocking on peoples doors and showing up. Becoming an expert on your subject.

The duo became journalism icons when they broke the story of the Watergate break-in in the early 1970s at the Washington Post and exposed the criminal activity and cover-up that led to the impeachment and resignation of then-President Richard Nixon. Their reporting on the story won them each a Pulitzer Prize for Public Service in 1973.

These legendary reporters not only came to reminisce about Watergate, they reminded us why we should, more than ever, raise the standards in journalism to ensure democracy is protected. 50 years later, with a completely different political landscape, a cultural shift, and a digital world, Bernstein and Woodward still believe that the ultimate solution to keep American democracy safe is to reform journalism.

The Osher Lifelong Learning Institute at FAU hosted Woodward and Bernstein on Feb. 8 for a lecture on journalism in todays democracy. As an aspiring journalist, having them on campus, hearing their advice and having the opportunity to learn from their methodologies was an enlightening experience.

We need to deal with the problem of pomposity in journalism, said Bernstein during the lecture. Anything can be infected, there isnt certainty. People are now only looking for information to reinforce what they believe and it is discouraged because theres no consensus on what good reporting is.

Woodward complemented by explaining that it is crucial to raise the standards of getting information and creating a curatorial consensus about what is good journalism.

We need to go back to the sources: a witness, a participant, the documents owner. We cant continue with going by a rumor. These should be our standard, we wont publish anything that doesnt meet them, said Woodward.

The world has changed and forever will, but the heart of good reporting is still the same. The methodology of getting good stories is the same: knocking on doors, being respectful to the people we talk with, observing and listening, being a critical thinker, staying consistent and always following our instinct.

A lot of doors slammed in our faces but the result was worth it. People are going to say no but its the yeses that count, said Bernstein. People like to tell the truth, there are a lot of deep throats in the world, we just need to give them the opportunity. Listen to them carefully.

Having the opportunity to talk to Woodward and Bernstein reminded me why I decided to pursue journalism in the first place. Their legacy continues to show the real evidence that truth, in fact, matters.

In the face of adversity and critique, its crucial to remember the foundational principles of journalism. As journalists, we are tasked with the formidable job of holding those in power accountablea role that may not win popularity contests but is essential for the health of our society.

Nixons words in the Oval Office on Dec. 14, 1972, serve as a reminder of the mindset were up against: The press is the enemyThe establishment is the enemy. The professors are the enemy. Repeated like a mantra, these words were meant to discredit the very institutions tasked with questioning, analyzing and informing.

It is precisely this adversarial role that underscores the vital importance of journalism. Let us not be deterred by the challenges but instead, be inspired by the courage of those who have stood firm in their quest for truth. Journalisms mission to illuminate the truth and contribute to informed citizenship is more important now than ever.

Sofia De La Espriella is the News Editor for the University Press. Email [emailprotected] or message her on Instagram @sofidelaespriella for information regarding this or other stories.

More here:
COLUMN: No democracy without journalism a lesson from Woodward and Bernstein - University Press

This month Democracy Now! turns 28. Since our very first broadcast in 1996, Democracy Now! has been committed to bringing you the stories, voices and perspectives you won't hear anywhere else. In these times of war, climate chaos and elections, our reporting has never been more important. Can you donate $10 to keep us going strong? Right now a generous donor will DOUBLE your donation, making it twice as valuable. Democracy Now! doesn't accept advertising income, corporate underwriting or government funding. That means we rely on you to make our work possibleand every dollar counts. Please donate today. Thank you so much. -Amy Goodman

This month Democracy Now! turns 28. Since our very first broadcast in 1996, Democracy Now! has been committed to bringing you the stories, voices and perspectives you won't hear anywhere else. In these times of war, climate chaos and elections, our reporting has never been more important. Can you donate $10 to keep us going strong? Right now, a generous donor will DOUBLE your donation, making it twice as valuable. Democracy Now! doesn't accept advertising income, corporate underwriting or government funding. That means we rely on you to make our work possibleand every dollar counts. Please donate today. Thank you so much. -Amy Goodman

We rely on contributions from you, our viewers and listeners to do our work. If you visit us daily or weekly or even just once a month, now is a great time to make your monthly contribution.

Please do your part today.

Continued here:
None of These Candidates Wins Nevada Primary, Beating Nikki Haley - Democracy Now!