Mediaboss Marketing

In 2015, Saturday Night Live spoofed the rancorous political arguments besieging American social life.

Cast members seated around a dining table to celebrate Thanksgiving passed the side dishes and threw invective. The verbal heat rose and rose until a young girl pressed play on a cassette player and the Adele song Hello washed over the room. The combatants instantly ceased fire and began lip-synching the lyrics. Their rapture escalated until they physically entered a re-creation of the music video.

A Thanksgiving Miracle aired before the Trump presidency and its violent subversive conclusion. This holiday season, its hard to think of a song capable of transporting Americans into a state of blissful unity. Masks and vaccines have become a divisive issue and assault weapons have cropped up as accessories on congressional Christmas cards. But there is an alternative to mutually assured bad-mouthing. Americans can meet clandestinely among the like-minded, not just to commiserate but also to plan and participate in election campaigns.

Emily Van Duyn, a political communications scholar, embedded with one such group in Texas in 2017. Her book chronicles the journey of 136 liberal women living in a rural and thus predominantly conservative Texas town who, determined to resist Trump, organized themselves into what Van Duyn anonymizes as the Community Womens Group (CWG).

They were middle-aged and senior white women (save one who was Black), afraid to speak their minds and put up yard signs. The author interviewed 24 of them multiple times, attended their monthly meetings on a dozen occasions, and examined meeting minutes from November 2016, when they were in tears and shock, until December 2020, at which point their politicking had yielded higher vote totals for Democrats in the previous months election, though not enough to prevail anywhere on the ballot.

Van Duyn also conducted a national and statewide survey in 2018, from which she concluded that more than one in five American adults felt the need to hide their politics, and just under one in 10 operated in similarly self-obscured conversational settings.

The study explains how social, geographic and political causes shaped the communication practices of the CWG.

[T]he growing animosity between and within parties, the uncertainty about truth, the growing intersectional animosity around ideology, race, class, and gender, made for a political context that was not only unpleasant but risky.

Trump palpably threatened their sense of security as women. Locally, they feared ostracization, loss of business (especially the real estate agents), defacement of property and being run off the road by men in trucks with guns who noticed liberal bumper-stickers, as happened at least once and was talked about often.

Van Duyn excels at detailing the evolution of CWGs communications practices, a mix of private and public facing activities conducted through physical as well as digital channels. Many members had grown up deferring to men about matters political. But a week after Trumps victory one of them sent an email to eight neighbors: I would like to suggest that we get together for support and see where that takes us.

That got forwarded, and 50 showed up at the first meeting. In a remote location, with the blinds closed, they wrote a mission statement and formed committees by issue to educate themselves. That super-structure soon fell by the wayside. Their formalized confidentiality agreement held, however. Between meetings they relied on a listserv to communicate among themselves with a brief detour into a secret Facebook group.

In their darkened space (the book title inverts the slogan of the Washington Post) they opened each meeting with talk about their fears. A few started sending letters to the editor of the local newspaper using their individual identity, often to register dissent with and fact-check other letter writers. Over the two years of the study, about half emerged as open Democrats. They worked on mobilizing other Democrats (even though not all were registered or comfortable with the party), leaving the heavy labor of persuasion to formal campaigns. Their work shored up the party in their county: they ran phone banks, filled district chairs, updated voter files and raised money. The group had served as a safe harbor to develop political skills and confidence.

CWG falls into several political traditions, including the voluntary associations that De Tocqueville valorized, the hidden minorities who have suffered the weights of oppression and, for that matter, the collectives of oppressors and cultists.

Women are a demographic majority in America, and the political positions of CWG would fit in the national mainstream. But these women were neither in the contexts of their lives. Even so, by the end of the period Van Duyn examines, their politicking mirrored that of more open demographic counterparts such as the Liberal Women of Chesterfield County, a group that helped first-time candidate Abigail Spanberger turn a central Virginia seat Democratic in 2018 one that she now has to decamp for a newly re-drawn district.

Some Republicans at holiday gatherings this year will continue to relish the opportunity to bait liberals (a practice that goes both ways). They may emulate Trumps style of discourse, centered on a barrage of lies, exaggerations, accusations and taunts. Or they may not do any of these things; as Trump said about southern border-crossers in 2015 some, I assume, are good people. Indeed, some Republicans may feel intimidated by progressive majorities in workplaces and on campuses.

All told, the risks of escalated, energy draining crossfire between Americas political tribes have risen and intensified. So this holiday season is no time for engaging others in political matters, for disputing the veracity of their claims and integrity of their motives. Far better to smile wanly, deflect provocations, change the subject, and then join or form a political support group. As Van Duyns book shows, good things can follow from going underground.

Read more from the original source:
Democracy Lives in Darkness review: how to take politics off the holiday dinner table - The Guardian

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

AMY GOODMAN: Legendary poet, singer, author and activist Patti Smith has been awarded a key to New York City. Smiths music has inspired countless bands and helped earn her the title of queen of punk. Her song People Have the Power has become an anthem at protests across the globe. Patti Smith has also been a longtime activist, performing regularly at antiwar rallies and political benefits. She gave an emotional acceptance speech during a ceremony Monday with outgoing New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio.

Patti Smith: I kept thinking of what New York City has given to me. I came here in 1967 from a rural area of South Jersey. I had just a few dollars in my pocket, nowhere to stay, no real prospects. But I came here to get a job and to see what I could to see what I was made of. And I found that the city, with all of its diversities and possibilities, if youre willing to work, if you maintain your enthusiasm, youll make it.

AMY GOODMAN: And those are some of the headlines. This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. Im Amy Goodman.

PATTI SMITH: [singing] Where there were deserts, I saw fountainsAnd like cream the waters riseAnd we strolled there togetherWith none to laugh or criticize

Well, the leopard and the lambLay together truly boundWell, I was hopin in my hopinTo recall what I had found

I was dreamin in my dreaminGod knows a pure viewAs I surrender into my sleepinI commit my dream with you

People have the power to dreamPeople have the power to votePeople have the power to strikePeople have the power to live

The power to dream, to ruleTo wrestle the world from foolsIts decreed the people ruleWell, its decreed the people rule

Listen, I believe everythin we dreamCan come to pass through our unionWe can turn the world aroundWe can turn the Earths revolution

People have the powerPeople have the powerThe people have the powerPeople have the power

Dont forget it! Use your voice! Democracy now!

AMY GOODMAN: Patti Smith performing People Have the Power with Michael Stipe of R.E.M. at Democracy Now!s 20th anniversary celebration five years ago at Riverside Church. She was awarded the key to New York City on Monday.

Read this article:
People Have the Power: Poet & Singer Patti Smith Awarded Key to New York City - Democracy Now!

WASHINGTON, D.C.Earlier this month, U.S. President Joe Biden gathered over 100 world leaders for the first-ever Summit for Democracy, with the goal of bolstering democracies around the world in the face of rising authoritarianism, which he called the "defining challenge" of the current era.

The two-day virtual event, which was produced by global event agency Freeman, kicks off an international year of action where countries across the world, including the U.S., will aim to strengthen democracy at home and abroad, all followed by an in-person assembly in late 2022. Originally intended to be held in person, this years virtual conference featured a schedule of speeches by heads of state, as well as meetings with leaders, cabinet members, civil society groups and human rights activists.

BizBash chatted with Mike Wohlitz, senior vice president at Freeman, about the unique challenges, including security concerns and last-minute changes, of producing an international gathering of this scale, as well as coordinating with speakers who are "busy running the world."

How did the partnership with the State Department come about?This RFP went out to a number of bidders, and the driving interest for the Department of State was to create an international summit that would historically have been a face-to-face event and create a similar and compelling experience, understanding that because of travel restrictions, this summit was going to need to be hosted virtually. Once awarded the work, Freeman worked carefully with both the Department of State and also the White House to then make sure we delivered the administration's vision for the summit.

The overdriving approach was to have an international summit hosted virtually, but whenever possible create as much of an experience for the heads of state and other participants to make it feel as if they're in the same room, and so they could have both public and private conversations very directly with everyone involved in each of the summit sessions.

When did the planning start?It was quite a dash. The project was awarded in early October, and that left six to eight weeks to then flesh out what the vision was and deliver on it on a number of different levels. Of course, with anything virtual, there's the platform that supports and hosts the entire summit. As you might imagine, given the sensitivity of this audience, security and reliability were a very driving factor in how we deployed the platform for the solution as well as registration. How do we ensure that the heads of state could get into a session, but only heads of state could be admitted to the session? There was a very significant platform and registration piece in that preproduction planning.

Then, of course, there was a broadcast component. How do we create an environment that is compelling for the participants amongst themselves, as well as to create a compelling atmosphere to share for broadcast with the rest of the public and the press who could then watch and observe the streams of much of the summit? I would say about 80% or more of the summit was shared publicly versus private and discreet conversations.

As one might expect, with anything with the government, the actual content of what we were saying came in at the very last minute. And when I say last minute, oftentimes the day before. We might have known who was speaking and when but that was it. We were getting teleprompter scripts the day out. We were receiving a lot of that direction, less than 24 hours out, because that's normal for a lot of world leaders. They're very busy running the world, so that takes priority over speech writing. We knew that. If you know that that's going to be the case, you plan for it, so you can accomplish it as best as possible.

"Knowing the sensitivity with heads of state, we worked with the United States government to make sure that the platform met their very stringent security needs," said Mike Wohlitz, senior vice president at Freeman.Photo: Courtesy of FreemanYou mentioned the security measures that were incorporated into the virtual platform. Can you share any details on the level of security needed in comparison to other virtual events?Regardless of who the client is, whether it is corporations, whether it's a medical association, whether it's the U.S. government, everybody has security as one of their top concerns with virtual, and that's something we take very seriously. Knowing the sensitivity with heads of state, we worked with the United States government to make sure that the platform met their very stringent security needs. They spent quite a bit of effort reviewing our external audits of the security of our system and penetration testing to ensure that it met the needs of the United States government.

I'm very proud to say that given that audit, no additional changes were needed to our platform. We checked all the boxes based on their needs after that assessment. But again, everyone's going to have that concern for their event. They want to make sure the right people are in and the wrong people aren't. It's really a function of two different but related elements. One is the platform itself to make sure that it cannot be penetrated by malicious effort, and the other is registration.

How the attendees get in and out of the sessions and make sure that heads of state get into the correct session and people who could watch but not speak in some of the private sessions could get in and out as need be, and then also to make sure that we could then share the public session as needed with the press and the public. It's those two piecesthe platform and the registration module working together. In our case, we're very fortunate that it was our platform and our registration model working together so it allowed us to control how those two functions worked together.

A secure studio was set up on the White House grounds, along with three more additional studios in the Washington Convention Center.Photo: Courtesy of FreemanHow was the broadcast process configured?We wanted to create a secure and easy-to-access presidential studio on the White House grounds. It was in the Eisenhower Executive Office building, and it was there that the president and vice president would present to the summit attendees. And then across town in the Washington Convention Center, we built out three more additional studios. That's where cabinet members, some of our moderators and other panelists would join if they were joining in person. And we created a broadcast infrastructure that allowed us to produce the broadcast from the Washington Convention Center to share with the rest of the world, regardless of where the signals originated.

So even though some of the camera feeds might have been coming from the White House, they were then transported over fiber to the Washington Convention Center. It was there that it was blended in with the panelists who might have been at the Washington Convention Center as well as those joining remotely from around the world. It was there that it was bundled into the broadcast art form and shared out with the rest of the world.

Did you run into any technical glitches?Very proud to say that the broadcast platform worked perfectly. When you do a virtual event, you're only as good as Zoom. You can tell heads of state as much as you want during tech rehearsalsplease don't mute your microphones. We'll mute them on our sidethey're still going to mute the microphones if they want to.

How did you handle the different time zones and work with the global attendees in terms of scheduling?We had presenters from 22 different time zones around the world. We had crews running at very awkward hours in the United States so that we could accommodate tech rehearsals for all of the different participants in the summit in the week leading up to the summit. And then even once we started broadcasting, some days we were live to air very early in the morning, 6 a.m. Eastern, to provide a more comfortable time frame for the international attendees. It was quite a bit of juggling to accommodate the very complicated schedules that these heads of state have from around the world. But proper prior planning prevents poor performance, so all the proper planning worked great to make sure that we delivered.

How did you accommodate the different languages spoken by the attendees?The simultaneous interpretation was provided by CSI [Conference Systems], which is a company the U.S. government employed to do all the interpretation. From there, Freeman would take their interpreted feeds and incorporate them into the correct feeds. For example, every one of our outgoing broadcast feeds was fed in seven different spoken languages, plus American sign language. Also, we would have to take different interpretations for the sessions themselves. So if we had a panelist speaking in Portuguese with another panelist speaking in French, we had to make sure that Portuguese, French and Spanish were all being properly interpreted in and out of the session. It took a lot of coordination and preplanning to make sure it went well.

Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken participated in a virtual discussion with young democratic leaders from around the world as part of the Summit for Democracy on Dec. 8.Photo: Freddie Everett/ Public DomainHow did you coordinate the programming?It's quite a ballet producing an event like this. It was a balance. The agenda was driven by the White House, by the Department of State, by the NSC [National Security Council], and together they determined what the topics were, and they determined who the presenters would be. We would pick up from there and start scheduling them for tech rehearsals. The agenda was completely driven by the United States government.

Overall, what do you think was the biggest challenge in producing the event?There were many complexities. Again, anytime you're connecting 110 world leaders, it can be challenging. We pressure tested a lot of different elements on this broadcast technology, what the virtual platform can support, and it all comes down to last-minute needs of the presenters. I think the biggest challenge is remaining nimble and flexible in knowing that the summit content is going to come together at the very last minute. A lot of times when you're planning virtual events for different associations or corporate clients, you tend to know the specifics of what the different presenters are going to be saying at certain times and what the presentation materials will be well in advance.

When you're producing an international summit like this, for very specific reasons, you're going to find out at the last minute. There are security concerns and the notion of what government leaders are going to say comes at the very last minute. The best you can do is just plan for it.

What do you think are the pros and cons of doing a virtual version of an event like this as compared to an in-person one?I think, first of all, we've all learned over the last couple of years how much we miss live face-to-face engagements and we're excited to see them returning. Likewise, I don't think these virtual offerings are going to go away because we've learned that it now extends the audience. For example, we may have had panelists that presented at the summit virtually who might not have been able to fly around the world to attend the summit in person and likewise it extends your audience as well. It's no longer just the people watching it there. We now have the ability to share this message over very accessible platforms like Vimeo and YouTube so that anybody can watch the proceedings that were happening at the Summit for Democracy.

The sessions are available for the public to view. Was that always part of the plan?At its greatest foundational value, democracy is a lot about free speech and sharing thoughts with the rest of the world. And so it was very important to the administration and to the Department of State that the majority of the sessions were open and readily accessible to the public.

Watch a behind-the-scenes look at the making of the summit.

See the original post:
Event Production of the Summit for Democracy - BizBash

Michael Eric Dyson said black Americans have historically served as the "measure and magnitude" of American democracy in commentary on the filibuster Monday on MSNBC. Dyson told MSNBC host Tiffany Cross, guest host for MSNBC's Joy Reid, that white people are feeling a "kind of schizophrenia" because they are used to seeing blacks as a measuring tool for democracy.

"This is a prelude to the kiss-off of an American democracy. To a certain degree, the apocalypse is before us. We speak in these apocalyptic terms," Dyson described support of the filibuster. "People who are not used to being trampled on, who are not used to being assaulted, who are not used to being attacked then feel themselves for the first time under even the briefest and the most cursory form of assault feel what we've been talking about all along."

"We have been the measure and magnitude of American democracy," Dyson said of black people. "What black people have done with this country, what we've done with resources has not only made our culture better but our country better and so now people who are not used to seeing black people be the indices, the index, the measure of who we are as a nation feel a kind of schizophrenia. On the one hand, they think we lost our minds and on the other hand, they know they lost theirs."

MICHAEL ERIC DYSON: This is a prelude to the kiss-off of an American democracy. To a certain degree, the apocalypse is before us. We speak in these apocalyptic terms. People call us exaggerators, 'Oh my God, won't you stop over-responding.' And yet the bottom line is that as you said, people who are not used to being trampled on, who are not used to being assaulted, who are not used to being attacked then feel themselves for the first time under even the briefest and the most cursory form of assault feel what we've been talking about all along.

On the other hand, many who have not been in the ditch with us, many who have not been in the trenches with us don't understand the necessity of the warning, don't understand the degree to which we say to America we have been the bellwether and the benchmark. We have been the measure and magnitude of American democracy. What black people have done with this country, what we've done with resources has not only made our culture better but our country better and so now people who are not used to seeing black people be the indices, the index, the measure of who we are as a nation feel a kind of schizophrenia. On the one hand, they think we lost our minds and on the other hand, they know they lost theirs.

And so the truth about American democracy is it is only as good as we're willing to fight for. It is only ever been what we have made it to be. This may be an exaggerated point, a kind of serious inflection point but the truth is Martin Luther King Jr. in fighting Bull Connor was fighting for the future of democracy and when we understand the degree to which we have been willing to fight for it, it reminds us that democracy is in our grasp but only if we continue to fight for it in the most fundamental fashion.

See the article here:
Michael Eric Dyson: Blacks Have Been "The Index" To Measure American Democracy, Made Culture Better - RealClearPolitics

There is no real separation of powers between the Legislative and Executive in India - and that means our votes have no real value.

This is a simple explainer of a big problem most of us dont realise exists, and an appeal for all of us to demand better. So, stick with me.

In primary school civics lessons, when we are introduced to concepts like democracy and to the Indian Constitution, we are taught that there are three pillars of democracy in India. The Legislature, the Executive, and the Judiciary have separate functions and powers. The Legislature that is the Parliament and state Assemblies make laws; the Executive that is, the government ministries, agencies, and bureaucrats implement laws; and the Judiciary the Supreme Court, the High Courts, and various lower courts uphold laws and Constitutional principles.

The idea that these three branches should be separate and independent the doctrine of separation of powers has been followed by governments since ancient Greece, to ensure that no single person or group of people can amass too much power. Independently and together, these three branches of government or pillars of democracy are crucial for the functioning of a country. And if the three branches are separate and independent, the system can survive even if one branch fails becomes corrupt, or is filled with incompetent people. One branch, as per the doctrine of separation of powers, cannot interfere with the other two.

In India, we have a problem. There is no outright declaration anywhere that these three branches have separate powers and should remain independent. There are Articles in the Constitution that imply the separation of powers though. For instance,Article 50says that the state should keep the executive and the judiciary separate;Article 122says courts cannot look into proceedings of Parliament;Article 121restricts Parliament from discussing the conduct of a Supreme Court or High Court judge (unless the legislature is looking for impeachment);Article 361says the President or a Governor cannot be called for a criminal proceeding during their term.

However, practically, the way the three branches of the government function, there is no real independence. For instance, the Chief Justice of India is appointed by the President that is, the Executive (President) has a hand in Judiciary appointments. The Legislature can impeach a judge, thereby having power in Judiciary functions.

The worst part of this non-separation, however, is between the Executive and the Legislature, which has pretty much rendered the Legislature toothless and redundant. And this is a problem for Indian citizens for you and me because the Legislative is the one branch that we have a say in. The Legislative is voted in by us, but it has little to no power, and that means our votes have little to zero real value.

As I mentioned before, the job of the Legislature that is, the Parliament and state Assemblies is to make laws. This means, drafting Bills, debating them, amending them, etc. The Legislature also holds the Executive accountable which is why, in Parliament and in Assemblies, we have slots like Question Hour and Zero Hour, where legislators question the work done by the Executive, and we have Parliamentary committees that look deeply at the functioning of different ministries.

But think about who actually makes laws in India. The answer is, the Executive. The government has made a law, we usually say and hear, and by government, we explicitly mean the Executive. The Executive the Prime Minister and his Cabinet, and Chief Ministers and their Cabinets are the ones who come up with ideas for laws to be passed in the country. They draft the Bills. The Cabinet, or an Empowered Group of Ministers, clears these Bills. A Minister then introduces the Bill in Parliament or Assembly, and if the supporters of the Executive are in the majority, these Executive-ideated, Executive-drafted, Executive-introduced Bills become law without any trouble.

Yes, there is a debate in the Legislature and even that is becoming rare these days. Yes, there is a vote and even that is becoming redundant now with the propensity for voice votes, and with brute majorities in the Houses. But the Legislature only has as much power as any single member of the Legislature does and that, currently, is zero.

Ideally, an independent Legislative would have members legislators coming up with ideas for new laws based on what their constituents want and need. They would then draft the Bill with the help of researchers, and people on the ground, giving inputs. The Bill would then be introduced in Parliament and debated fairly, with other legislators bringing in their points of view, and bringing in amendments that they believe are important for their constituents. The Bill would then become law after the members vote on it, and the Executive would be given the mandate of implementing it. Ideally.

Where we are however is far from it. And the reasons for this futility of the Legislature are many.

The most basic reason is that the Executive, by design, is part of the Legislature. That is all of our ministers in the government are members of Parliament and state legislatures. So in a sense, if the Executive is accountable to the Legislative, our ministers are pretty much answerable to themselves, especially if their party or coalition has a brute majority. Essentially, the ministers who are the Executive can, as part of the Parliament and Assemblies, introduce Bills, and get them passed. Further, the Bills passed by the Legislature have to be signed by the President or Governor (who are both part of the Executive) to become laws.

And as if that wasnt enough Legislative Power for the Executive, ministers, with the permission of the President of India or Governor of a state, can pass Ordinances when the legislature is not in session. For instance, the recently repealed Farm Laws were first passed as Ordinances, without even a semblance of a Legislative process.

The third problem is subordinate legislation that is, Rules that are passed under a law by the Executive. Technically, this provision exists to make it easier for the Executive to implement laws without going through a cumbersome and long process. For example, if a law says fines can be imposed if a person breaks a traffic regulation, the Executive can make Rules under the law to decide the amount of fine. However, Rules have been used by the Executive to impose provisions far exceeding what the parent law prescribes, like in the case of the recently passed IT Rules, which prescribe Executive control over the content published on digital media without having gone through any Legislative process.

The fourth problem is the Anti-Defection Law, which binds every single legislator to their partys diktats, essentially making your and my vote for any member useless. As per the anti-defection law the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution any legislator who doesnt follow their partys whip can be disqualified from being a member of the House. So essentially, its only in name that were electing individuals to the House, because no legislator can actually take a call on whether they like a Bill or not. They have to stick to the party stand.

The fifth problem is that Private Member Bills or Bills brought in by actual legislators who are not part of the Executive are pretty much redundant. Technically, any legislator can introduce a Bill in Parliament. But to date, only 14 such Bills have been made into laws in India. The time for discussing Private Members Business which includes Bills and Resolutions is only the second half of Fridays when the Parliament is in session. And the last time a Private Members Bill was made into law was in 1968. The closest the Parliament has come to passing a Private Members Bill in recent times was in 2015, when DMKs Tiruchi Sivas Bill for protecting the rights of transgender persons was passed in Rajya Sabha. In the Lok Sabha, the Executive asked for the Bill to be withdrawn and promised to bring in their own Bill to this effect which has been criticised for being a much-diluted version of Tiruchi Sivas Bill, and for being highly problematic.

So how do we give the Legislative its teeth back? How do we make sure that the people we elect, actually represent our interests?

The first step is to understand why separation of powers is important, and the very next is demanding that our votes are valued. The next time a government passes an Ordinance, speak up against it, whether or not you support the party in power. Because at some point, the party in power may not be one you like, and the only thing you can depend on is solid, independent processes. The next time Rules are brought in to legislate through the backdoor, speak up. The next time the government passes a Bill in Parliament without any discussion, speak up.

The next time people come to you for votes, speak up. Ask questions about how theyre actually representing you. And demand answers.

Views expressed are the author's own.

This piece was first published in TNM's award-winning weekly newsletter Here's The Thing. To become a TNM Member, click here.

Link:
The three pillars of democracy is a lie - The News Minute