Mediaboss Marketing

There is a Great Divide in the Labour Party. It was there for all to see in September 2015, when Jeremy Corbyn was first elected leader and some of its most talented MPs refused even to countenance serving in his Shadow Cabinet.

It was visible in June 2016 when 80 per cent of Labour MPs declared publicly that they had no confidence in Corbyn as leader. We could see it with every disastrous by-election and local government election result, when the media found it easy to persuade the leaders critics to abandon anonymity and go on the record to condemn him and demand his resignation.

Since the snap 2017 general election, when Theresa May came riding over the hill to Corbyns rescue, we have seen the first serious attempt by recalcitrant MPs to grit their teeth and applaud their leader, a leader who, after all, led an energetic campaign and managed, if nothing else, to persuade voters that...

Read the original here:
Both sides of Labour say they stand for party democracy. Both sides are hypocrites - Telegraph.co.uk

1. Introduction Democracy, Influence, and Protection of the State

Arianna Huffington ran a session at the World Economic Forum in Davos in 2009, in which she argued that the net would bring participatory democracy and informed self-government to America, to an extent not seen anywhere on Earth since the Athenian Agora and The Golden Age of Pericles. While this would be an outcome to be greatly welcomed, it was never certain. Indeed, a well-functioning democracy was never certain even in Athens. The Golden Age of Athens lasted less than 25 years. Athens was then sold out by the serial traitor, Alcibiades, who sold Athens out to Sparta, and who later betrayed Sparta to the Persians. Had there been anyone more powerful than the Persians, no doubt Alcibiades would have found a way to betray Persia.

As will be clear below, I now believe that the internet has damaged civil discourse and the role of the Agora, the marketplace for ideas. However, the Greek Agora did have a mechanism for protecting democracy, based on little shards of broken pottery, ostraca. Every year the population of Athens voted. The most popular, powerful people in the city could be banned for a period of 5 years or longer. Citizens wrote the names of dangerously popular, dangerously influential people on shards of pottery, and the winners were sent away, or ostracized. They were not ostracized for crimes they had committed, or even for crimes that they were likely to commit. They were ostracized for their oversized influence and their ability to subvert democracy through the strength of their personality.

2. My Pessimism about Democracy in the Age of the Net

I was more pessimistic than Arianna, believing at the time that there were two alternatives for the impact of the net on American democracy, each equally likely:

Achieving an idealized participatory democracy assumes that the electorate will enjoy fair access to information and that it will gain true comprehension, and that it will not be influenced by the relative ease of preparing soundbites for one position or another. Perhaps the net would make all literate Americans informed, and perhaps the best candidate, with the best platform, with a plan to deliver the greatest good for the country, would be assured election.

Alternatively, candidates with the darkest message, with the simplest delivery, appealing to the basest instincts of their voters, would lead us to fascism.

Still, both Arianna and I accepted the idea that the net would provide fair access to all ideas.

3. With the passage of time, it is clear that I was wrong, and insufficiently pessimistic

The net has not delivered fascism, which was my greatest fear, but it has become the most divisive force in the history of American politics. Traditional journalism still believes in pursuit of facts, and in dissemination of truth. That does not mean that traditional journalism is always neutral, and crusading journalists have been a part of the American tradition since before the revolutionary war. But traditional journalists are forced to work very hard to defend their positions, to ferret out the truth. Yes, the Washington Post led the assault on Richard Nixon after Watergate, and yes, the Washington Post had then, as it does now, a liberal editorial board. But the Post and its investigative reports Woodward and Bernstein, had to work very hard to support everything they wrote.

The alternative to traditional journalism, alt-journalism, believes that words are merely tools, and that facts are merely a matter of personal preference, to be selected, discarded, or fabricated depending on their usefulness. And, indeed, now that Bannon has transitioned back from the White House to his prior role in alt-journalism, his view of his mission clearly has very little to do with the objective pursuit of truth

Ive got my hands back on my weapons. I built a f***ing machine at Breitbart. And now Im about to go back, knowing what I know, and were about to rev that machine up. And rev it up we will do.

Contrast this mission statement with The New York Times motto, To give the news impartially, without fear or favor or that of the Washington Post, Democracy Dies in Darkness.

Clearly, Bannon believes that journalism in pursuit of truth is wasted. And, clearly, the man who did more than anyone else to make the Trump presidency possible is going to do whatever he can to use the net to advance it. And, finally, the Trump presidency does not seem to be based on any vision of health care policy, economic policy, or on any other policy other than preserving its own power.

4. What can be done to preserve American democracy?

The ancient Athenians would have known what to do. The most powerful, influential, disruptive forces in the United States today are clearly Steve Bannon and Donald Trump. The ancient Athenians would have banished them from Athens. Are there authors, playwrights, and editors on both the left and right who would also be considered influential and equally disruptive? Probably. And the ancient Athenians would have banished them as well.

Banishment was not based on being right or wrong. Banishment was not based on having political foes without having enough offsetting political friends. Banishment was not based on expressing any single opinion, and was not considered as limiting the right to speak. Banishment was based on an individuals having strong opposition to what was perceived as excessive influence.

Since it is clear that a majority of Americans believe that President Trumps tweeting and public statements are disruptive, and that he has the distinction of being the most unpopular president in American history, it is clear that he would have the honor of winning an ostraca vote. It is not clear who else would rank in the top 5, or the top 10, or however many winners we might feel the need to select.

Banishment is more than a little extreme. Its not clear that you can banish a sitting president, or the current Senate Majority Leader, or the House Minority Leader, although all three might end up winning an ostraca vote.

A more modern solution would be to take away President Trumps cellphone and ban Steve Bannon from the net if they were ostracized. Perhaps CNN, or MSNBC, or Fox, might lose an anchor as well. We would probably have to leave ostracized politicians in office, but we could limit their access to airtime on radio and television. We would be left with a much more centrist media, and with much more centrist politicians as a direct result.

This doesnt place limits on freedom of speech. It simply muffles the loudest voices.

The Republic, Western Democracy, and the entire planet, would all be better off.

The Morning Email

Wake up to the day's most important news.

See original here:
A Modest Proposal for Protecting American Democracy from Americans Or What to Do When Impeachment Seems Too ... - HuffPost

They were convicted of unlawful assembly after they stormed government property in September 2014, leading to the 79-day sit-in of major roads in the heart of the city's financial district.

On Sunday, demonstrators walked from the district of Wan Chai to the Court of Final Appeal, where the three activists are expected to lodge an appeal against their sentences.

Police told CNN the number of protesters during the peak period Sunday was about 22,000. While the protest organizers did not provide their own count, activist Agnes Chow told CNN it was the biggest protest since the 2014 Occupy movement.

"We were surprised that there were so many people coming out," she told CNN Monday by phone. "Originally we predicted a few thousand (attendees) but there were a lot more."

She said she saw a lot of anger on the streets towards the Hong Kong government over the decision to jail the trio, and that Sunday's turnout was a powerful message rejecting the judicial ruling.

"Yesterday showed the government failed," she said.

In 2014, hundreds of thousands of people crammed city streets to demand a say in the election of Hong Kong's leadership, and greater autonomy from China.

The trio were sentenced to between six and eight months' prison on Thursday. All three were initially given, and completed, community service sentences, but Hong Kong's Department of Justice appealed, arguing that those sentences were insufficient.

In a statement issued on Sunday, the Hong Kong government said the decision to appeal the original sentences was "in accordance with Hong Kong's effective legal system," and had "absolutely no political consideration involved."

Wong, 20, was sentenced to eight months in prison Thursday, reduced to six months on account of previous community service, while fellow defendants Nathan Law, 24, and Alex Chow, 26, were sentenced to 10 months, reduced to eight, and eight months, reduced to seven, respectively.

The government statement added that authorities were "aware that the community has different views on the judgment and notices that the relevant defendants have indicated to lodge appeals.

"The case should be handled in accordance with judicial procedures."

Immediately following the verdict, Wong said on Twitter that the government "can lock up our bodies, but not our minds!"

Chow, who is a standing committee member of Demosisto, the political party founded by Wong in the wake of the Occupy movement, says that as "a person advocating civil disobedience" she is "not afraid to go to jail."

"I would say if they want to stop ... Hong Kong people desire for democracy and participating in a democratic movement it's difficult to stop (them).

"The Hong Kong government and justice department use political ways to try to stop us but they would not succeed in stopping us."

In Hong Kong, people who have served sentences of more than three months are barred from holding political office for five years.

See the original post:
Tens of thousands protest jailing of Hong Kong pro-democracy leaders - CNN

By Dr. Ken Mulliken

All of human kind originated in Southern Africa, our tour guide, Richard Randall, announced as he greeted us in Johannesburg, so I want to welcome you home.

This reminder of our shared ancestry, as distant as it may be, set the theme for this years Democracy Project field experience in South Africa.

This month, 14 students from Southern Oregon University traveled to South Africa as part of SOUs Democracy Project. Involving students, faculty members and community partners, the Democracy Project (abbreviated here to DP) is a comprehensive international examination of democracy, organized by the SOU Honors College.

To solve shared challenges of the 21st century, emerging student leaders need a solid understanding of conflict resolution and how democracy is understood, implemented and promoted around the world. The DP is consistent with the mission and vision statements of Southern Oregon University and the Honors College, as it supports intellectual growth and responsible global citizenship.

Some of the issues studied through the DP include the historical evolution of democracy, sovereignty, freedom, nationalism, citizenship, immigration, patriotism, imperialism, colonialism, liberty, security, justice and equality. DP participants examine criteria in the Democracy Index and articles in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. They compare and contrast the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights with national constitutions around the world, keeping in mind questions such as, what is the proper role of government? and, in a democracy, what is the appropriate balance between individual liberties and human rights?

Our educational experience in South Africa is the fourth field trip of the DP. Expanding from the first field trip to Washington, D.C., previous international DP field trips have studied India, Switzerland, Austria, Germany and the Czech Republic. Through conversations with journalists, professors, university students and business leaders, these field trips have been organized to better understand how democracy is structured and practiced on various jurisdictional levels.

Building on these international experiences, the DP has hosted annual symposiums at SOU, which are facilitated and moderated by SOU Honors College scholars. These symposiums explore the threats and challenges to democracy in the 21st century, and the degree to which the promotion of sustainable democracy is valuable and viable.

The first symposium, called "Crisis in Kashmir: Negotiating a Democratic Solution," was hosted by the SOU Honors College in April 2016, and attended by 125 local high school students. SOU Honors College scholars hosted the second symposium, called "Seeking Refuge: The Syrian Crisis," in April 2017, with more than high-school students participating. The third symposium is planned for April 2018, and will focus on issues relating to African democracy.

Mark Twain is credited with two quotes that relate to the learning objectives of the DP. The first is, Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry and narrow-mindedness.

This observation is directly applicable to democracy and conflict resolution today. At different times in history, and in various locations around the world, peoples customs, language, cuisine and clothing have contrasted sharply. However, what makes history and international travel relevant to our lives today is the underlying commonality of humanity.

As our South African tour guide noted, our ancestors all originated in southern Africa, if you trace our linguistic and genetic origins back far enough. No matter when one is born, or where one is raised, we share several fundamental concerns. These concerns include love, marriage, family, employment, health, availability of food and fresh water, clothing, shelter and freedom of personal expression. International travel reveals that we are more similar than we are different.

The second relevant quote attributed to Mark Twain is, History doesnt repeat itself, but it rhymes. We see this as a recurring theme in our DP research.

In Germany, the societal divisions evident during the period of Nazi rule in the 1930s and 1940s have been replaced by recent concerns about massive immigration from war-torn Syria. In India and Pakistan, religious disagreements divide Hindus and Muslims, dating back to independence in 1947. In South Africa, more than 40 years of racial segregation under the system of apartheid have given way in recent decades to a period of truth and reconciliation, which has had mixed social results.

Twain was right, history doesnt repeat itself, but the fundamental core of human relationships is remarkably similar, irrespective of time or location. Our DP research indicates that the health of a nations democracy, and the likelihood of its long-term sustainability, rests on one ultimate and essential question do people see themselves more as a part of, or apart from others in society? This question seems overly simplistic on the surface, but the answer affects all subsequent decisions, both on an individual and collective basis.

At some level, domestic politics and international relations will always be arenas of competing interests, however, if we focus on goals in the Democracy Index and articles in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, we can collectively accomplish more together than we can individually.

What issues and problems are most urgent in our community, region, state and nation? What bothers you and makes you frustrated or angry? What motivates you to take action? Is it homelessness, mental illness, child neglect, drugs, diseases, sex trafficking, water rights or animal abuse? How about pollution, loss of biodiversity, global warming, income inequality, legal injustice, infant mortality, high-school graduation rates, inadequate health care, high crime, lack of access to education, bigotry and prejudice or racism?

In addition to these, there are so many other issues that are crying out to be solved, and are worthy of our thought, attention and action. Ignorance of the issues, or belief that ones actions wont matter are insufficient excuses for apathy. A successful and sustainable democracy depends on all of us being informed and taking action. It requires seeing others as "a part of" rather than "apart from. Awareness, engagement and collaborative action are the goals for the Democracy Project at Southern Oregon University.

Dr. Ken Mulliken is executive director of the Honors College at Southern Oregon University.

Read the original post:
SOU's Democracy Project: Are we 'a part of or apart from'? - Ashland Daily Tidings

Broadcast and cable news reluctance to talk about gerrymandering, let alone address the outsized impact it has in state and federal elections, has allowed American democracy to quietly become less representative. As movements build behind redistricting reform, the question remains: Will TV news ever care about gerrymandering?

A yearlongMedia Mattersstudyfoundthat cable news shows brought up gerrymandering in only five segments between July 1, 2016, and June 30, 2017. During that same time period, broadcast morning news programs and nightly newscasts didnt discuss gerrymandering at all. And this isnt a new trend; for years, media have shown areluctance to discussgerrymandering and redistricting. Given the outsized influence partisan and racial gerrymandering has on American democracy, these issues deserve more coverage.

Partisan gerrymandering is not exactly new, butsince 2010, Republicans have takenit to a new level. The Associated Press (AP)foundthat in the 2016 election, gerrymandering helped create the conditions that led to four times as many states with Republican-skewed state House or Assembly districts than Democratic ones. Additionally, among the two dozen most populated states that determine the vast majority of Congress, there were nearly three times as many with Republican-tilted U.S. House districts. As University of Chicago law professor Geoffrey Stonewrotefor HuffPost, Although partisan gerrymandering has been with us from the beginning, it is now worse than ever, because computer modeling enables legislators to design districts that almost precisely maximize their political advantage.

Racial gerrymandering whichinvolvesspreading minorities across voting districts, leaving them too few in number in any given district to elect their preferred candidates, or concentrating the minority vote in certain districts has also helpedRepublicans hold on to their majority. AsThe Washington Posts Wonkblog explained, Since the minority electorate leans liberal, packing minorities has the same effect as packing Democrats, causing the district map to favor Republicans in the same way it favors whites.The New York Times editorial boarddescribedthe radical racial gerrymandering that resulted inunconstitutional districtsin North Carolina as the GOPs unscrupulous efforts to fence off black communities.

While Republicans have been attacking the heart of American democracy, media coverage has been lacking, to say the least. At the same time,activistsandpoliticians fromboth sides of the aislehave been calling for independent, nonpartisan groups to take the charge on redistricting in the near future. With momentum rising, the question remains: Will media, specifically broadcast and cable news, ever care about gerrymandering? So far, the answer appears to be no.

Read this article:
Gerrymandering is ruining our democracy. Will television news ever care? - Salon