Mediaboss Marketing

Divisive discourse. Trumps tweets. Fake news.

The 2016 Election revealed the surprising ways the internet can shape Americans political views. Voters were exposed to strategically placed misinformation, propaganda posts composed by automated programs and an increased volume on hate speech and hostile political rhetoric.

Stanford law professor Nate Persily has written about this phenomenon in a journal article called Can Democracy Survive The Internet?

If what we saw in 2016 was just the beginning, what can we expect the next national election to be like? With all the political noise the internet is generating, can true democracy still be heard?

GUESTS

Nate Persily, James B. McClatchy professor of law, Stanford University

Zeynep Tufekci, Author, Twitter and Tear Gas: The Power and Fragility of Networked Protest; associate professor, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hills School of Information and Library Science; faculty associate at the Harvard Berkman Klein Center

Wael Ghonim, Internet activist

Aaron Sharockman, Executive director, Politifact

For more, visit http://the1a.org.

2017 WAMU 88.5 American University Radio.

See more here:
Can The Democracy Survive The Internet?: Lessons From 2016 - NPR Illinois | 91.9 UIS

Okay, I have kept silent long enough. I have had to change the Band-Aids on my tongue at least four times this week and at this rate I am going to need some stitches. Isaac Asimov once said something about democracy that for years I didnt understand. But today I think get it and perhaps you will too. Heres what he said; There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and the strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge. Theres an old childrens song with the lyrics something like this; Oh be careful little eyes what you see, oh be careful little ears what you hear, oh be careful little feet where you go I havent heard that song in a great long while. Nor have I heard a contemporary song with a similar message.

That great French comedian and humorist, Joseph de Maistre, okay he was actually a philosopher, said; Every country has the government they deserve. Later in the same document he said; In a democracy people get the leaders they deserve. Im just like you, I thought Abraham Lincoln said that and maybe, but if he did, he was quoting Joseph de Maistre. (pronounced Mys tray) Oh yeah, Joseph was quite a corker, a laugh a minute. Heres another rich one; False opinions are like false money, struck first of all by guilty men and thereafter circulated by honest people who perpetuate the crime without knowing what they are doing. I dont know about you but when I read that statement I instantly thought of every talking head I have seen on the news programs and several coffee break conversations I have ever had.

Here are some things that I do understand about our government. It is designed to encourage debate and the balance of power. I feel certain that no democracy cannot survive operating as a feud. Here in Kentucky most of us understand the zero sum game of a feud. Democracy requires discussion; not sound bites, collaboration not shouting matches and clear judgement not rash hysteria. Democracy should be focused upon how we all can win, not on how we make certain the others lose. And another thing Democracy needs is each of us having a practicing respect for all our laws.

Getting back to our new acquaintance and guest comedian, Joseph de Maistre. He nailed it again with this whopper. All grandeur, all power, all subordination to authority rest upon the executioner: He is the horror and the bond of human association. Remove this incomprehensible agent from the world and at that very moment order gives way to chaos, thrones topple and society disappears. Can you imagine a world where no one expects repercussions for their actions? Why, people would be texting while their driving, double parking on Main Street. Children would adorn themselves with ink and perforations. Ignorance would be a point of pride; no need to know that; no concern to me as long as I can watch my TV, iPad, electronic device of choice.

Our news commentators, radio, TV or papers are most often overflowing with bile and bitterness. Soon, no one will respect any office or voice of government. No one will care if we all suffer just so long as our supposed enemies dont get to succeed.

Instead of being a country of individuals we have become glops of demographics. I can prove that. I can prove that we have all happily clumped ourselves into nice little boxes of hims, hers, Dems, libs, indys, Repubs and this list goes on. Just look at the things that are being celebrated in the beautiful month of June. I cant list them all, I have over four double-sided pages of celebrations. Sixty celebrations claim the whole month.

Today, June 3rd is I repeat day. Today, June 3rd is I repeat day.

June 18th International Panic Day, National Splurge Day, and June 19th World Sauntering Day, you know; maybe that joker Joseph de Maistre has it right. After reviewing this massive list of celebrations, things that are important enough to claim a whole month, perhaps he is absolutely right. Perhaps, we do have the government we deserve.

One final thing; We can change that government by participation, education, attention to details, a refusal to accept half-truths, sound bites and of course; we all should vote. Now, does anyone have another Band-Aid? My tongue is bitten again.

Don Buck P. Creacy can be reached at doncreacy@gmail.com

View original post here:
Democracy and June; a step too far? - News- Graphic (subscription)

The Tory party has been accused by Labour of using fake news ads on Facebook to attack Jeremy Corbyn, seen here at a campaign event in Blyth, north-east England, on 5 June. Photograph: Scott Heppell/AFP/Getty Images

Im not a Labour voter, but your front-page article (Labour accuses Tories of using fake news ads to attack Corbyn, 3 June) brought a physical reaction I dont often experience from a newspaper: faintness, dizziness, a feeling of suffocation. Of course I knew that the Tories twist the truth at every opportunity, but I had naively supposed that nowadays they preferred to leave the outright dishonesty to their friends the press barons. Such shenanigans are not unknown at constituency level, but it comes as an urgent wake-up call to see the party rolling out this poisonous fabrication nationally in the middle of an election campaign, and via a channel (Facebook) that ensures it is unchallengeable by the regulators.

This smear campaign is not so much an attack on Jeremy Corbyn as an assault on democracy a fat middle finger raised to the electorate by a sneering bully in blue. It seems there are few depths to which this party will not sink to cement its loosening grip on power. Insofar as she has a direction at all, Theresa May seems desperate to drag our country towards totalitarianism. We have to stop her. Rob Sykes Oxford

Many thanks for exposing the moral vacuum in which the Tory campaign is being planned and carried out. It is to be hoped that Theresa May, who spoke on TV on Friday night about the need for trust in public life, will fire the individuals responsible for this cyber-slander. Is it too late to remind your readers that a new Tory government will implement the constituency boundary changes quickly to ensure a Tory victory in 2022 and for several elections thereafter? The possibility of the UK becoming de facto a one-party state is frighteningly real.

Secondly, I am saddened that you have not respectfully marked the demise of the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party. In Scotland we are being asked to vote for Ruth Davidsons Conservatives. My local candidate bills herself as Ruth Davidsons candidate, and Ms Davidson herself in an election TV broadcast asked us to Vote for me and my team. A rampant personality cult is developing here. Move over Kim Jong-un. Peter Simmons North Berwick, East Lothian

It was interesting to read Zoe Williams account of her short visit to North East Hampshire villages (Prosperity in search of a steady hand, 1 June). Those of us who live in the constituency but do not have any sympathies for, or inclination to vote for, the Tory party know only too well that so many of our friends, who we love dearly, would not normally think of voting any other way. But we also know that things can and do change. There are enough of us subversives lurking in the background to make us believe that things could turn out very differently this year. My Lib Dem poster stands out bravely in a cul de sac where only residents and dog walkers will see it, but I am still confident that this election will surprise.

In response to a taxi driver who said quite correctly, regarding Brexit negotiations, Were not at war with Europe, Zoe asked Arent we, though? If she really believes this, it is one of the most depressing asides I have read since the referendum vote. If whoever is in power goes into the Brexit negotiations with the attitude that we are at war with Europe, there is no hope whatsoever for the future of this country. Janet Davies Resident of a North East Hampshire village

Follow this link:
Conservatives' fake news ads are an assault on democracy - The Guardian

Organisations which fund political parties are meant to declare all major donations they receive. Yet only one ever has.

Who is funding Theresa May's campaign? Image: Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

Obscure organisations have been pouring millions of pounds into the Conservative party without revealing the source of their funds, new research from openDemocracy reveals today.

Since July 2009, the Conservative party has received nearly 12 million from a little-known type of organisation called unincorporated associations.

July 2009 is relevant, because that is when a new law kicked in, regulating these sorts of donations. But new research by openDemocracy has led to serious questions about whether that law is really doing anything to prevent a flood of secret donations.

'Unincorporated associations' are defined as organisations which have a constitution and at least two members, but arent registered in any other way for example as a company or a trade union. They might be a social club or a sports club or a campaign group.

Its not just the Tories who receive money from them. Over the same period, the Labour party got over 9 million from unincorporated associations; the Liberal Democrats, over 5 million; UKIP, 80,000 and the Green Party and the SNP, nothing.

In itself, there is absolutely nothing wrong with these sorts of donations. For example, when the Gillingham and Rainham Constituency Labour Party decided to give 1,500 to the central party this year, this was counted as a donation from an unincorporated association to Labour.

But they are also open to abuse. After all, if you wanted to funnel money anonymously into a party, circumventing transparency laws, why not do it through one of these groups? And so, in 2009 Political Parties and Elections Act laid down some rules. It was designed to ensure that these sorts of organisations werent used as fronts for donations to be hidden from public scrutiny.

If you wanted to funnel money anonymously into a party, circumventing transparency laws, why not do it through one of these groups?

As the Electoral Commission website puts it:

Unincorporated Associations that donate more than 25,000 in a calendar year are required to register with us and report gifts in excess of 7,500."

The register of Unincorporated Associations is here(.xls). It includes 62 different organisations, though it isnt complete: today, openDemocracy has revealed today that the Scottish Conservatives appear to have accepted a donation of 100,000 from an unregistered group not listed here. It isnt clear how many more groups have also donated more than 25,000 without registering.

But we can also reveal today that, since the Act in 2009, only one registered unincorporated association has ever admitted to receiving a donation of more than 7,500. The spreadsheet of registered donations on the Electoral Commission website only records six donations, made over 2013 and 2014, by two donors, all to the same Association, the Conservative donors the Trevelyan Campaign Fund.

The complete register of gifts to Unincorporated Associations, 2009-2017.

This means that every other unincorporated association donating more than 25,000 claims it hasnt received any donation of more than 7,500 over the course of 12 months from any individual since 2009. Either that, or its failed to comply with this key transparency law. So extraordinarily it seems that, with one small exception, all of the 12 million which has gone to the Conservative party through these organisations came in the form of small donations.

While it is of course possible that it is true and we certainly arent accusing any specific organisation of breaching this law it does raise serious questions about the extent to which the system is open to abuse. The 2009 Elections Act was passed to ensure that unincorporated associations couldnt funnel dark money into our election system. But in reality, there are still millions of pounds flooding our democracy through these organisations. We have no idea where it is coming from. We have no idea what they are demanding of our politicians. And we have no idea what they are getting from them.

See the original post:
How dark money is drowning British democracy - Open Democracy

Will Jeremy Corbyns leadership be challenged if Labour does lose the election, as the polls predict? And what will happen to his vision of changing the way the party makes decisions and forms policy? Jake Watts argues that issues of party organisation and democracy will return to the agenda in the event of a defeat on 8 June.

The General Election is an early opportunity for Corbyn and his supporters to put forward policy and argue their case in front of the electorate. However, reshaping Labours policy and political platform is only one part of the Labour lefts mission to change the party. In the wake of the election, and likely defeat, expect issues of party organisation and intra-party democracy to return to the agenda as Corbyn and those around him look to take the fight to Labours moderates and secure a more stable foundations for their project.

In the leadership election of 2015, Corbyn spent time articulating a new vision for Labour as a political organisation. He did so drawing on a clear narrative about the state of the party as it was, and drew on historical notions of the movements roots and ideas about intra-party democracy that had long motivated the Labour Left. He argued that the party, under the influence of successive leaders, had moved substantially away from its roots as a movement and that creeping centralisation and managerialism had stifled Labours radical member-led potential.

In response, Corbyn and those around him pledged that, under his leadership, the party would no longer be a top-down organisation. In its place, members would be elevated in their importance and would be more closely involved in making decisions about policy. But, beyond the crowd-sourcing of PMQs and the conduct of a membership survey about the manifesto, no changes to the way members are involved or the degree of control they have has yet been secured within Labours rules and procedures. Plans to hold a party democracy day back in November were abandoned as concern rose about the possibility of an early General Election.

Whilst these ideas of member involvement have been set aside in terms of rule changes, notions of greater control by Labours grassroots have been consistently drawn upon by the protagonists of Labours leftward turn. This has been particularly the case when Corbynism has appeared to be under threat. In this respect, thinly veiled discussion of deselections has never been that far behind any outcry from moderate MPs about Corbyns leadership or the partys standing in the polls.

This focus on Labours organisation has two particular functions. First, all the talk about party structure and the democratic rights of members to exercise direct control over party policy and representatives has constituted an important part of the Corbyn narrative about the Labour Party and its past failings. This narrative has been central to galvanising support, even in the face of a leadership challenge. Second, this talk signals what is a wider ultimate goal for the left: reshaping substantially Labours structural foundations.

In the wake of the General Election, it is highly likely that Corbyn and the Labour left will face significant challenges. Whilst the polls have tightened, a Labour victory still looks unlikely and signs of the blame game to come have already emerged. In the event of a loss on 8 June, the battle for Labours soul will recommence and a leadership contest looks likely. Getting an alternative Labour left candidate to Corbyn on the slate for any contest will not be easy unless the Parliamentary Party is substantially reduced. Any nominees for the leadership, aside from any incumbent, require the support of 15% of Labours parliamentarians. If it looks unlikely that a potential left-wing successor will find their way on to the ballot, the chances of Corbyn remaining in post and being challenged himself are increased.

In this leadership contest, and in the aftermath of Labours outing at the polls, expect organisational issues to resurface. In one respect, they are a consistent part of the traditional discourse of the Labour Left itself, they reflect a historical mind-set when it comes to Labours intra-party democracy, and constitute long-held goals of this wing of the party to secure a particular form of member- and activist-led politics. Beyond this, these visions of party democracy are part of Corbynisms appeal and remain a firm part of what Corbyn and those around him are ultimately looking to achieve. Reducing the threshold for leadership contest nominations to increase choice, reasserting the right of members to decide over policy, and reaffirming the entitlement of members to exercise greater control over Labours parliamentarians are all possible areas of focus.

How convinced the Labour leadership selectorate are by these arguments will be important for Corbynism in the short-term. Indeed, if members continue to support this vision, this may play a role in determining the outcome of any leadership challenge. In the long run, whether any of these elements are actually secured will play their role in determining the extent to which Corbyn and his supporters can secure control over Labours commanding heights.

____ About the Author

Jake Watts is a doctoral researcher in the Department of Politics at the University of Sussex.

See more here:
Intra-party democracy: how will Labour's organisation change after GE2017? - British Politics and Policy at LSE (blog)