Mediaboss Marketing

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

I didnt think it was a great day for the media, said Caddell. However, if you watched some of the other cablenews networks, youd think this was a disaster for Trump. It was anything but. He went on to call out the media for pursuing a political agenda, as opposed to the truth, saying that media today is actually a danger to democracy.

The media really took it on the nose, he went on, pointing out that Trump was not lying about the three times he claims Comey told him he personally was not under investigation. How come that didnt leak out? That is an interesting question because enough people knew on Capitol Hill, and it tells me that it was the media. And this was really the chilling part, that they have theirnarrative agenda, that Trump is in collusion, Trump is this, and Trump is that, and hes under investigation. They did not want to challenge that narrative.

They werent reporting facts, continued Caddell. They were reporting sources who would give them statements that would contribute to their anti-Trump narrative. This is not a press. This is a propaganda machine. Its full speed against the president.

Caddellsaid he could turn to almost any network and predict itscoverage, If Trump walked on water, theyd say he couldnt swim.

They are so negative, as they were in the campaign, he went on. They havent let up, and they have invested themselves in a political result, not in telling the truth, and that is a danger to democracy.

Caddell said the press has damaged the very institution of the press by having decided to bring down a president versus report the truth, and Democrats are falling right into the path with them.

As for Trump and Comey, Caddell said, Comey basically vindicated him, first of all, on the question if there was collusion, or even on the Flynn matter whether there was obstruction, and it just doesnt hold, he continued. Obviously, Mueller wouldnt let him testify if he thought there was an obstruction case.

Added Caddell, Comeys behavior is just bizarre. This man really believes that he is a demigod when it comes to the law. He keeps changing the goal lines. His weakness, which he confessed to, but I think it was more a device than a critical perception, whether it was with Loretta Lynch, when she asked him to conform to the Clinton campaign, which I thought was a revealing comment and opened up a lot of other doors, when he talked about his own leaking, volunteered how he had leaked and what he had done with those memos, I thought that was just really strange. His criticism of the media, he basically denied their stories. Hes basically a very angry man, and I thought the White House handled Comey terribly, but thats neither here nor there.

Caddell stated, He was the one in the meetings, and he never raised a protest, and then he said a sentence that I was stunned by. He said, Idid it because I gavemy friend the memo to give to the New York Times because I thought weneeded a special counsel. Heres a man who wouldnt have a special counsel or wouldnt even investigate the IRS stuff, a person who didnt do it with Hillary Clinton, particularly in terms of the Clinton Foundation, and yet it was pointed out to him by a couple of the senators, you know, basically he gave her a whitewash. He wants to do this with Trump. I thought that was devastating and puts him in a very precarious place.

Caddell added, It chills me to think that this person was running the FBI.

Breitbart News Daily airs on SiriusXM Patriot 125 weekdays from 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. Eastern.

LISTEN:

Visit link:
Caddell: Dishonest Anti-Trump Media Have Become 'Danger to Democracy' - Breitbart News

Flying blind.

Thesocial mediagiants based in the U.S. may soon face a new attack in Europe: There's a perception among activists and officials that the basis of their business model -- targeted advertising -- can be a threat to democracy.

In a speech on Wednesday, Commissioner Margrethe Vestager -- who, as the top European Union antitrust official, has been thenemesis of U.S. tech companies such as Google and Apple-- laid out her problems with the way social networking changes people's political behavior. Oneof her complaints is familiar and much-discussed: Facebook and its peers tend to sort people into political and ideological filter bubbles and silos, destroying, as Vestager sees it, the chances of meaningful debate. The other has received less media attention. It concerns political ads and, generally, campaigns' social messaging. Vestager:

If political ads only appear on the timelines of certain voters, then how can we all debate the issues that they raise? How can other parties and the media do their job of challenging those claims? How can we even know what mandate an election has given, if the promises that voters relied on were made in private?

There are reasonable arguments against both of Vestager's complaints. Long before social networks, people have grouped together on the basis of compatible views; confirmation biases, too, are as old as human society. The social networks merely reflect reality and make it more palpable. As for targeted messages, old campaigning instruments, such as direct mailings and phone calls, also delivered private messages to potential voters, and the media usually parsed them -- just as they parse modern campaign activities on social platforms. It's actually become easier because everyone is on Facebook and Twitter.

Vestager, however, is on to something. The old tools allowed for rather generic targeting -- say, by voting or campaign donation history. Modern campaigns try to target messages using people's private data or even psychological profiles created on the basis of social network and browsing activity. That's not necessarily effective -- I've argued that it isn't -- but it means certain voters get ads and messages that they wouldn't have chosen to receive.

Imagine I'm a social media junkie for whom Facebook is the primary news source, as for about two-thirds of Americans and a fifth of Europeans.I see a political ad because someone -- or, most likely, an artificially intelligent entity -- has profiled me in a certain way, not because I made a donation to a certain party or voted for a specific candidate in the last election.Unless another algorithm profiles me differently, I don't see the other parties' responses to the content with which I've been plied. I have no idea what the party that advertises to me has promised people in different target groups. I have less of an idea of the campaigns parties are running than if I watched TV like a 20th century voter.

At the same time, Facebook doesn't release any data about what campaigns do on its platform. In a countrythat hasn't removed campaign spending limits as the U.S. effectively did withCitizens United, that makes it hard to check what they spend on ads. Facebook's position is that it's the campaigns' responsibility to follow their countries' laws, and that a user has full control over which ads are shown to him or her. The former is irrelevant to the task of checking campaigns' self-reporting. Thelatteris only true to a degree: On Facebook, you can opt out of certain ads, but algorithms will still decide how they will be replaced.

In the run-up to Thursday's U.K. election, a group called Who Targets Merecruited 10,000 volunteers to install a browser extension that registers targeted messages, ranging fromFacebook videos to Google search ads. The group calls them "dark ads" because they are so hard to monitor: They've been targeted to specific local constituencies, gender and age groups.

Last year's U.S. election led to pressure on the social networks to crack down on fake news stories and the bot networks that spread them. Facebookresponded byintroducing well-publicized mechanisms for reporting likely fake stories and having them fact-checked. During the recent French presidential election, it said it also suspended 30,000 fake accounts to stop them from spreading false stories.None of that really fixes the filter bubble problem -- people will still believe what they want to believe, and if they mistrust mainstream media, they are likely to discount fact-checkers' efforts, too. So the pressure is still on for a more pertinent response, but it's not clear what that could be -- short of having human editors remove stories deemed to be fake, something the networks will resist because it's contrary to their self-perception as neutral platforms.

If a regulatory backlash starts against political targeting, though, it's clear what the social networks might be required to do. Regulators could order them to disclose what messages campaigns are using and how much they are paying to circulate them. In an extreme scenario, they could even ban paid political advertising on social networks, arguing, as Vestager did in her speech, that politics is different from business, so rules for targeted messaging should be different to protect democracy.

Clear thinking from leading voices in business, economics, politics, foreign affairs, culture, and more.

Share the View

In a manifesto earlier this year, Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg wrote about moving relationships and social structures formed on the networks into the offline world."Thesechanges have been so fast that I'm not sure our democracy has caught up," Vestager said in her speech. One can be sure European regulators will choose to slow down the development of Zuckerberg's vision rather than rewrite campaigning rules to catch up with it.

This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.

To contact the author of this story: Leonid Bershidsky at lbershidsky@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Mike Nizza at mnizza3@bloomberg.net

See the original post:
Democracy Never Faced a Threat Like Facebook - Bloomberg - Bloomberg

What is a Democracy?

A democracy is a form of government in which all eligible citizens have the right to equal participation, either directly or through elected representatives, in the proposal, development, and creation of laws. To put it in very simple terms, it is a form of government where people choose their own government and the voice of the majority rules. Once the majority is established, the minority has no say.

The term "republic" as used today refers to a representative democracy with an elected head of state, such as a president, serving for a limited term. Even in a republic, it's the voice of the majority that rules through chosen representatives; however, there is a charter or constitution of basic rights that protects the minority from being completely unrepresented or overridden.

There are many who make this statement: The United States is a republic, not a democracy. This makes it seem like a democracy and a republic are mutually exclusive. They usually aren't; usually a republic is a type of representational democracy with some checks and balances enshrined in the constitution that safeguard the rights of minorities. A "pure" democracy would imply the rule of the majority in every sphere of life, without such safeguards.

The U.S. is a republic. Though it is now common for people, including American politicians, to refer to the U.S. as a "democracy," this is shorthand for the representational republic that exists, not for a pure democracy. The republic continues to be mentioned in the Pledge of Allegiance, which was written in 1892 and later adopted by Congress in 1942 as an official pledge.

While the founders disagreed regarding the role of the federal government, none sought to build a pure democracy.

Americans directly elect council members, governors, state representatives and senators, and numerous other officials. (However, senators were indirectly elected in the past.) Some other officials, such as mayors, may or may not be directly elected.[1]

The president is indirectly elected via the electoral college. The legislative and executive branches then appoint a variety of officials to their positions. For example, the president (executive branch) nominates a justice to the Supreme Court when a seat needs to be filled; the Senate (legislative branch) must confirm this nomination.

There are several political implications that arise from the U.S. being a republic. Laws passed by the majority through their representatives in government (federal or local) can be challenged and overturned if they violate the U.S. constitution. For example, Jim Crow laws mandating racial segregation were deemed unconstitutional and were repealed, and in Brown v. Board of Education, the U.S. Supreme Court repealed state-sponsored school segregation.

In 1967, with Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court overturned all remaining anti-miscegenation laws which banned interracial relationships, including marriages. In the 1800s, however, the court had ruled in favor of states' rights to ban interracial sex, cohabitation, and marriage. This illustrates the power of cultural mores, which influence the interpretation of the constitution.

In more recent cases, the 2010 healthcare reform bill (a.k.a. Obamacare) was challenged in the U.S. Supreme Court because it forces individuals to buy health insurance. The law was passed by a majority in Congress, but critics claim that it violates individual liberties by forcing individuals to engage in commerce, a power that the government does not have in this republic. Ultimately, the Court ruled the individual mandate was constitutional but that states should not be required to expand Medicaid.

Another example is California Proposition 8, a state constitutional amendment in which a majority of voters in California voted to make same-sex marriages illegal. Critics of the law argue that this violates the individual liberties of gay and lesbian couples, and the majority does not have a right to do that in a republic. While courts in California upheld the amendment deeming it constitutional, a federal court overturned it, judging that it was unconstitutional under both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Yet another example is Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010). Citizens United is a conservative organization that sued the Federal Election Commission over its restrictions on campaign financing. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Citizens United, saying that the restriction of an organization or corporation's right to fund a political campaign is a restriction of that entity's free speech rights under the First Amendment.

If the U.S. was not a republic, laws passed by the government (elected by majority) could not be challenged. The Supreme Court (and, indeed, lower courts too) can determine which laws are constitutional and has the power to uphold or overturn laws it judges to be unconstitutional. This demonstrates that the rule of law and the U.S. Constitution are higher authorities than the will of the majority at any given time.

Democracies are older than republics. Pinpointing which place or people had the world's first democracy or republic, however, is difficult. Many countries, tribes, and cultures had at least some democratic or republican procedures. For example, voting on community matters, electing elders to power, and even creating rules regarding individual rights have occurred on small and sometimes larger scales.

Even so, the most well-documented early democracy was found in Athens, Greece, and established around 500 BCE.[2] Under Athenian democracy, the people voted on every law. This was a pure or direct democracy where the majority had nearly complete control over rights and progress.

The most well-documented historical representational republic is the Roman Republic, which developed shortly after Athenian democracy, again around 500 BCE. The rule of law favored by the Roman Republic remains popular in most of today's governments. It is worth noting that the Roman Republic had an unwritten constitution that was constantly adapting to changing principles.[3]

Despite the common use of the word "democracy" and the desire to "spread democracy," most countries throughout the world today govern as republics. However, republics differ widely, with some operating under a presidential system, where the people directly or nearly-directly elect a president who is the head of the government; a parliamentary system, where the people elect a legislature who decides the executive branch; and even constitutional and parliamentary monarchies that tend to behave as republics but often have royal figureheads.

Read the original post:
Democracy vs Republic - Difference and Comparison | Diffen

We must redouble our multi-pronged efforts to investigate foreign interference in the 2016 presidential election and any subsequent actions undertaken by those in power to derail those investigations.

At the same time, we also must do far more to assure full democratic participation by our countrymen and women here at home.

Long before 2016, advocates for fair elections that engage all Americans on equal terms decried the weakening of our protections against voter suppression occasioned by a misguided Supreme Court majority in its 2013 Shelby County v. Holder decision.

In the 114th Congress, for example, I was honored to join Republican Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner, Democratic Congressman John Conyers, Jr., and more than 100 other legislators in co-sponsoring The Voting Rights Amendment Act of 2015, legislation that would have repaired much (although not all) of the injury to our voting rights that the Shelby decision has allowed.

Our proposed legislation never received and up-or-down vote in the Republican-dominated House; and, as a result, Republican legislatures in many states made it far more difficult for untold numbers of voters to cast their ballots in 2016 (especially the elderly, the young and minorities).

Although President Trump, Attorney General Sessions, and the Republican congressional majority have all given their solemn oath to uphold the Constitution, they continue to deny the hard evidence that our constitutionally-mandated voting rights are being suppressed.

By their inaction and their actions they have become culpable in these attacks against our democratic system.

For example, despite my arguments to President Trump about the dangers of voter suppression during our March meeting at the White House, the mandate and make-up of his so-called Voter Integrity Commission fails the smell test. Chaired by Vice President Pence, whose voting rights record in Indiana was less than encouraging, the Trump Commission seems more oriented toward justifying further voter suppression than to assuring that our voting rights will be protected.

Any on the Trump Commission who are serious about their duty to defend our democracy would be wise to study the highly respected Brennan Centers heavily documented report, The Truth about Voter Fraud. After evaluating the elections that had been studied for voter fraud, the Center concluded that Americans are more likely to be struck by lightning than we are to impersonate another voter at the polls.

In sharp contrast to the allegations of widespread voter impersonation, the evidence of voter suppression in Republican-dominated states is compelling although the undemocratic methods vary.

State voter-id laws, unwarranted purging of the voter rolls, racially gerrymandered congressional districts, and consciously understaffed and underequipped voting precincts in minority areas are just some of the more obvious methods being utilized to thwart our constitutional right to free and fair elections.

Taken together, these voter suppression methods do constitute a fraud but this voter fraud is being committed by reactionary state legislators against the American People and our constitutional right to choose those who will govern us. It is not caused by any sizable number of people voting improperly.

These politically motivated efforts to rig our elections may already have had far-reaching, destabilizing and dangerous consequences.

Deprived of a President who takes his constitutional obligation to protect our voting rights seriously and opposed by an Attorney General who is in the process of gutting the Justice Departments Civil Rights Division, optimism about the future of our democracy may seem unrealistic.

Nevertheless, I remain confident that our democratic system is stronger than any individual or political party.

Americans who are committed to defending our democracy will simply have to work harder and we will continue to have substantial support for this most patriotic of causes in many of our federal courts.

Proof of intentional racial discrimination has resulted in victories for our voting rights in North Carolina and Texas voter suppression and congressional gerrymandering cases and in the North Carolina litigation, even a majority of the Supreme Court has had to agree.

Nevertheless, my ultimate confidence in our ability to defend our democratic system rests in the American people in our determination to do what we must to uphold our ability to choose who will govern.

When our neighbors are required to produce identification at their polling places, we will work together to help them get those IDs; where cynical politicians make voting more difficult on Election Day, we will bring a box lunch and wait our turn; and when the evidence shows racially-based attacks on our voting power, we will fight that suppression in our courts.

We are in a fight for the soul of our democracy a fight that we are determined to win.

Congressman Elijah Cummings represents Marylands 7th Congressional District in the United States House of Representatives.

See original here:
Defending the Soul of our Democracy Part II - Afro American

People should vote in the election to show that democracy will not be deterred by terrorists,Theresa May said today.

The Prime Minister said that Britons face a choice at the election between her and Jeremy Corbyn "leading the country into the future, not just getting Brexit right but also ensuring we havea vision for the future".

She added: It is also very important because this election campaign has seen two terrible terrorist attacks taking place during the campaign, and I will hope that people go out to vote to show that our democracy will not be deterred by the terrorists.

The Conservative leader made the comments in an interview for The Telegraphs Choppers Election Podcast with Christopher Hope, Chief Political Correspondent.

Mrs May disclosed that her husband Philip had been secretly campaigning in other constituencies to help secure a Conservative victory.

She said: He has been campaigning, but he has been campaigning in a number of seats.Rather than just being with me, he has actually been out there knocking on doors and working for other candidates.

Mrs May also denied that she was a Maybot who gave robotic answers.

She said: No, what I have done in getting out and about around the country, I think people do see that is one of the great opportunities is to be able to interact with voters directly, to be able to hear directly from them andthem being able to hear directly from me.

Mrs May also refused to rule out commissioning a new royal yacht Britannia to help sell Britain overseas to trading partners.

Asked if she would back a privately funded yacht she said she would not be tempted down a policy route adding only that we are going to take various steps to make sure we get those trade deals andget them right.

Asked to say why people should vote Conservative in a single tweet, she said: Because I and my team have the plan to ensure we get the Brexit negotiations right and they start 11 days after election day.

But we also have a vision for a stronger, fairer, more prosperous Britain for everybody, and that is what we will do if in Government.

Explaining the length of the tweet, she added: I dont tweet so I was mentally calculating 140 characters."

To listen offline, subscribe to the podcast:

Listen to last week's episode below.

Continued here:
Vote today to show that 'democracy will not be deterred by terrorists,' says Theresa May - Chopper's Election ... - Telegraph.co.uk