Mediaboss Marketing

Thailands political and media landscape is changing, and some might say its taking a turn for the worst. The countrys longeststanding monarch, King Bhumibol Adulyadej, died Oct. 13, ending his 70-year reign and opening the floodgates for disorganized politics.Although still in mourning, the country was prepared to shift into a more democratic society, especially after decades of coups. The idea was to have a government that is popularly elected and accountable, but nothing is being done to achieve this goal thanks to the new unprepared king, Maha Vajiralongkorn.Changes within the Thai government are underway, but two of the biggest bills being considered seem to drift away from principles of democracy. The first is a change to the constitution that has been in the works since last August and is now under revision by a constitutional committee. It would ultimately give the king more autonomous authority. The amendment would allow the king to not have to appoint a regent when he is out of Thailand, which is alarming given that Vajiralongkorn is usually out of the country. The amendment would also scrap a committee of senior elected officials who advise the king. However, the most alarming effect is that if this constitutional amendment is passed, the king will no longer require the prime minister to sign Royal Commands, giving Vajiralongkorn authority to do whatever he wants.The second is a bill that would require journalists to be vetted and certified by the government to be published. It would also establish a media ethics council, which would oversee all publications. It was reviewed by the National Reform Steering Assembly on Feb. 2 and dropped because of the countless protests by media outlets in Thailand with the condition of removing the vetting process but keeping the committee.The media ethics council, however, will have four seats reserved for government officials. Journalists in Thailand are concerned the government officials presence will sway the committee toward censoring media outlets more strictly when they discuss the government and monarchy. Keep in mind, a journalist can currently be arrested up to 15 years in Thailand if they critique the monarchy. Having a committee like this could deny the people of Thailand access to basic knowledge, something that will be more concerning if and when the constitutional amendment regarding the kings power is passed.A country that diminishes the checks and balances of its ruler while invalidating the medias role is not on the democratic path. Sound familiar?

Follow this link:
Thai government takes a step back on democracy - The Ithacan

Since Election Day we in New England have been asking ourselves over and over, how could this have happened? We are still stunned. We ask ourselves, how could someone who repeatedly spouted so many lies and so many ignorantly formulated ideas have received so many votes? Granted, he did not receive the majority of the popular vote and he was elected by a fluke of the Electoral College, but Trump did receive a lot of votes.

Who voted for him? What do we know? According to Edison Research, which studied this question for CNN, ABC, CBS and AP, the breakdown of the Trump voters was as follows: 53 percent of male voters, 42 percent of female voters, 58 percent of white voters, 29 percent of Hispanic voters, and 8 percent of African-American voters. The Chronicle of Higher Education cited that 67 percent of white voters without a college education voted for Trump, and college-educated white voters were split roughly 50 to 50 percent.

From these studies we learn two important things: 1) the largest voting bloc, by far, for Trump was composed of white voters without college education, 67 percent. But 2) Trump also managed to get about 50 percent of the college-educated voters. The first point is not surprising, but the second point at least to us Yankees seems surprising. Do these two points present a paradox? If Trumps largest group of supporters was non-college educated, this would lead one to expect that his support among the higher educated would be far from a 50-50 split.

Unless.

Unless the sort of education our citizens are getting doesnt have much impact on their understanding of government, history and civics. And (bingo!) that is exactly what any number of studies have been showing us for the last 20 years. The amount of time spent on social studies, civics and history is now down to about 7.5 percent of high school students time, according to a recent study cited in The Atlantic (Bring Back Social Studies, Sept. 23, 2013). All the way back in 1999, the American Bar Association published a paper, titled Civic Education, presented by Charles N. Quigley at a conference in Washington, D.C., in which Quigley shared his serious concern at the sorry state of civic education in our high schools and colleges. It has gotten a lot worse since 1999, especially thanks to the ever-increasing focus on the magic pill of STEM education that is, science, technology, engineering and math.

If the history of the 20th century has taught us anything at all, it ought to have taught us that countries with citizens highly proficient in science, technology, engineering and math can also be the countries with the absolutely worst records for human well-being and human rights: the recent pasts of Germany, Russia and China come to mind.

In order to progress in science and technology, no country needs to educate nearly every student to become the next Albert Einstein or Steve Jobs. In fact, neither of those two did very well in school or college. A very small number of people who are truly gifted in science, math and engineering can have a gigantic impact on those fields that will propel millions and millions of people upward toward a massive improvement in their lives.

However, if those millions and millions of people are almost totally ignorant of history and civics, they can, quite easily and quickly, dig a massive hole for themselves by blithely and ignorantly lending their support to governments and policies that destroy their best interests both at home and in misguided foreign wars abroad. History has shown this again and again.

Nothing is more important to the well-being of a democratic society than an educated citizenry. In fact, this is origin of the term liberal arts education. The term has nothing to do with modern liberal politics or liberalism (a common misunderstanding). Liberal arts comes from the Latin artes liberales, meaning knowledge (artes) that is fitting and needed for a free person (liber/liberalis) who has the right to vote. The term was used in the Roman republic and was brought back into use in Renaissance Europe, with the rediscovery of hundreds of Latin and Greek texts.

Our high schools and even our colleges are failing to provide the education that is most critical for our society: namely, an education that means every graduate that is, every voter understands our system of government, our history and our civic duties as responsible, informed citizens. Only nine states require passing a civics test to graduate high school. According to a 2012 study on this issue in colleges, undertaken by the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, civics education in only 21 colleges scored an A. Of the Ivy League, Columbia, Dartmouth and Cornell scored a B, Princeton and Penn scored a C, Harvard and Yale got D, and Brown got an F.

It is long overdue that we stop thinking of education as primarily a way to try to get everybody on the way to becoming a scientist, engineer or mathematician. It is time to face facts: We dont need millions and millions of STEM whiz kids, but we need very much millions and millions of citizens who understand where we have come from, where we can choose to go, and how we can get there as a country composed of a wide diversity of citizens working for the common good and the welfare of the world.

Perhaps the most important lesson of the 2016 election is that its time to bring civics and history back front and center in our countrys education systems. And most importantly, we need to teach the new skill of information literacy, so our citizens will recognize fake news and propaganda so we are not led down the garden path, accepting a manufactured consent to things that are not at all in our best interests.

John Nassivera is a former professor who retains an affiliation with Columbia Universitys Society of Fellows in the Humanities. He lives in Vermont and part-time in Mexico.

Read the rest here:
Education and democracy - Rutland Herald

In the wake of Donald Trump's election in November, we looked at the phenomenon of social media bubbles and the effect they have on political discourse.

Research released by UK political think tank Demos reveals some of the extent of the echo chamber effect in political discussions on Twitter.

Demos looked at 2,000 users of Twitter all of whom expressed open support for either the Conservative Party, the Labour Party, The UK Independence Party (Ukip) or the Scottish National Party (SNP). A further 500 acted as a control group expressing no party allegiance. The results show, perhaps not surprisingly, that supporters of all parties are most likely to retweet people who share their views.

What's interesting, however, is that the effect becomes more pronounced as you move away from the mainstream parties. Conservatives were least partisan, retweeting other conservatives 46 percent of the time, Labour supporters retweet their own side 65 percent of the time. But Ukip supporters retweet other Ukippers 73 percent of the time and SNP supporters retweet their own 78 percent of the time.

The extent to which those studied retweeted media sources follows their political leanings too. Labour and SNP supporters are most likely to share stories from left-leaning sites like the Guardian and the Independent, whereas Conservative and Ukip supporters are most likely to share from the Telegraph or Guido Fawkes. Labour supporters though are more likely to tweet Telegraph stories (16 percent) than Conservatives are Guardian ones (11 percent).

"The paper suggests that there is a strong connection between a user's ideology and the users and news sources they interact with, and that offline beliefs play a key role in the way users behave online, a hypothesis that is often assumed but rarely measured," says the man behind the study, Alex Krasodomski-Jones writing on the Demos website.

In his conclusion to the report Krasodomski-Jones notes, "Compromise, the ability to process a diverse range of opinion and, above all, an acceptance of some kind of shared reality and truth are central to a functioning democracy. All are threatened by the echo chamber effect."

You can find out more and download the full Talking to Ourselves? report on the Demos website.

Photo Credit: Bevan Goldswain/Shutterstock

Continue reading here:
Democracy 'threatened' by the social media echo chamber - BetaNews - BetaNews

Jack Lessenberry for Monday, February 6, 2017

There are a lot of things that Senate Majority Leader Arlan Meekhof doesnt like. They include unions, especially teachers unions. The states rule requiring the payment of decent, prevailing wages to workers on state construction jobs. Meekhof is also very much against anything making it easier for people to vote, including making it easier to get absentee ballots.

But he also seems especially determined not to allow citizens to have access to e-mail correspondence about state business carried on by the governor and state legislators.

Ten days ago, he was part of a panel of legislators that appeared before the Michigan Press Associations annual meeting in Grand Rapids. Last December, the state House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed legislation that would have subjected the governors communications to Freedom of Information Act, or FOIA laws.

They also created something called the Legislative Open Records Act that would have done the same thing for legislators. There were a fair amount of exemptions, more than I would have wanted, such as letters to constituents, except for lobbyists, and confidential personal and financial records. But it would have been a vast improvement.

Nearly every other state subjects their governor to FOIA, and most of them also apply FOIA to their legislatures. But not our embarrassingly unethical Michigan, which has been judged worst in the nation for transparency and accountability.

The need for the press and the public to have access to this information was strongly proven by the Flint water crisis. Governor Snyder voluntarily released what he said were his relevant emails, just as Richard Nixon released what he said were the relevant transcripts of his White House tapes. At least one of them wasnt telling the whole truth.

We dont know whether the state Senate would have passed the expanded FOIA rules as well last year, but there is reason to suspect they would have. But Arlan Meekhof, who also doesnt seem to like democracy very much, refused to allow a vote on the issue, and if he has his way, will undoubtedly do the same this year.

Detroit Free Press columnist Brian Dickerson asked Meekhof about this when he appeared at the newspaper convention, and he replied contemptuously, You guys are the only people who care about this."

Well, hes right about something.

We do care. It is our job to care, because we think people should have the right to know what their government is doing for them or to them. Meekhof has to leave the legislature at the end of next year, and wouldnt appear to have any political future.

He would have liked to run for governor, it soon became clear that he had, to put it mildly, insufficient support. His lack of a college degree closes other options.

A cynic might think the Senate majority leader is worried we might find out about him and what hes done, should his records should be made public. We cannot now know.

But we do know that democracy dies behind closed doors and locked file cabinets. We need as citizens to demand that our senators be allowed to vote on whatever new Freedom of Information Act bill the state House of Representatives passes this session.

Otherwise, how can we hold them accountable for what they do?

Jack Lessenberry is Michigan Radios Senior Political Analyst. Views expressed in his essays are his own and do not necessarily reflect those of Michigan Radio, its management or the station licensee, The University of Michigan.

Continued here:
Democracy, dying behind closed records - Michigan Radio

Artur Mas and the other defendants Irene Rigau, left, and Joana Ortega applaud supporters in Barcelona before heading to court. Photograph: Anadolu Agency/Getty Images

The former Catalan prime minister Artur Mas has insisted he was following a democratic mandate when he organised a symbolic independence referendum three years ago and had no intention of committing any crime or disobeying anyone.

Mas, who governed Catalonia from 2010 to 2016, appeared in the high court in Barcelona on Monday along with the former vice-president Joana Ortega and former education minister Irene Rigau.

They are accused of criminal disobedience and breach of trust for holding the non-binding referendum in defiance of Spains constitutional court. If convicted, Mas could face a 10-year ban on holding office while Ortega and Rigau could be barred for nine years.

About 40,000 people took to the streets of Barcelona to show their support for the trio as they arrived for the start of their trial. Many held red and yellow separatist flags and some shouted: Independence, independence!, Down with Spains justice system! and We want to vote!

Although the constitutional court ruled the referendum was illegal five days before it was held on 9 November 2014, Mas and others went ahead with the vote, helped by more than 40,000 volunteers who opened schools and installed polling stations.

More than 80% of participants opted for independence, but only 2.3 million of Catalonias 5.4 million eligible voters took part.

Mas declined to answer questions from the prosecution on Monday morning, but told defence lawyers he was responsible for planning and driving the referendum.

However, he denied anyone had been motivated by a simple desire to defy the Spanish authorities. There was no intent to commit any crime or disobey anyone, he said. Our aim was to rise to the challenge and promote participation by all possible means.

Mas also asked why the Spanish judiciary had not done more to prevent the vote, asking: If this was so clearly a crime, why didnt the constitutional court do anything to stop it?

Speaking before the proceedings began, he accused the Spanish authorities of seeking to punish their opponents. Independence isnt on trial here, democracy is on trial, he told Agence France-Presse in the courthouse.

Its the first time that a democratic government is [being] tried for having allowed people to vote. Its an unprecedented moment.

But Spains foreign minister, Alfonso Dastis, insisted the trial was merely proof of the rule of law in Spain, adding: What is on trial is an act that failed to acknowledge a constitutional court sentence, nothing more.

The trial, scheduled for five days, comes amid souring relations between Madrid and Barcelona and seven months before the pro-independence Catalan government plans to hold a binding referendum on splitting from Spain.

The renewed push has again been blocked by Spains constitutional court. It has warned Mass successor, Carles Puigdemont, and Carme Forcadell, the speaker of the Catalan parliament, that they had a duty to stop or paralyse any move to ignore or dodge the suspension, or face potential liabilities, including at a penal level. Forcadell faces charges of contempt of court and neglect of duty for allowing the parliament to vote on plans to secede from Spain last July.

While the separatist movement has acquired huge momentum over recent years, any vote would probably be very close. A poll at the end of December showed 46.8% of people in the region are against independence, compared with 45.3% who are in favour.

Read more here:
Former Catalan PM defends 'democratic' independence vote - The Guardian