Mediaboss Marketing

Last November, as the presidential campaign season wound down, President Barack Obama, speaking at a rally for Hillary Clinton, found himself confronted by a man peacefully holding up a sign promoting Donald Trump. When the crowd heckled the man, Obama calmed and then admonished the crowd, defending the protesters right to free speech in America. He urged the crowd, not to boo, but to vote, to actually partake in democracy.

Donald Trumps treatment of protesters at his rallies, you may recall, stood in stark contrast to Obamas encouragement of democratic process. He infamously incited his supporters to remove protesters, violently if necessary, offering to pay their legal fees if sued.

The bottom-line policy for Trump? Dissent is not allowed and must be suppressed by any means necessary.

This behavior on the campaign trail certainly prefigured his administrations modus operandi, as evidenced by the series of unfortunate events of the last week.

For example, as disconcerting, if not horrifying, as Trumps effective Muslim ban was, equally troubling was the administrations reaction to conventional expressions of disagreement carefully and intentionally enabled, encouraged, and protected in the structures of our democratic government.

As Sean Colarossi reported in the pages of PoliticusUsa.com, when hundreds of diplomats from the U.S. State Department collectively signed on to a letter expressing dismay and dissent to the executive order, Trumps press secretary Sean Spicer chillingly told the press, These career bureaucrats have a problem with it? They should either get with the program or they can go.

Get with the program or go?!? Sound familiar? Its the refrain from Trumps campaign rallies, encouraging that any act or expression of dissentbehaviors vital to democracybe met with violent suppression.

It is important to note, too, that the State Department has actually established specific procedures to allow and protect the expression of dissent among its ranksthat is, to institutionalize democracy. The procedure entails filing an official form which cannot be submitted anonymously, and the process offers strenuous assurances against reprisal.

Why is this process in place? As any American citizen who truly respects our institutions and country should know, our founders established a system with checks and balances so we would have a deliberative democracy, one in which enormous decisions impacting the lives of our multitudes would be subject to robust discussion and careful consideration that entailed taking into account a full range of perspectives, especially dissenting ones. Hence, Thomas Jefferson declared dissent to be the highest form of patriotism.

Last week, though, we saw Trump had little, or no, respect for Americas hallowed system of checks and balances; and he certainly demonstrated he has no intention of refraining from seeking reprisal against those who dissent.

His Apprentice-like firing of Attorney General Sally Yates made that point loudly and clearly.

And what did Sally Yates do? She did her job within our democracy to provide a check and a balance to an authoritarian imposition of an unlawful policy. She expressed this understanding quite clearly when she explained her position in the governmental process of the executive branch:

. . . [I]n litigation, DOJ Civil Division lawyers are charged with advancing reasonable legal arguments that can be made supporting an Executive Order. But my role as leader of this institution is different and broader. My responsibility is to ensure that the position of the Department of Justice is not only legally defensible but is informed by our best view of what the law is after consideration of all the facts. In addition, I am responsible for ensuring that the positions we take in court remain consistent with this institutions solemn obligation to always seek justice and stand for what is right. At present, I am not convinced that the defense of the Executive Order is consistent with these responsibilities nor am I convinced that the Executive Order is lawful.

But Trump shows no interest in honoring or adhering to the sacred system our founders carefully crafted as an alternative to and safeguard against authoritarian rule. Theres not a new sheriff in the capital. Theres a new CEO trying to run a business, not govern a democratic polity with rules.

Even Republicans, intent on repealing the Affordable Care Act against what polls show is the will of the people, have fumed over Trumps refusal to consult them and key committees and agencies before issuing the executive order banning refugees from seven countries with largely Muslim populations.

And, as Paul Krugman has pointed out, the Trump administrations willingness to entertain and give voice to the possibility of implementing a 20% tax on Mexican imports to pay for the infamous wall, underscored the administrations flouting and complete ignorance of rules and treaties already in place and established through negotiation and deliberation nationally and internationally. Krugman explains,

International trade policy is governed by rules originally the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade [GATT], now folded into the WTO [World Trade Organization]. A key part of these rules is that countries agree NOT to just impose new tariffs or import quotas unilaterally. So if the US just goes ahead and imposes a 20 percent tariff on Mexico, it has in effect repudiated the whole system (which it built!).

Trump simply shows no regard for rules or decisions arrived at through collective and diplomatic deliberation. We are seeing in full force the problems of Trumps temperament raised in the campaign. It threatens deliberative democracy itself.

When James Madison penned Federalist Paper No. 10, he underscored the importance of representatives who would act at some distance from the passions of the people and thus be capable of enacting a deliberative democracy. For Madison, the representatives should be able to withstand the temporary delusion to give time and opportunity for more cool and sedate reflection.

Unfortunately, it is now the people who need protection from the delusions and impulsive passions of its chief representative, President Trump.

When Obama declared last October that Democracy is on the ballot, he wasnt kidding. A minority of Americans voted in a President who wants to destroy it. It is one of the few things he wants to do deliberately.

Barack Obama, Deliberative Democracy, department of justice, dissent, Donald Trump, Federalist Papers, James Madison, Mulsim Ban, Paul Krugman, Sally Yates, sean spicer, State Department, thomas jefferson

Excerpt from:
Dissent, Democracy, and Deliberation Are on Trump's Chopping Block - PoliticusUSA

By Sebastian Burduja, President of the New Civic Action Party (PACT)

BUCHAREST, ROMANIA Democracy is under attack in many parts of the world today. Economic hardship, growing inequality, youth unemployment, and widespread corruption have led to sweeping disillusionment with politics as usual. The growing gap between regular citizens and politicians has unleashed the dangerous forces of populism, xenophobia, and isolationism, even in established democracies. In this grim global context, Romania offers a surprising glimmer of hope.

Over the last four days, the world has witnessed Romanias largest protests since the 1989 Revolution. For the hundreds of thousands of Romanians in the streets of Bucharest, all across the country, and in the diaspora, this protest is a matter of principle and started as a spontaneous reaction to the current governments abusive attempt to roll back the fight against corruption. On January 31, in the dead of night, the social-democratic cabinet passed an emergency ordinance that decriminalizes abuse of power for a range of instances, including for all damages of up to 200,000 lei (roughly 45,000 EUR). Other measures include reducing prison sentences and weakening provisions around conflicts of interest and whistleblowing. Among the beneficiaries are top leaders of the ruling party currently under investigation and numerous local politicians already serving time. The blatant injustice of the ordinance and the governments dismissive attitude toward the public outcry have struck a chord with ordinary Romanians, who have pledged to protest every night until justice is restored.

Romania has struggled with endemic corruption for the past 27 years. A failed break with the Communist past created in the early 1990s an intricate web of corrupt politicians and businessmen, tied in bungled privatizations and flawed public procurement procedures. Corruption became an inescapable and painful reality in the daily lives of Romanians, who were forced to pay bribes to access basic public services. The situation started improving as Romania began seeking EU membership, a national goal with huge support among the public. This allowed Brussels to pressure Romanian politicians into tying their own hands by conditioning accession on the adoption of critical anticorruption reforms. This led to the creation and development of the countrys anticorruption bodies, most prominently the National Anticorruption Department (DNA). Recent years have shown Romanians that nobody is above the law numerous politicians, including prime ministers, ministers, MPs, and local officials have been tried and some have been convicted. All this has required significant effort from prosecutors and judges, in a hostile political environment often seeking to influence their decisions. It is no surprise that the governments current attempt to reverse these hard-fought reforms has generated so much frustration.

Beyond all the disappointment with politicians, however, the Romanian protests are about principles and renewed hope in a better future. People are standing up in tremendous numbers for justice, democracy, and the rule of law. As an active participant to the daily protests, I witnessed firsthand the positive energy, decency, and sense of civic duty that spring from these demonstrations. People are firm and exceptionally resilient in the face of below-zero temperatures, but also extremely peaceful. For example, on the first night of the protest, a few hooligans tried to provoke the police and were immediately isolated by the crowd. The next night protesters handed flowers to the police and frequently chanted say no to violence (fr violen).

Importantly, Romanians are more dedicated than ever before to fighting corruption and ensuring a free democracy. Nobody is calling for the country to exit the EU, get closer to Russia, or give up on its commitment to democratic values. This is critical in a region where many countries, including most of Romanias immediate neighbors, have been warming up to the Kremlin and even openly militating for illiberal democracy, a phrase dear to Hungarys Prime Minister Viktor Orbn. Romanians are among the most passionate enthusiasts for more integration because they have seen the benefits of belonging to the European community. Real GDP growth is among the fastest in the EU, with over 70% of exports going to the common market. Eurobarometers, surveys done at the EU level, consistently show that Romanians also appreciate Brussels positive effect on the countrys democratization and anticorruption struggle.

Critics of the protests claim that the people are overreacting to political manipulation by opposition parties and note that the ordinance is needed to align current legislation with Constitutional Court rulings. Several TV stations have adopted this message, sparking debates about journalism ethics in what often feels, in Romania and beyond, like an Orwellian reality. The facts around the governments ordinance and its consequences are, however, too obvious to deny. Nobody can show how the people of Romania will actually benefit from this measure and nobody can explain why the government suddenly decided to prioritize this issue on the public agenda. Credible voices like the general prosecutor of Romania, the chief prosecutor of the DNA, the European Commission, and the Embassies of the US, France, Germany, Canada, and the Netherlands have all spoken strongly against the ordinance and the method by which it was passed.

Whether Romania can shine as a beacon of hope for democracy in Europe and beyond depends on how the current crisis will be resolved. The clock is ticking: the emergency ordinances provisions come into full effect on February 11 at midnight. So far, the government has vowed to keep pushing ahead with the changes, but there are also cracks in the system, with multiple resignations from the ruling party in recent days. The biggest protests are expected on Sunday and the general mood remains optimistic. The National Anthem, dating from 1848, calls onto Romanians to awaken and build together a better future. This may have just happened and the world should be watching closely: a victory for democracy in Romania will be a victory for democracy in Europe and around the world.

Sebastian Burduja is the president of the New Civic Action Party (PACT). He is a governance expert and the author of Between Hope and Disillusionment. Democracy and Anticorruption in Postcommunist Romania (2016).

The views expressed in opinion articles published on euronews do not represent our editorial position

See original here:
All Eyes on Romania: Democracy's Improbable Beacon of Hope? -View - euronews

The more than 60,000 scientists who work in the U.S. government form one of our nations greatest assets. Their research is as varied as science itself, ranging from understanding the fundamental workings of atoms to building the next great space telescope to determining unsafe levels of chemicals in waterways to predicting the impacts of future climate change to creating new vaccines and cancer treatments.

We have a clear interest in knowing what the scientists we support are doing, both as a matter of public accountability, and so that we can make informed decisions. While we can obtain this information in a variety of ways, including journal articles and information on agency websites and social media accounts, I would argue that no channel of information about government science is more critical than the independent media.

Consider, for a moment, the word media. The media mediate between sources of information and the public. They make decisions about what is most important and relevant to readers (since no one has time to keep up with all the science being done at federal agencies, or even one agency). They translate from the technical to the accessible. They place science in larger social and political contexts, and they hold institutions accountable when they try to manipulate or suppress scientific results for political reasons. No other institution in our society is capable of fulfilling all these roles. For this reason, free and open access to government scientists must remain open, evenindeed, especiallywhen scientists results challenge the governments political outlook.

How open are federal agencies to the press now? The answerat the moment, at leastdepends greatly on the agency. At some, such as NASA, NIST and NOAA, a reporter can in most cases speak to a scientist without having the interview cleared in advance with a public affairs officer, or PIO. PIOs at these agencies generally help reporters connect with scientists, and provide backup information to support a story.

At other agencies, however, staff put up substantial barriers between journalists and scientists. The EPA, for example, requires many interview requests to be approved by PIOs. This may make sense in some cases, as the EPA is under constant pressure from both anti-regulatory and environmental groups, and wants to tailor its message to avoid costly political blowback. But that does not get it off the hook for providing timely scientific information to the publicand delays in approving interviews can kill stories being written on tight deadlines.

Access barriers can also pop up for seemingly innocuous topics. When I contacted a U.S. Forest Service scientist a few years ago to learn about research being done to understand threats to the eastern hemlock treehardly an area of major public controversyI was shocked to get a reply from a PIO asking for a list of questions I planned to ask. (I did eventually talk to the scientist, but only after several days delay.) I have had a few similar experiences at other agencies, and have heard and read far more egregious stories from others.

I will grant that on matters of policy, an agency has an interest in speaking with one voice, so as not to confuse the public. But when it comes to the science informing policy, the public deserves the unfiltered and unmanipulated truth, directly from the scientists who did the research. Its not just I who believe this. The Union of Concerned Scientists has for years advocated for openness at government agencies, and its 2015 report card on agencies media and social media policies reported an overall improvement over the Obama years. Scientists now have the expectation that theyll be able to share their research and their views with the public, says Michael Halpern, deputy director of the unions Center for Science and Democracy, and our democracy is better for it.

But the report found many agencies policies still falling short of ideal. (One of the agencies to which the union gave an incomplete, the Department of Energy, implemented a strong openness policy in the waning days of the Obama administration. Lets hope the new administration honors it.) Meanwhile the Society for Professional Journalists wrote several letters imploring the Obama administration to live up to its promise to be the most transparent administration ever. (I chair the National Association of Science Writers information access committee, which has supported several of these letters.)

I can almost hear you getting impatient at this point. What, youre asking, is information access at federal agencies going to be like under Trump? As with so many things, the incoming administrations plans in this area are still largely unknown. But early signs are troubling. Confusingly worded directives led to temporary freezes on communications at several agencies, though some of these have been reversed after a public outcry. (On the plus side, these events showed that the public is engaged on this issue, and that pressure can have an impact.) At the moment, sources at various agencies tell me its mostly business as usual, but those agencies are still awaiting confirmed nominees. And its abundantly clear that Trump himself is no fan of the press, to put it mildly.

Those who wish to explore the darkest possible future might read the American Heritage Foundations 2016 Blueprint for Balance documentbelieved by some to be the basis of President Trumps budget planwhich suggests saving $262 million (.007 percent of the total federal budget) by eliminating public affairs staff at agencies. This would, of course, not stop journalists from finding their ways into agencies, but would probably make their work more reliant on scientists willing to leak or go outside authorized communication channels, and would certainly make the American public more ignorant about the workings of its governmentand about science.

Even without this nuclear option, there are plenty of ways that administrators can restrict access to scientists and information. They can ignore or delay responses to inquiries in hopes of delaying or killing a story. They can route interview requests to scientists they know will toe the party line. They can try to suppress individual scientists ability to use social media, speak at conferences, and, in the worst case, publish research without review. Unfortunately, Donald Trumps team would not need to invent these tactics, because they have already been demonstrated by his predecessors. They would merely need to make them the rules instead of the exceptions.

As the new administrations media access policies become clear, journalists and the public must be vigilant to ensure that scientific integrity and free flow of information remain enshrined as policy and practice across the federal government. These principles are vital to our democracy.

The views expressed are those of the author(s) and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.

Gabriel Popkin

Gabriel Popkin is a freelance science journalist and chair of the National Association of Science Writers' information access committee.

More:
The Free Flow of Scientific Information Is Critical for Democracy - Scientific American (blog)

New York Times

A Blow to Myanmar's Democracy New York Times The murder of U Ko Ni, a prominent Muslim lawyer and a key member of Myanmar's governing National League for Democracy party, on Sunday is a serious blow to the country's fragile democracy. The brutal, public killing he was shot at point-blank range ... and more »

View original post here:
A Blow to Myanmar's Democracy - New York Times

U.S. President Donald Trump speaks before Rex Tillerson was sworn in as 69th secretary of state in the Oval Office of the White House on February 1, 2017 in Washington, D.C. Michael Reynolds-Pool/Getty Images

Last March, three months before Britons voted to take the United Kingdom out of the European Union, then Prime Minister David Cameron asked Daily Mail proprietor Lord Rothermere to fire the newspaper's editor, Paul Dacre. The press baron, descendant of the family which did more than any other to create the British tabloid press, refused, and did not even tell Dacre of the request until after the result of the referendum. The incident, reported by the BBC, has not been denied by any of the parties involved.

It was a grubby event on the road to Brexit. Unlike many of their kind, the owners of the Mail do seem to have stuck to the line that they may own, but Dacre may edit. Rothermere is in favour of remaining in the EU; the Mail was and is the most devoted Brexiteer in the land. And, without peer, still the most powerful organ of the press: the "newspaper that rules Britain."

Dacre, now 68 and apparently still a tireless workaholic, is the last of that line of Fleet Street editors who have the confidence and talent to address the country like a revivalist pastor does his flockwith heat, passion and a supreme sense of being right. Dacre is right in the political sense of the word too: a hater of the left, a scorner, above all, of the liberals who, he believes, constitute the intellectual and cultural establishment, and a profound believer in the primacy of the British parliament.

No other editor commands in that way. Cameron's forlorn quest for freedom from the Mail 's daily sermons on the evils of the EU was a tribute to Dacre's power, but a power that may not be transferred to another if he ever he retires. This is not just because Dacre is, in character and sense of rectitude, a hard act to follow. It is also because the long running drama of the newspaper business is coming to an end. The news media now give way to the social media; the people, not the proprietors, editors, commentators and reporters, speak for themselves.

American historian Jill Lepore believes that the dominant medium of communication in any age is a large element in determining the way politics are conducted. In fact, she has claimed it can be the only element. "The American two-party system is a creation of the press," she argues. "When the press is in the throes of change, so is the party system It's unlikely, but not impossible, that the accelerating and atomizing forces of this latest communications revolution will bring about the end of the party system and the beginning of a new and wobblier political institution."

"At some point," she adds, "does each of us become a party of one?"

Get Data Sheet , Fortune's technology newsletter.

The political power of social media has been evident for some time. Pictures of a fruit seller, Mohamed Bouazizi, immolating himself in a Tunisian town after police confiscated his unlicensed vegetable cart in 2010 helped spark a revolution that became one of the first heralds of the Arab spring. In countries like Iran, Turkey, and Russia, texts on cell phones have brought demonstrators onto the streets. In China, information on Weibo and WeChat, the local equivalents of (banned) Twitter ( twtr ) , flash news of scandals, strikes and protests across the country, prompting President Xi Jinping to thunder that the media, including social media, must be disciplined. Until a couple of decades ago, you had to be very rich to acquire the technology to address the nation. Now, you have to be very poor indeed not to have the technology to address the world.

For some years, though, it's been clear to some that popular communications come with a sting in the tail. One of the loudest voices in explaining that sting has been Evgeny Morozov, a young Belarusian polymath who branded the utopian view of online freedomendorsed by both Bill and Hilary Clintonas "excessive optimism and empty McKinsey-speak," insisting that the ability to identify dissidence would lead to the strengthening, not the overthrow, of authoritarian power.

Morozov was referring to despotic states. More recently, President Trump is one of those who have shown us how the power of social media works in a great democracy. It works so that the powerful, the very rich and the celebrated rule in that spacenot as they did in the mainstream media's high period, but in a more interactive, yet at times more effective, way.

A politician or business leader or a celebrity speaking on television usually addresses the masses through an interlocutora presenter, a journalist. On social media, the same figure is talking to you, on your cellphone, through your twitter feed. Youweare a party of one.

To be and remain the person who can so command our personal channels of communication does, of course, take talent, organization, and the rare ability to sense and shape a mood. The rich and celebrated have the tools and the help to work in that way. Social media do not democratize them in themselves. As long as the powerful master the medium they increase, not reduce their power.

The interlocutor in the studio, the editor in his office, is almost gone. It's the celebrity and you. The famous figure can say anything which is judged to please or rouse you: and if you like it, why check whether it's true? Those who publish fake news boosting Trump (as much of it did) and who live as far away as Georgia (the one in the former Soviet Union, not the American South) make a good living from churning it out, all the while expressing amazement, and a little contempt, that so many seem to believe it.

To the powerful, power has again been given. It isn't that social media don't help sociability. But is it better for our politics?

John Lloyd co-founded the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism at the University of Oxford, where he is senior research fellow. The opinions expressed here are his own.

View original post here:
President Trump's Tweets Demonstrate How Social Media Can Hurt Democracy - Fortune