Mediaboss Marketing

If you like Modi so much, why dont you go, sleep with Modi? The first time someone asked me this question was in 2013 when I had just started writing on Facebook about my political beliefs. I was engaged in a fierce debate about Narendra Modi with a few people when this question landed in my comment box.

Thirteen words that changed my world view forever!

I was shocked not so much by the viciousness and venom of the question, but by the identity of the person who asked it. He was a mild-looking 65-year-old man with a flowing white beard. Almost Tagore-like in his looks, he was a self-professed Marxist who claimed to publish a dubious rag called Civil Society! Apparently, his idea of civil society allowed him to throw sexual slurs at a woman he did not even know personally.

It was my first brush with the intolerance of the liberals! Since then, I have been abused, threatened and ridiculed by people who call themselves liberals thousands of times. There are parody pages dedicated to me. Fake profiles are created in my name, and my photographs are morphed and circulated as Facebook and Twitter memes.

All in the name of liberalism, feminism and freedom of expression.

Once I had written about the feminist ploy of generalisation, of demonising all Indian men each time there is an incident of crime against women in India. I was told by someone who called herself a feminist to go back into the kitchen and stay there. Women like you dont deserve the right to speak, she announced rather grandly. This was not the first time I had faced ridicule from self-professed feminists. A supposedly liberal writer had once condescendingly called me a mediocre housewife turned columnist when he couldnt argue cogently about something that I had written.

Apparently, irony as a concept is unfamiliar to some Facebook feminists!

I refuse to label myself as a feminist, only because, at least in India these days, the term is being thrown about very casually. It has come to mean a rabid, blinding hatred of men. But that does not mean I condone gender discrimination.

I am appalled when I see rape threats and sexual slurs being bandied about by some people to silence the voice of women, regardless of which side of the political spectrum they choose to be on. As a woman who has been viciously attacked both in virtual as well as real life for daring to speak up, I can never be on the side of sexism and gender discrimination.

As a child raised by a freedom-fighter and a strong mother, I was always encouraged to speak up, to voice my opinions, to say what I think is right, rather than parrot a narrative that is 'au courant'. I grew up with a deep love for India ingrained in me. I had heard many stories about that tumultuous decade in my fathers life when he was an armed revolutionary fighting for Goas freedom from the Portuguese.

At 21, my father was declared the Most Wanted Rebel by the Portuguese regime for daring to lead a successful raid on a Portuguese armoury. I had seen the scars on my grand-uncles back, mementoes of the time when he was arrested, beaten and tortured by the Portuguese police because they wanted him to reveal information about my father. I had heard first hand, stories about how my father and his colleagues were chased for over eight hours by a Portuguese armoured van mounted with an automatic gun and how they walked 30 km on foot on an empty stomach through the night in a daring escape.

I inherited my love for India and my respect for the armed forces from my father. It was only when I joined the mass communication department of Pune University, to pursue my master's degree, that I realised that patriotism was a bad word in the liberal dictionary. Whenever I spoke in class about India and nationalism, there were voices dismissing it as rubbish sentimentalism.

Humanities students were not supposed to be such bigoted chest-thumping rabid hyper-nationalists, they said. When we were shown Anand Patwardhans movie Ram ke Naam in class, we were supposed to display the requisite feelings of revulsion and horror at the conduct of Hindu nationalists. When some of us felt that the movie was a poorly researched, very biased, one-sided narrative, we were not allowed to voice that thought.

In the brave new world of journalism, patriotism was pass!

After graduating from the University, I started my career in entertainment television, moved on to editing websites, writing freelance for newspapers on varied subjects like culture, travel, education and leisure. I steered clear of politics, for what I saw, sickened me. The convenient one-sided narrative that was being peddled by mainstream media as the only truth led me to question the credibility of mainstream media.

And then, something wonderful happened. The remarkable phenomenon called 'social media'. For the first time, people like me had found a medium to voice our opinions, without any filters, censorship or editorial interference. The average Indian citizen was no longer a passive consumer of news as defined by mainstream media, but she could be an active contributor.

I started writing political blogs from my Facebook page. The first post that went viral was written in January 2013, when Rahul Gandhi was elevated to the vice president of the Congress party. Suddenly, my opinion had gone mainstream without needing the crutches of conventional media, and there were a lot of people out there who agreed with my point of view.

Since then, it has been quite a journey. It has been incredibly rewarding to have complete strangers reach out to tell me that they too are sick of mainstream media demonising the concepts of nationalism, patriotism and love for India. I have had readers approach me in places as far flung as Darjeeling, Sikkim, Kinnaur or Kanchi to tell me that I am voicing their opinion. Luckily, I have an extremely supportive husband and extended family that has helped me remain strong in the face of abuse and personal threats.

I think it was Martin Luther King Jr. who had said, Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.

I am glad I chose to live!

Continued here:
How I Learnt That Liberals In India Are Not Really Liberal - Swarajya

Both of British Columbias major political parties are scrambling to stay ahead of an Elections B.C. probe into potential fundraising contraventions, promising to return any donations that are found to have violated the provinces sparse campaign finance regulations.

The New Democrats are contacting donors this week, including lobbyists and union representatives, who have made contributions in their own name but may have been reimbursed by a corporation or other organization, a violation of B.C.s elections law.

We have been very pro-active, but we have identified four cases that require clarification, so we are in the process of contacting the individuals involved, said Glen Sanford, the deputy director of the B.C. New Democratic Party. If there were any errors, well be contacting Elections B.C.

The internal review of donations over the past three years is continuing, but so far the value of the donations that have been flagged totals about $10,000, he said.

In a statement, a spokesman for the B.C. Liberals said the party is reviewing its donations after a Globe and Mail investigation revealed it collected tens of thousands of dollars in multiple donations from lobbyists who paid under their own names with personal credit cards on behalf of clients and companies and were reimbursed, which is against the law.

We are currently working to review and remedy issues raised this weekend by The Globe and Mail, Emile Scheffel said in a statement on Tuesday. We will not be commenting further until this work is complete.

In Question Period on Tuesday, NDP Leader John Horgan urged the government to ensure that Elections B.C. has the financial resources to complete its investigation into the shady fundraising practices of the B.C. Liberal Party before the May 9 provincial election.

We have media revelations over the past weekend that the B.C. Liberals are taking money from lobbyists in an illegal manner. The elections office is looking at it. We are at the busiest time in the four-year cycle for Elections B.C., Mr. Horgan said. They will not possibly have the resources to do a thorough investigation into the shady practices that were outlined in The Globe and Mail over the weekend.

Finance Minister Mike de Jong said he is confident Elections B.C. has the resources for the wide-ranging review that is taking place [that] will examine many aspects of fundraising. He mocked the NDP for sanctimony, noting it is also aggressively seeking donations under the existing rules while demanding reform.

Justice Minister Suzanne Anton, who is responsible for both the Election Act and the Registrar of Lobbyists, told the House she expects lobbyists to follow the rules, but said her party will pay back any donations that violated the law. Theres certainly a commitment from my side of the House and from the party involved, the B.C. Liberals, that if there are donations which are given improperly, they will be returned.

The NDP has not voluntarily disclosed its donors from 2016 as the Liberals have, but the party will turn over the details to Elections B.C. this month as required, which will show it collected about $6.2-million last year from individuals, corporations and organized labour. That is half of the amount the governing Liberals raised.

Andrew Watson of Elections B.C. confirmed the agency is looking at potential contraventions of the Elections Act not limited to the Liberals.

Its not party-based, he said. It is a matter of potential contravention of the act. Its a matter we take seriously and we are putting resources into it. Mr. Watson could not say if the probe would be completed before the spring election.

B.C. has been criticized for its almost unfettered campaign finance system, but it does prohibit indirect contributions. A political party that identifies such donations is required to return the money and recover and void any income tax receipt it issued.

The governing Liberals have been criticized over the past year for fundraising tactics that include lucrative cash-for-access events such as small, private dinners with Premier Christy Clark for $10,000 a plate or more.

A year ago, the Premier promised to introduce a bill that would provide up-to-date reports on campaign contributions, but so far that law has not been introduced. As of Wednesday, likely no more than six days are left in the legislative session before this springs election campaign begins, making the passage of such a law before the election unlikely.

Follow Justine Hunter on Twitter: @justine_hunter

Read more from the original source:
As Elections BC investigates, NDP reviews fundraising while Liberals look to 'remedy' issues - The Globe and Mail

In November 2009, the dying days of Gordon Browns premiership, his Chancellor, Alistair Darling, was named Survivor of the Year at The Spectator magazines parliamentary awards. It was a coy compliment from a right-leaning magazine, highlighting how close Darling had come that year to losing his job to Browns henchman Ed Balls (the pre-Strictly version). Yet it was also a grudging acknowledgement of how difficult it can be to maintain the second most powerful office in the land especially when the premier is used to having things his, or her, way.

Philip Hammond, as he delivers his first Budget on Wednesday, will also have emerged as a great survivor. On his appointment, he seemed to exemplify the aesthetic of the Theresa May regime: a safe pair of hands, an older and greyer head than the yuppie-young confidence tricksters of the Cameron years. Hammond was 61 when he took the job of Chancellor; GeorgeOsborne had been 38.

Yet it soon emerged that Hammond was altogether too grey, too sage, for the more excitable Brexit bunnies. The details of early rows found their way with regularity into Sunday papers. An early skirmish over immigration drew a public rebuke from No 10 when Hammond publicly floated the idea of excluding students from the Governments target. (Most economists would like to see British universities allowed to take as many foreign students as possible; Tory voters, and thus the Prime Minister, fear it as immigration by the back door.)May and Hammond already clashed over the independence of the Bank of England, and the regulation of foreign takeovers. By mid-October, Hammond had to deny that hed threatened to resign; No10 was left issuing anodyne statements about having full confidence in the Chancellor.

And yet he survived. Why? In part, it is because Hammond has firmly established himself as a steady check on the more extreme excesses of the hard Brexiteers. Unlike May, who is driven primarily by the electorates concerns, Hammonds focus has been on retaining Britains attractiveness to foreign investors and talking up economic growth It is clear to me that the British people did not vote on 23Juneto become poorer, he declared at last autumns party conference, before going on to caution against alienating international employers. As indicated by his intervention on student migration, Hammond is fundamentally an economic liberal, who has set himself the mission of salvaging as much of Britains openness to movement of labour as possible.

Perhaps that puts the Chancellor on a collision course with the Prime Minister. But the truth is that the PM has found it quite useful to have a proxy when David Davis dismisses off-hand the promise of an EU transitional deal, or Boris Johnson announces unilaterally that we wont pay for access to the single market. With his dry erudition Hammond is frequently described as intellectual arrogant by his opponents he commands the respect of the City. And he can babysit the Cabinet at the same time.

More fundamentally, Hammond and May know that both their necks are on the line if Brexit negotiations fail. The Conservative Party may have no effective opposition for now. But both have staked their political careers on steering Britain out of the Brexit quagmire and that means, however great their day-to-day differences, they know they have to steer together.

Philip Hammond: Post-Brexit Britain won't 'slink off like a wounded animal'

The advantage for Hammond, of course, is that Brexit is still the only game in town, even on Budget day. Brexit planning is sucking up the energy of the Government in a fashion that is downright dangerous talk to civil servants in the Department of Transport, or even atHealth, and theyll complain that their political masters are too busy with European matters to agree basic policy directives. So Wednesdays Budget will be watched closely to see the assumptions it makes about inflation and post-Brexit growth, but on fiscal detail, few people will be offering quite as much scrutiny as usual. Why bother, when you can go another round of expat versus migrant in the pub?

The Budget, such as it is, looks unlikely to break much with the Osborne tradition. (Hammond is said to have asked his predecessor for advice.) In a rare anti-market sop, Hammond retains Osbornes antipathy to the buy to let market, phasing out tax relief on Buy to Let mortgages although there are inklings he may reverse Osbornes stamp duty increase. Otherwise, its cautious but standard Tory fare: raising the personal allowance before tax is paid on income (although many of the working poor will still pay hefty NI contributions) and heavy cuts on child credit. Much will be made of small gestures gently increasing the budget again for staff in prisons, for example, despite a 30 per cent cut in recent years and 1bn for social care, which may provide a bandage to the current crisis but is unlikely to accompany major policy changes until a mooted review concludes.

So far, so Tory. But what makes Hammonds policy moves interesting is that hes one of the few characteristic conservatives left in senior positions. The Brexiteers are innately radical, enthralled by the concept of creative destruction. Hammond is inherently cautious look at this weekends appearance on Peston on Sunday and at how heavily he warned against getting too optimistic about the latest positive economic growth forecast. Perhaps the forecasts immediately following the Brexit vote were over-pessimistic, he admitted, but if somebody gives you a bit more headroom on your credit card, it doesn't mean you have to rush out and spend it all at once. Expect to hear a lot more of that on Wednesday and plenty of talk about the need for Britain to shore up long-term resilience. This is the rhetoric of a man playing a long game. If Britain emerges as a cautious survivor, so can he.

View post:
Liberals may be pleasantly surprised by the Budget but Tory Party faithfuls could be in for a shock - The Independent

By Antonio lvarez Ramirez | 03/06/17 6:22pm | Updated 03/06/17 6:22pm

This article originally appeared in The Eagle's Feb. 24, 2017 special edition.

On April 27, 1989, students across the Peoples Republic of China took to the streets in an act of defiance against the repressive totalitarian government under which they lived.

Initially, the student-led protest centered its demands on the development of democracy, the destruction of corruption and the opening of social institutions like the press and higher education. Student leaders had organized and mobilized their campus in a massive and powerful demonstration against the state.

Their passion and courage began to inspire wider support. Soon, workers parties joined the student protesters in support of their ideals of anti-corruption and decentralization of power.

This incredible demonstration of popular dissent and courage forced the government into a general state of emergency and immediately began a negotiation process. Although it may seem like a completely abstract and distant reality, universities and institutions of higher education have a long history of political dissent and mobilization. Students have led famous actions that have inspired millions to act, leading to concessions from governments and even the toppling of regimes.

In an era of political tension in our country, the University and especially its progressive liberal student population must embody this spirit of mobilization and stand in opposition to an increasingly racist, xenophobic, sexist, ableist and power hungry regime. The resistance movement is failing.

On Feb. 3, No Lost Generation, an organization dedicated to informing the student body about refugee issues, hosted a demonstration called AU Stands Up: Rally for Refugees and Immigrants. Despite the Facebook event having 296 people going, 648 people interested and 1,200 people invited, the actual attendance never exceeded 30-40 people. This is not a commentary on the organizing skills or effort of No Lost Generation but on the woeful state of mobilization on AUs campus.

Standing out in the cold with a few dozen others listening to students give their personal experiences as refugees and immigrants, I couldnt help but wonder why the hundreds of students walking by us, most of whom I am sure are self-described liberals, progressives or Democrats, wouldnt stop for at least a few minutes and listen.

This lack of action could be a result of disinterest, too much trust in the electoral system or an abundance of privilege. Whatever the reasons, I call on our campus to do better.

For the many of us who exist in a position of extreme privilege compared to those impacted by the incoming regimes proto-fascist policies, we cannot sit by and let these actions stand. Students can be the foot soldiers for important movements that demand change and resist oppression. We can be the organizers that spark the next popular resistance movement.

If you are able to, it is not enough to say you are a liberal, or to say you are against racism, or to share Huffington Post articles whose content amounts to Trump: Sad Face Emoji. If you are able and truly believe in equality and justice, you must mobilize and agitate.

Demonstrative opposition to the Trump regime and to the rise of far right powers across the world is the only thing which will stop us from conceding ground to the rise of global fascism. Groups like the College Democrats, who have not organized any events whatsoever in response to racist and Islamophobic executive orders, are complicit in the administrations ability to act without punishment or response from the populace.

Of course, when I urge folks to come out and mobilize, I am not referring to those who for various reasons cannot do so. Our undocumented, Muslim/Muslim passing, mentally ill, trans, low income and Black siblings and peers are often at special risk in these movements.

I direct my call of action at the majority of AU students that are white. I challenge the men, the able bodied and minded, the wealthy and financially stable and the non-black people of color. All of us should stand in solidarity with those who will be punished more harshly for standing up and fighting for their rights.

I implore you as an AU student, as a self-described liberal, as a leader of a student organization. Organize protests, sit-ins and actions. Educate yourself about student activism. Mobilize your peers and friends to act. Embody the revolutionary spirit of your predecessors and peers throughout history. Most importantly, do better. The future is counting on you.

Antonio lvarez-Ramirez is a sophomore in the School of International Service and College of Arts and Sciences. He is the Economic Development Policy Expert at the AU Roosevelt Institute and a Director on the AUSG Diversity and Inclusion Working Group.

Original post:
Straight from print: AU liberals are failing - The Eagle

It is clear that today what passes for news is essentially opinion. The left-leaning media (so called liberal) have shown more intolerance than what is essentially called right-wing by them. They hate to lose. And when they do, the savage attacks on the non-liberals show their intolerance.

Take the case of Shazia Ilmi not being allowed to speak at her Alma MaterJamia Millia Islamia on a seminar on Women empowerment. Though she was invited, the invite was withdrawn at the last minute without explanation. General Bakshi and Tarek Fatah were invited to a prestigious club in Kolkata for a seminar and Mamata Banerjee made the institution cancel the event.

None of the liberals had massive rallies against such acts against Freedom of Speech. In fact, most news channels did not even carry this.

Be it the Indian, American or British media all seem to have a markedly liberal point of view that does not allow any dissent. Talk about freedoms. Only the Left it seems has the freedom to speak and rally.

The word intolerance is used all the time when there is a blowback on whatever the liberals say or do. No matter how innocuous the subject, such as spreading yoga worldwide, the liberal left will have something unpleasant to say about it.

The people have pretty much told the liberal media that they dont rule the dialogue and the social media is, thus, thriving. Whether it is the New York Times or the New Yorker, very few read them and many think they are biased towards the extreme left.

Change in spite of the media has happened in India, Britain and USA and will follow in most European countries. One has stopped watching Indian TV news as once again there is little news but a great deal of debate. What passes for news is the opinion of the anchor or the owners of the channels who have their own agendas.

Yesterday, I watched the news briefly and saw an event, that made me think:Arun Purie congratulating his daughter for India Today TV getting the award for best English and Hindi news. To me an award is a self-perpetuating exercise by an organisation where they form a club of sorts and give each other awards. Whether it is the Oscars, Grammys, etc. They form a small cabal who decide who gets an award. Is this the peoples choice? No! The people are not consulted and mostly unaware of how and who chooses these awards.

Newspapers, magazines and such organisations pump up their reader/viewership to garner more advertising revenue, so their own statistics are always suspect. So, are these awards really relevant? Are the best reporters getting awards? Is there even such a thing as investigative reporting left in India?

I saw a portion of The big fight where the issue being debated was Is free speech being curtailed now. Well, in fact no. When the Congress realised that Modi was a potential threat way back in 2004 a sustained campaign was launched to discredit him this is a long story and much has been written on this. The US media did the same for Trump. The people lost trust and switched to social media. And voted Trump as president, in spite the hundreds of negative articles that appeared on him by CNN, New York Times, New Yorker, Washington Post and many others. They switched off.

So, I looked up once again at media viewership and came up with this revealing data on TV news viewership.

Top 5 English news channels viewership (BARC data week Feb 2017):

Times Now 798,000 India Today 498,000 CNN-IBN 404,000 NDTV 376,000 BBC 184,000

Hindi News Channels (Feb 2017)

Simply put two million people watch the top five English channels put together. And 485 million people watch the top five Hindi news channels.

The conclusion is most of what we see in the English news channels is really not relevant in the context of forming public opinion. A viewership of just two million in a country of 1.3 billion is too small to be of any significance. Wake up reporters and anchors. Your air- conditioned environment plus huge salaries and popularity are at stake. Beat the streets and start feeling the pulse of all Indians not just the Liberals and their cronies.

DISCLAIMER : Views expressed above are the author's own.

Read more from the original source:
The liberals and their false angst on intolerance - Times of India (blog)