Mediaboss Marketing

MILAS, Turkey, Aug 4 (Reuters) - Turkey is battling the worst wildfires in its history, President Tayyip Erdogan said on Wednesday, as fires spread to a power station in the country's southwest after reducing swathes of coastal forest to ashes.

Fanned by high temperatures and a strong, dry wind, the fires have forced thousands of Turks and foreign tourists to flee homes and hotels near the Aegean and Mediterranean coasts. Eight people have died in the blazes since last week.

Planes and dozens of helicopters have joined scores of emergency crews on the ground to battle the fires, but Erdogan's government has faced criticism over the scale and speed of the response.

More than a week after the first fires broke out, 16 were still burning on Wednesday, the forestry minister said.

"The fires that happened this year never happened in our history," Erdogan told reporters in a televised interview. "This is the largest (outbreak)."

In the last two weeks, fires in Turkey have burnt more than three times the area affected in an average year, a European fire agency said. Neighbouring countries have also battled blazes fanned by heatwaves and strong winds.

A fire spread into a coal-fired power plant east of Bodrum in southwest Turkey after burning nearby since Tuesday, the local mayor said.

"Flames have entered the thermal power plant," said Muhammet Tokat, mayor of the town of Milas, adding that the plant was being evacuated.

Earlier, environmentalists said they were concerned about the impact if the fire spread to the plant's coal storage unit.

"Harmful gases could spread to the atmosphere if coal burns in an uncontrolled way," activist Deniz Gumusel said.

Tanks with flammable materials at the plant were emptied as a precaution, a reporter with Demiroren news agency said, and ditches had been dug as firebreaks.

Local officials, many from the opposition Republican People's Party (CHP), have complained that the government response has been slow or inadequate.

Firefighting planes from Spain and Croatia joined teams from Russia, Iran, Ukraine and Azerbaijan this week to battle blazes, after Turkey requested European support.

Opposition parties criticised Erdogan and his government for depleting firefighting resources over the years. Thousands also took to social media calling for Erdogan to step down, while others criticised the lack of resources and what they called inadequate preparations.

The government has defended its response to the wildfires, saying its efforts have been planned and coordinated.

Addional reporting by Yesim Dikmen; Editing by Dominic Evans, Janet Lawrence and David Gregorio

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

See original here:
Turkish wildfires are worst ever, Erdogan says, as power plant breached - Reuters

TEHRAN - For Ali Hedieloo, a 40-year-old making wooden furniture in Iran's capital, Instagram is more than just a surfeit of glossy images. Like an estimated 1 million other Iranians, its how he finds customers, as the app has exploded into a massive e-commerce service in the sanctions-hit country.

But now, the social media platform has come under threat. Iran moved last week toward further government restrictions on Instagram and other apps, as hardline lawmakers agreed to discuss a bill that many fear will undermine communication, wipe out livelihoods and open the door to the banning of key social media tools.

I and the people working here are likely to lose our jobs if this bill becomes effective," said Hedieloo from his dimly lit workshop in the southern suburbs of Tehran, where he sands bleached wood and snaps photos of adorned desks to advertise.

The bill has yet to be approved by Irans hardliner dominated parliament, but it is already stirring anxiety among young Iranians, avid social media users, online business owners and entrepreneurs. Iran is a country with some 94 million internet devices in use among its over 80 million people. Nearly 70% of Iran's population uses smartphones.

Over 900,000 Iranians have signed a petition opposing the bill. The protest comes at a tense time for Iran, with Ebrahim Raisi, the former judiciary chief and hard-line protege of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, assuming the countrys highest civilian position this week. Journalists, civil society advocates and government critics have raised the alarm about the possible increase of social repression once he takes office.

The draft legislation, first proposed this spring by conservative lawmakers, requires major foreign tech giants such as Facebook to register with the Iranian government and be subject to its oversight and data ownership rules.

Companies that host unregistered social media apps in Iran would risk penalties, with authorities empowered to slow down access to the companies' services as a way to force them to comply. Lawmakers have noted that the crippling U.S. sanctions on Iran make the registration of American tech companies in the country impossible, effectively ensuring their ban.

The law would also criminalize the sale and distribution of virtual private networks and proxies a critical way Iranians access long-blocked social media platforms like Facebook, Telegram, Twitter and YouTube. It also would bar government officials from running accounts on banned social media platforms, which they now use to communicate with citizens and the press. Even the office of the supreme leader has a Twitter account with over 890,000 followers.

And finally, the bill takes control of the internet away from the civilian government and places it under the armed forces.

The bill's goal, according to its authors, is to protect users and their rights. Hard-liners in the government have long viewed social messaging and media services as part of a soft war by the West against the Islamic Republic. Over time, Iran has created what some have called the halal internet the Islamic Republic's own locally controlled version of the internet aimed at restricting what the public can see.

Supporters of the bill, such as hard-line lawmaker Ali Yazdikhah, have hailed it as a step toward an independent Iranian internet, where people will start to prefer locally developed services" over foreign companies.

There is no reason to worry, online businesses will stay, and even we promise that they will expand too," he said.

Internet advocates, however, fear the measures will tip the country toward an even more tightly controlled model like China, whose Great Firewall blocks access to thousands of foreign websites and slows others.

Irans outgoing Information Technology Minister Mohammad Javad Azari Jahromi, whom the hard-line judiciary summoned for prosecution earlier this year over his refusal to block Instagram, warned that the bill would curtail access to information and lead to full-blown bans of popular messaging apps. In a letter to Raisi last month, he urged the president-elect to reconsider the bill.

Facebook, which owns Instagram, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Social media is a highly contested space in Iran, where the government retains tight control over newspapers and remains the only entity allowed to broadcast on television and radio. Over recent years, anti-government protesters have used social media as a communication tool to mobilize and spread their message, prompting authorities to cripple internet services.

During the turmoil in the fall of 2019, for instance, the government imposed a near-complete internet blackout. Even scattered demonstrations, such as the recent protests over water shortages in Iran's southwest, have seen disruptions of mobile internet service.

But many ordinary Iranians, reeling from harsh American sanctions that have severed access to international banking systems and triggered runaway inflation, remain more preoccupied with the bill's potential financial fallout.

As the coronavirus ravages Iran, a growing number of people like Hedieloo have turned to Instagram to make a living tutoring and selling homemade goods and art. Over 190,000 businesses moved online over the past year.

Although much about the bill's fate remains uncertain, experts say it already has sent a chill through commerce on Instagram, where once-hopeful users now doubt they have a future on the app.

I and everyone else who is working in cyberspace is worried, said Milad Nouri, a software developer and technology analyst. This includes a teenager playing online games, a YouTuber making money from their channel, an influencer, an online shop based on Instagram.

He added: "Everyone is somehow stressed."

More:
Iranians fear new bill will restrict social media further | MEO - Middle East Online

Ninety-nine words to wipe out 21 years walking hand in hand...not to mention 810 professional games, 683 goals, 10 Liga titles, seven Copas del Rey, four Champions League crowns and three FIFA Club World Cups.

Barcelona's terse statement on Thursday appears to leave no doubt, right down to the headline on the club website -- Leo Messi not staying at FC Barcelona -- that arguably the greatest single club career of any player ever has come to an end.

- Sources: Messi's Barcelona deal in limbo- Social media reacts to Messi news- Messi timeline: Breaking down his 20 years at Barcelona

But, as with Messi's own "Burofax" incident less than 12 months ago, there's more here than meets the eye.

Q: A few weeks ago everybody was reporting that Messi and the club had agreed to a new contract. Spanish media were hailing today as "Messi Day" -- the day when it would all become official. What happened?

A: All we know for certain right now is that, according to Barcelona, the club are unable to register the contract due to the Spanish league's rules on player registration, despite having reached an agreement for a new five-year deal with Messi. They don't go into specifics but it's safe to assume that they're referring to LaLiga's version of the "salary cap" which limits spending on wages and player acquisition costs based on projected club revenue and costs. And since Barcelona are in dire financial straits -- with more than a billion dollars of debt, of which as much as $800 million is described as short-term -- Messi's new contract won't get the green light. Which means he will leave.

Q: But how did this happen? Surely they knew what the limits were heading into the summer and the Messi negotiations...

A: Yeah, that's one of the mysteries here. Especially since they spent $9.6 million on Emerson from Real Betis and also made three free agent signings -- Memphis Depay from Lyon, and Sergio Aguero and Eric Garcia from Manchester City -- and the first two come with big salaries. The obvious question is this: If Messi was your priority (and he obviously was), why would you commit around $50m in wages and the Emerson fee to sign those four other players if it was going to put you over the cap? That's why plenty are speculating there's something else afoot.

Q: Such as?

A: Some reports are suggesting that there was a last minute hitch in the Messi deal, in terms of commissions to be paid and that he wasn't entirely happy with some of the club's transfer dealings this summer (even though they did sign his buddy and Argentina teammate, Aguero). And, because the club could never blame Messi, they're blaming LaLiga's rules instead. There may be some truth in that, but a much more plausible explanation may be the tense relationship with LaLiga and that it's a power play between Barca president Joan Laporta and Liga boss Javier Tebas.

2 Related

Q: What's that about?

A: In one word: control. Barcelona are, along with Real Madrid and Juventus, one of only three clubs who have not dropped out of the Super League and, in fact, are taking legal action to push their case. Tebas, as you'd expect, is dead set against the Super League as he believes it would hurt the competitive balance of LaLiga. Perhaps more important than that is the deal Tebas struck with a private equity firm, CVC Capital Partners, which would see LaLiga receive a cash infusion of around $3.2 billion in return for 10% of future revenues and a 10% stake in a newly formed commercial company. Barcelona, like Real Madrid (who, maybe not coincidentally, issued their own statement lamenting the deal on Thursday) are dead-set against the CVC agreement.

Q: Why don't they like the deal? Don't they want the cash?

A: I'm sure they do, but they also say Tebas negotiated the agreement without their knowledge and that it hands the future of the clubs over to private investors. They're likely also unhappy with how LaLiga and CVC might redistribute funds going forward. The deal now needs to be approved by the clubs and Real Madrid and Barcelona are likely to lead the "no" front.

Q: I get that, but how does Messi come into it?

A: Simply put, LaLiga, as a product, is less valuable without Messi. His departure, or even just the possibility of his departure, could turn public opinion against Tebas and his plans. Barcelona and Real Madrid generate the bulk of Liga revenue and a sizable chunk of that trickles down to other clubs. Messi leaving wouldn't just hurt Barcelona, it would hurt LaLiga. And not just in terms of image, but in commercial terms. That's another of the theories being bandied about. But there's a third, somewhat simpler scenario that may be the most plausible.

Q: What's that?

A: It's hard to believe that, having had months to talk to Messi and his family, Barcelona would not get their sums right and suddenly realize they couldn't afford him. The structure of the five-year deal they agreed suggests they were careful to stay within the cap. Plus, the transfer windows is still open until September. They could, conceivably, move on other players to keep him around. It wouldn't be easy, because the guys they'd like to transfer out of Barca are on high salaries and few clubs could afford them, but there are ways to do it. Not to mention the fact that if Messi was as committed to staying as they suggest, he could lower his wage demands or include more bonuses in his package or whatever. Instead, they're announcing that they're throwing in the towel now.

Q: And what does that suggest?

A: That it's a strategic move to spook Tebas. Either within the context of CVC or the Super League or, more simply, in terms of cutting them some slack on the salary cap. This feels like giving up without a fight. And I can't see Barcelona -- or Messi -- doing that.

Q: OK, let's assume you're wrong. Let's assume it really is over. Where could he go to next?

A: The usual suspects will be mooted: Paris Saint-Germain, Manchester City, maybe Manchester United, maybe a move to Major League Soccer. But the fact of the matter is that Messi became a free agent on July 1 and, legally, from Jan. 1, he could have signed a pre-contract with anyone. And, while there may have been interest from City 12 months ago, in the Burofax days, it's not as if clubs were beating a path to his door in the past six months. Why? Because many believed he was committed to staying at Barcelona. Now, most clubs have made other plans. City are pursuing Harry Kane. PSG are trying to extend Kylian Mbappe's deal before he becomes a free agent next June (and they've committed huge amounts in salary on big name free agents like Georginio Wijnaldum, Gianluigi Donnarumma and Sergio Ramos). Signing Messi would be a huge undertaking, you don't just magic up close to half a billion dollars over the next five years out of nowhere.

Q: So what's going to happen?

A: I'm purely speculating here, we may know more when Laporta addresses the media on Friday and, by the way, we haven't heard from Messi himself yet. But fundamentally we have a situation where -- at least according to Barca's statement -- Messi wants to stay and the club want to keep him, but the league won't allow it, even though his departure would hurt everyone, league included. Does that sound right or logical to you? No, it doesn't. Because it isn't. My guess is come Sept. 1, he'll still be a Barcelona player. Either because he will have restructured the contract they agreed or because Barca will have recouped some transfer fees or because LaLiga will have revised their salary cap to accommodate the club. Or a combination of all three.

Originally posted here:
Messi to leave Barcelona: Breaking down the scenarios on how this saga will play out - ESPN

Facebook gives people a way to stay connected and share photos, stories, and opinions.

And according to a survey conducted in June, its also an avenue to influence whether people get vaccinated against COVID-19.

The survey, led by The COVID States Project, found that people who get most of their news via Facebook are less likely than the average American to be vaccinated against COVID-19.

Katherine Ognyanova, PhD, a co-author of the survey results, is an associate professor of communication at the Rutgers School of Communication and Information and part of a coalition of researchers from Rutgers-New Brunswick, Northeastern, Harvard, and Northwestern universities.

She said the findings suggest theres a considerable group of vaccine-hesitant people who get their COVID-19 information primarily from social media.

This could be because they encounter more bad information on those platforms. False stories can spread fast and reach large groups of people online. It could also be because Americans who do not trust traditional institutions (mainstream media, the government, health experts) rely primarily on social media for their news. Most likely, it is some combination of the two, and we need more research to better understand whats happening, Ognyanova told Healthline.

As part of the survey, respondents were asked questions about sources they use for news and COVID-19 information, including, Facebook, CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, the Biden administration, and Newsmax.

Researchers discovered that Facebook is a major source of information, comparable with CNN or Fox News.

They also found that Facebook users are less likely to be vaccinated against COVID-19 than those who get their COVID-19 information from Fox News.

Additionally, Ognyanova said that Newsmax was the only source in the survey whose viewers noted lower vaccination levels and higher vaccine resistance than respondents who turn to Facebook for health news.

Misinformation in any form always has the potential to harm, sometimes with deadly consequences. This is especially true when we talk about misinformation that steers people away from seeking appropriate medical care, Dr. Joseph M. Pierre, professor in UCLAs department of psychiatry and biobehavioral sciences, and author of the column Psych Unseen, told Healthline.

As of June 2021, 99 percent of COVID-19 deaths were occurring among unvaccinated people, he added.

Statistics like that speak for themselves, Pierre said.

The COVID States Project survey found that respondents who rely exclusively on Facebook for pandemic information were more likely to believe misinformation, such as claims that the COVID-19 vaccines will alter DNA or that they contain microchips to track people.

Online misinformation can increase the levels of uncertainty among people who are vaccine-hesitant, and harden the conviction of those who are vaccine-resistant. To be sure, it is only one among many factors that drive peoples decisions to get vaccinated. But it remains an important issue to tackle (along with many other logistic challenges) if we want to put the pandemic behind us, Ognyanova said.

Mistrust in media is another factor that leads to vulnerability toward misinformation.

According to the survey, people who rely on Facebook are less trusting of the media.

Thirty-seven percent of the people who got their news exclusively through Facebook in the preceding 24 hours said they trust the media some or a lot compared with 47 percent for everyone else.

Additionally, the survey found that:

We live in an era of rampant mistrust of government, of the media, of scientific institutions, and of our neighbors. Within the free market of ideas that is the internet, that means that counter-information in the form of misinformation and deliberate disinformation will be there to fill the void that mistrust leaves behind, Pierre said.

Despite efforts from platforms like Facebook to stop misinformation, it continues to spread because of how quickly it can reach millions of people when shared by popular influencers or posted on Facebook groups with millions of members before its removed.

Pierre added that misinformation spreads faster and further than accurate news does.

Because of this, disinformation has become a profitable industry.

It sells. And any time something is profitable and still mostly unregulated its unlikely to stop, Pierre said.

Ognyanova agreed, stating that misinformation is unlikely to go away anytime soon due to financial or ideological incentives to produce it.

In the context of health, harmful claims can get elevated and distributed by people who genuinely believe they are spreading useful information, she said.

Solutions that combine multiple approaches, such as technological, social, regulatory, and educational, are the best way to curb misinformation, said Ognyanova.

Misinformation corrections and general health recommendations are most persuasive when they come from a trusted party. Corporate and government actors need to work together, as well as involving researchers and teachers, she said.

Pierre said institutions of authority have to address mistrust by being transparent and engaging the public.

Educating the public about how to separate reliable information from bogus information in online spaces and the media is also needed. This involves learning how to read past headlines, how to separate facts and opinions, how to spot bias, and basic data reasoning, said Pierre.

Thats something that, for the most part, isnt part of education at all. The reality is that this might take a generation to fix, assuming we got started now, he said.

Additionally, he pointed to a debate regarding misinformation.

Should [there] be limits on the free market of ideas or what I call because its so chaotic, rewarding the loudest and most outrageous voices the flea market of ideas? Pierre said.

This debate brings up questions like:

I say no, but thats something were all going to have to decide as a society, Pierre said.

Next time youre scrolling through Facebook or another platform and you see a friend share misinformation, Pierre suggested that you think before you click and read before you share.

I do think theres a responsibility to counter misinformation in its place that is, calling out misinformation when we see it posted online by people we know but theres always a risk of getting mired into unproductive debate and conflict, he said.

While Ognyanova believes misinformation corrections can be effective when they come from people who are close to us, she said if youre going to correct a friend, being able to provide not just evidence of the truth but also give context and an accessible explanation may be most effective.

Also very important: We want to do all of that without antagonizing the friend who shared the story. In the end, even if that person is not persuaded, others who see the information may be, she said.

Cathy Cassata is a freelance writer who specializes in stories around health, mental health, medical news, and inspirational people. She writes with empathy and accuracy and has a knack for connecting with readers in an insightful and engaging way. Read more of her work here.

Read the original:
People Less Likely to Be Vaccinated When Facebook Is Main News Source - Healthline

If it were possible to measure confidence on a device with a scale, Hansens numbers would have been off the charts in the week of the final. He wasnt complacent, or arrogant he simply knew that his side had the measure of the Wallabies in every way.

He respected them, knew the dangers they posed and was aware that Australia had emerged through the so-called pool of death and were in great form, battle hardened and a different team to the one they had been a few months earlier at Eden Park when the All Blacks thumped them. Still, they left none of the residual doubt in Hansen the way the semi-final fixture against the Springboks had. Since Hansen had been elevated to the top job, the All Blacks had beaten the Wallabies eight times, drawn twice and lost once.

A big part of his role that week was trying to keep the team shielded from distractions. That meant not putting into the public domain anything the Wallabies, especially their coach Michael Cheika, could feed off in the buildup to the final. Hansen didnt want the media to have cheap, inflammatory headlines they could twist to provoke tension between the two teams and further enhance the sense of grievance the Wallabies appeared to be carrying.

Hansen, throughout his tenure, had used the media to niggle the various Australian coaches hed encountered. He made his famous loaded gun remark about Robbie Deans. In 2013 and 2014 he frequently baited Deans replacement Ewen McKenzie accurately predicting what selections he would make, then offering him some advice about why they were maybe not the right ones. These sorts of remarks were not off the cuff. Hansen was entirely strategic in the way he occasionally baited a rival coach.

He didnt do it for the sake of creating drama or a bit of theatre. He did it, ultimately, because he had determined it would be of benefit to the team. And to reach the conclusion that it was best for the team, he had to weigh up factors such as his confidence in winning any verbal exchange. He didnt ever pick a fight he didnt think hed win.

In the case of McKenzie, somehow Hansen knew through his incredible network of informants that tension was rising in the Wallabies over the coachs inability to settle on a No 10. Hansen also felt that McKenzie, despite fancying himself as a sharp media operator, was no intellectual giant and not in possession of the sort of sharp wit and calculating mind that could hold his own in a verbal sparring contest. Hansen felt he could dominate McKenzie in the media and hurt his confidence by doing so.

But Cheika, who took over the Wallabies in November 2014, a job he held co-jointly with his head coaching role at the Waratahs until the end of Super Rugby in 2015, was a different story. Cheika, in Hansens view, was dangerously volatile. The Australian had a reputation for being abrasive. He was unpredictable and hot-headed, as demonstrated earlier in 2015 when coaching the Waratahs in Super Rugby.

At half-time during a match against the Blues in Sydney, Cheika had stormed into the referees room to make some suggestions about where he was going wrong. It was a clear infringement of the rules but what made it more reckless was that Cheika did this at a time when he was under a six-month suspended suspension for kicking a cameraman. Somehow Cheika escaped being banned, but Hansen was amazed that a coach of such standing and experience would risk so much just to berate a referee in a Super Rugby game.

Hansen, then, couldnt be sure of the value in trying to get under Cheikas skin in the week of the final. He didnt know how the Australian would react and more importantly, Hansen sensed that Cheika liked the idea of getting into a verbal scrap and would relish it. Cheika was eager to portray his team as the underdog and was fostering a siege mentality. He would have twisted anything Hansen said and used it to further convince his players the world was against them. The Wallabies had harnessed that sense of grievance all tournament to great effect and Cheikas modus operandi was to use that energy to instil controlled anger and a greater alignment of purpose between players and coach.

That calmness and focus was taken on to the field by the All Blacks and they went about patiently, but quite ruthlessly, dismantling the Wallabies in the first half, before Nonu went on to blast 50m to score and push the All Blacks to a 213 lead. Hansen felt that come the final quarter, the floodgates would open. The game did turn in the final quarter, but not in the direction everyone had been expecting.

Ben Smith was yellow-carded for a dangerous tackle after 58 minutes and the Wallabies scored two tries to close things up at 2117. Still, even though the Wallabies scored two tries while Smith was off the field and closed the gap to just four points, there was never any sense of panic in Hansen. He knew that McCaw was at the zenith of his powers and would calmly, with 15 men again on the field, bring everyone back to the task at hand. He knew that the set-piece was dominating, that the All Blacks were in control of the breakdown and when Carter landed a 40m drop goal after 69 minutes to restore the lead to seven and Hansens face came up on the big screen as the ball sailed through the posts, and the world was looking at a coach who knew his team had won.

The World Cup in 2015 was a tournament that went the way we planned it to go and I think the outcome was pretty special for rugby because I dont think too many tournaments had been won by a lot of points being scored by either team, he said.

And that final game was a pretty good game of footy. Australia wanted to play and we wanted to play and so you got a good game and it was an accumulation of each week being done right and to win World Cups that is what has to happen, but it was a really enjoyable tournament. The 2011 one was tough because we just had to win it and it was all done when it was finished. But this one was enjoyable all the way through. Dad didnt have the opportunity to say to me go and win the World Cup in 2015. He would just have expected it. I didnt have that wee moment straight after the final which I did in 2011 thinking about Mum. When I reflected on it later I might have said to [my wife] Tash, It would have been good if the old boy had been here.

This is an edited extract from Steve Hansen: The Legacy by Gregor Paul (HarperCollins NZ, HB) RRP $50 (NZ) $45 (AUS), available now

See more here:
Media tactics and strategic baiting: inside the mind of ex-All Blacks coach Steve Hansen - The Guardian