Mediaboss Marketing

Many media organizations have spent the past four years generally failing to adapt to a campaign, a president, a White House and an administration that is extremely online, said Stacy-Marie Ishmael, the editorial director of the nonprofit Texas Tribune. We are only, four years in, getting to grips with how to contend with rhetorical techniques, messaging and communications steeped in misinformation and propaganda.

Others predicted a deeper cultural shift from Stephen Colberts biting satire back to the sillier Jimmy Fallon, from politics back to entertainment, whenever the studios can get production running again. But some veterans of the business of politics doubt that news coverage can really calm down or that consumers can look away.

If Biden is elected, conservatives will be energized, not retreating, said Eric Nelson, the editorial director of Broadside Books, HarperCollinss conservative imprint. Trump will keep tweeting, and new scandals from his presidency will keep unfolding for well into 2022. By the time that all chaos and nonsense runs out, Trump could be running again for 2024.

You arent the only one just barely hanging on until Election Day. Most of the top leaders of many name-brand American news institutions will probably be gone soon, too. The executive editor of The Los Angeles Times, Norm Pearlstine, is looking to recruit a successor by the end of the year, he told me. Martin Baron, the executive editor of The Washington Post, just bought a house out of town and two Posties said they expected him to depart next year. He hasnt given notice, The Posts spokeswoman, Kristine Coratti Kelly, said. And the executive editor of The New York Times, Dean Baquet, is on track to retire by the time he turns 66 in 2022, two Times executives told me, dampening speculation that he might stay longer.

Over in big TV, Mr. Zucker, of CNN, has signaled that hes frustrated with WarnerMedia, and broadcast television is overflowing with speculation about how long the network news chiefs will stay on, though no executives have suggested imminent departures. Everyone is assuming theres going to be turnover everywhere, and everyone is absolutely terrified about who is going to come in, one television industry insider said.

This isnt just the usual revolving door. Newsroom leaders face strong pulls in conflicting directions. Outlets all along the spectrum, from the staid BBC to the radical Intercept, have been moving to reassert final editorial control over their journalists. But newsroom employees like a generation of workers across many industries are arriving with heightened demands to be given more of a say in running their companies than in years past. New leaders may find opportunities to resolve some of the heated newsroom battles of the last year, or they may walk into firestorms.

Mr. Pearlstine, the only one talking openly of his departure, told me that the new metrics for success might be different as well issues such as inclusiveness, such as being anti-racist, such as really commanding some new platform, be it podcasts or video or newsletters, in addition to having journalistic credentials.

Read more:
Its the End of an Era for the Media, No Matter Who Wins the Election - The New York Times

This week the seemingly interminable 2020 presidential campaign will (hopefully) be at an end. While it is too soon to predict whether Trump or Biden will prevail on November 3, it is almost certain thatsocialmediawill be declared the undisputed loser.

If Biden wins, the Republicans will likely allegeunfair treatment onsocialmediaas a contributing factor in their loss. In the months leading up to the election,socialmediaplatforms including Facebook and Twitter have repeatedly flagged, fact-checked, or removed a number ofTrumps posts. They will blamesocialmediafor not doing more to bepolitically neutral.

If Trump wins, the Democrats will likely allege insufficientcontrol of misinformationonsocialmediaas a primary cause.False informationabout coronavirus, candidates, and conspiracies spread faster thansocialmediasites can take it down. Thus, the Democrats will blamesocialmediafor not doing more to address misinformation.

Regardless of the outcome, the losing side will be primed to blamesocialmediafor their loss and try to punish them for it over the next four years. Meanwhile, the winning side will likely say they won in spite of a brokensocialmediaenvironment and try to fix the rules to their advantage for the next election cycle.

This hostility will set the stage for Congress and the next administration to come out guns blazing to try to set new rules forsocialmedia, and such proposals may find bipartisan appeal. Some will call to break up Big Tech based on the mistaken belief that having more and smaller platforms will lead to better national dialogues. Others will demand thatsocialmediacompanies be stripped of theirliability protectionfor third-party content, unless they adhere to new rules on content moderationrules that would differ by the party in power.

Overall, the impact of such rules would be a major setback for Americans. Whensocialmediaplatforms are turned into political punching bags, they are forced to prioritize the demands of the prevailing political winds rather than the need of their users. In this case, they would likely be forced to significantly limit what the average user posts online to avoid potential violations.

While this might indeed reduce misinformation and punish those perceived as insufficiently politically neutral, it would come at the expense of the vibrancy that makes these platforms attractive to users in the first place. Moreover, it would undermine long-held values on both sides. Conservatives would be turning on their commitments to free markets and individual liberty in favor of increased regulation and government control. And by placing greater restrictions onsocialmediaplatforms, liberals would be curtailing free speech online, which would be unfortunate because, as the ACLUs national legal director David Coleexplains, the targets of censorship are typically dissidents, outsiders, the marginalized.

Win or lose, both parties are likely to targetsocialmediafollowing the 2020elections. Reactionary policies to right perceived wrongs will ultimately hurt major U.S. tech companies, reduce U.S. competitiveness, and hurt U.S. consumers. The questions about fairly and transparently moderating online content that have emerged throughout this election cycle should continue after the votes are counted, but with an eye toward improving consumer welfare, not just the next election.

This article was originally published onInformation Technology & Innovation Foundation's website.Governing's opinion columns reflect the views of their authors and not necessarily those of Governing editors or management.

See the original post:
No Matter Who Wins the Election, Social Media Will Lose - Governing

2016 electoral map | Wikimedia Commons

Former Vice President and 2020 Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden is not only benefiting from a favorable electoral map, but also from favorable, biased coverage by the mainstream media.

This May, Biden angrily told a prominent Black radio host, If you have a problem figuring out whether youre for me or Trump, then you aint Black! In August 2019, he told a group of Iowa voters that poor kids are just as bright as white kids. As a senator from Delaware, he voted for a controversial crime bill, The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, which the American Civil Liberties Union criticized as a key contributor to the perpetuation of mass incarceration. Biden also voted for the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, a conflict that has lasted for 17 years and one that a 2018 Gallup poll found only 43% of Americans approve of. Bidens campaign platform also promises to consider implementing unprecedented national restrictions to combat the coronavirus, as well as limiting fracking by banning new oil and gas permitting on public lands and waters.

While Trumps antics and his own controversial actions have led to well-deserved media criticism, it is obvious that Biden, a U.S. Senator of 36 years and a vice president of eight years, has a huge public record that ought to be scrutinized and debated as he runs for president.

2020 was never about Biden or the Democratic party. It is about Trump, the pandemic, and his response to it. Sadly, the consequence of this focus has resulted in the Biden-Harris campaign rarely facing questions on the solvency or constitutionality of their policies.

According to an October 2020 article by The Hill, at least 119 newspaper editorials endorsed Biden, while only 6 endorsed Trump. While being a left-leaning publication does not disqualify a publication from providing objective media coverage, it means that the American media establishment has essentially become an extension of the Biden-Harris campaign. If a media outlet endorses a campaign, then that outlet should not be trusted to report objectively, because it is in its interest to promote the candidate it endorses. When The New York Times and Washington Post endorsed the Biden-Harris campaign, they revealed themselves to be partisan advocates, not fair informants. The same article from The Hill cited Purdue University Communications Professor Jennifer Hoewe, who said, Research has shown that newspaper endorsements are impactful, particularly if they come from an unexpected source.

An August 2020 Gallup poll found 86% of Americans believe there is a fair amount of bias in news coverage. This conclusion is hardly surprising, as the media routinely derides positions it disagrees with. Glance at any major news outlets opinion sectionor even newsand you find predictions that a Trump victory will crush democratic government, a claim that Trumps America is hopelessly racist, a long analysis of a controversial Trump tweet, or a fact-check that claims the latest Biden gaffe is being taken out of context.

The language used by commentators in the mainstream media also suggests that the issues at hand are dogmatic moral positions, rather than debatable policies. This willful ignorance of the other side is reminiscent of the prisoners in Platos Allegory of the Cave. In this allegory, chained prisoners were only able to see cave-fire illuminated shadows of objects. Only when a prisoner was able to leave behind his chains could he see the real object illuminated by the sun.

The mainstream media is the personification of the chains in Platos cave. The grand spectrum of politics is boiled down into two candidates who are clearly portrayed as representatives of good, Biden and the Democratic party, versus evilTrump. Complicated issues are simplified as moral goods versus the tyrannical evils, actively anti-racist or complicit in racism, forced redistribution of income or against the poor and healthcare. The medias simplistic framing of these issues, rather than courageously engaging in their complexities, creates a false image of moral and political goods. Regardless of where one stands on these issues, policy proposals and political philosophies of the candidates deserve to be debated on their merits, not accepted or dismissed because they do not fit a narrative.

The motto of the Washington Post is Democracy Dies in Darkness. Its words ring truer than ever because the Post, like many other outlets, appeals to the darkness of partisanship and a hypocritical application of righteousness against the rights faults, while dismissing the faults of the left. Instead of educating people to arrive at their own decisions, the mainstream media and its keyboard crusaders mislead and imprison people in their own ignorance, fear, and biases.

The medias coverage of the 2020 election bears a lot of the blame for our divisive politics, eroding liberties, and the shocking ignorance of the citizenry. Let us hope 2024 is different.

Thomas Curro is a sophomore studying politics.

Read the original post:
Media bias undermined the 2020 election - Hillsdale Collegian

The likely November 3 outcome that worries observers is this scenario: The voting boxes and machines might very likely reveal an early Trump lead, but as the postal ballots keep getting counted that lead will start whittling away. This will be keenly watched in currently borderline states like Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Texas, Georgia, and Florida, states that favoured Trump in 2016. Trump operatives are expected to scrutinise each and every postal ballot and challenge many. It is estimated that close to 1.3% of postal ballots are rejected on various technicalities. This suggests close to 110,000 rejected postal ballots. Remember in Florida in 2000 just 537 votes decided the outcome by requiring the Florida electoral votes to go to George W Bush. This time around hundreds of Trump lawyer operatives have fanned out and the electoral process can expect to get slowed down by the sheer weight of challenges. Trump has been quite blatantly signalling to his troops to hobble the postal ballot counting. He has now openly said it.

Postal ballots will have plenty of flaws for the Trump lawyers to seize upon. For instance, if a voter gives a different address, or a different version of his name such as Joe for Joseph or Richie for Richard, or if there is a variation in the signature, any one of them can become a ground for dispute. Now here comes the catch. The states are required to finalise the appointment of the 538 members of the Electoral College by December 8. The Electoral College will have to formally meet by December 14 to elect the President. The big question now is what next?

The USA and even the world are accustomed to choosing the Electoral College by popular vote, but nothing in the US Constitution says it has to be that way. Article II, section 1 states: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress.

The Republicans control the governorships and state legislatures many of the decisive states. Thus, these states can, in the absence of a popular vote, appoint the Electors.

If that happens, given the predicted red states voting for him, Donald Trump might very well be deemed to have been elected or decide he is still the elected President of the United States. The matter will almost certainly have to be resolved by the US Supreme Court. But its tendencies are well understood.

Here is the original post:
Biden might win, but Trump could still be President - National Herald

Jessica Brewer, LMH Health

Have you heard about da Vinci surgery? For something that may sound intimidating, it is quite the opposite. Dr. Jared Konie, a surgeon with Lawrence General Surgery, says this advanced technology allows surgeons to perform more difficult operations while remaining minimally invasive.

Dr. Jared Konie

The instruments are not much wider than a pencil, and have little wrists on the ends that can flex and rotate more than the human wrist, he said. Surgeons very carefully place these instruments inside the body, then attach the instruments to the da Vinci robot. The surgeon then controls the robotic instruments with pinpoint precision and the steadiest hands in the world.

Dr. Konie has been performing surgeries with the da Vinci robot since 2016, though the technology was approved by the FDA 20 years ago. Many people think that robotic surgery means that a robot does the operation instead of the surgeon, which is not the case.

Surgeons control the instruments and are responsible for every part of the operation, he said. Just as a crane operator moves levers and pushes buttons to slowly and precisely place a heavy beam on top of a building, surgeons use their fingers and foot pedals to delicately control the robotic instruments.

Like every surgical instrument and piece of technology, the da Vinci system is a tool. It does not replace laparoscopic surgery or open surgery and is not appropriate for every patient or every surgeon. It is up to patients and their surgeons to decide if this technology should be used for their particular operation.

For me in my practice, robotic surgery is a game-changer for repairing complex abdominal hernias and removing colon cancers, Dr. Konie said. When I see patients go home one day after robotic colon cancer surgery and they dont need a prescription for pain medication, I know weve done something right.

Dr. Logan Kracht

The da Vinci robot can be used in multitudes of surgeries, including gynecological procedures. Dr. Logan Kracht and Dr. Lynley Holman, physicians with Lawrence OB-GYN Specialists, both use the da Vinci in their practice.

Dr. Kracht has been using da Vinci technology since 2013 and one of his passions in the medical field is minimally invasive surgery. He enjoys being able to offer his patients a way to do a procedure where they will feel like themselves as soon as possible after their surgery.

A hysterectomy is considered a major surgery, Dr. Kracht said. It used to always require a single large incision, and you could count on needing at least two nights in the hospital for recovery. Not only does that require a long hospital stay, but medical costs were high. With da Vinci, we perform many of these major surgeries outpatient, which means they can go home on the same day to begin their recovery.

He said complicated surgeries can be accomplished more easily with da Vinci than with traditional open or laparoscopic surgery. For instance, a hysterectomy for a large uterus with fibroids doesnt have to require a large incision, and thus more pain and time for recovery. In his practice, these cases can be done with little laparoscopic incisions.

I have had patients who have minimal time off for medical procedures and because of da Vinci surgery, they feel better quicker and go back to work sooner, Dr. Kracht said. We strive to get people back to their preoperative state as soon as possible. Doing as many minimally-invasive cases as possible helps us to do this. It is great for our patients recovery and health to be able to leave the same day as they had their procedure.

He said we have two da Vinci robots at the main hospital that are equipped with the most up-to-date and advanced features. There are different parts and aspects that make the da Vinci great, and ours have the latest and greatest.

We are lucky to have the newest models and latest components for our da Vinci, Dr. Kracht said. Its awesome for us and the surgeons love using the latest technology that benefits our patients.

Dr. Lynley Holman

Dr. Holman said she has seen da Vinci surgery afford people a better surgery experience and give them the ability to go home the same day as their surgery.

We had a patient come to us seeking a second opinion because they had been told elsewhere the surgery they needed would be an open abdomen surgery with longer hospitalization and recovery, she said. With da Vinci, we were able to successfully operate and send the patient home on the same day as their surgery instead of requiring multiple overnight stays. Before da Vinci, there would have been no way to have results this impressive.

Dr. Holman said the robot allows surgeons the ability to do more surgeries per day with incredible precision, less risk, fewer incisions that are also smaller, and a better experience for our patients.

These are just a few of the great examples why da Vinci surgery is wonderful in our practices, she said. The technology we have allows us to care for our patients in the best way we can and to offer our patients more options that may be best for them.

Jessica Brewer is the social media and digital communications specialist at LMH Health.

More here:
Robotic surgery offers minimally invasive alternative to traditional surgery | LMH Health | Lawrence, KS - LMH Health