Mediaboss Marketing

Eighteen months ago, I was combing through the Apollo 11 mission logs, looking at the timelines and events for something unique that we might focus on to celebrate the 50th anniversary of humankinds first landing on the moon. Last year, that idea became the BBC World Service podcast 13 Minutes to the Moon.

As the series drew to a close, it became clear that there was unfinished business. Some of the flight controllers who had been present for the Apollo 11 landing had also worked on another, arguably more dramatic, endeavour the ill-fated flight of Apollo 13.

That mission was crippled by an explosion while en route to the moon and nearly 200,000 miles from Earth. The story was popularised in 1995 in a Hollywood film starring Tom Hanks, but I knew that there was much more behind the narrative than the movie had managed to tell. So for the new series of the podcast I wanted to get under the skin of the thing and focus not just on the crew who flew the mission, but also on those who saved it the incredible team of flight controllers who worked round the clock in shifts for 87 hours.

We were after more than the story, gripping though it is. I wanted to understand what lessons we all might learn from what became arguably Nasas finest achievement: the recovery from catastrophe in deep space and the rescue of a crew from what looked like certain death. How do you lead a team through that? How do you keep yourselves going in the face of something so hopeless? It felt to me like there should be something all of us might learn.

Apollo 13 was the United States third mission to land humans on the moon. Launched on 11 April 1970, it followed less than a year after Neil Armstrongs successful first lunar landing and famous small step. Commander Jim Lovell, a former US navy test pilot and spaceflight veteran, led a crew of two rookie astronauts, Jack Swigert and Fred Haise. Things had gone awry even before launch. Swigert was a late inclusion in the crew, having been swapped in at the last moment to replace his colleague Ken Mattingly who had been exposed to a case of German measles. But this drama in the buildup to the mission drew only moderate interest from the media.

To the American public, sending people to the moon, a feat that had existed only at the limits of their imagination just 12 months earlier, had now taken on the air of something almost routine. There was much less press hoopla about the launch itself and television networks across America declined the opportunity to interrupt their schedules and include live inserts of Apollo 13s early inflight broadcasts. The view of the editorial teams back on Earth was clear: astronauts had landed on the moon not once but twice already and, with much of the novelty gone, the Apollo 13 mission deserved little attention, or so they thought.

Fifty-six hours in, with the crew nearly 200,000 miles from Earth, an explosion in one of Apollo 13s two oxygen tanks left the command module Odyssey fatally damaged. Coasting in space, with alarms flashing all around them, bleeding oxygen and losing electrical power, Lovell, Swigert and Haise were suddenly in deep trouble.

The lunar landing was called off and over the next four days, the crew and mission control would find themselves fending off deadly threats over and over again. They would solve problems one day, only to discover a host of new complications that might kill the crew the next. But they kept working together, across hundreds of thousands of miles of empty space, with everything against them, until they got the crew all the way back.

On 17 April 1970, with the world watching, Apollo 13 reached Earth again. The capsule, surrounded by an inferno created by the heat of re-entry into the atmosphere, became impossible to contact by radio. At mission control, they watched and waited in silence.

We tend to mythologise these stories of outrageous survival to the extent that it becomes difficult to tease fact apart from fiction. This is doubly true of Apollo 13. The popular retelling goes something like this: Apollo 13 was rescued by an elite team led by flight director, Gene Kranz, for whom failure was not an option. The rescue was executed calmly and deftly without any doubts that it would succeed.

But you only have to listen to the opening hours of the mission control recordings and the space-to-ground radio transmissions to know that was not the case. After the rupture of the oxygen tank, both the crew and their flight controllers struggled to make sense of what was happening.

That the mission control team was caught flat-footed in the opening phase of the accident is strangely reassuring. Nobody, not even the exhaustively drilled Nasa flight controllers, is able to glide swan-like through chaos like that. Initially there was no structure. There were misdiagnoses and mistakes. The vehicle had failed so totally that it fleetingly crossed the mind of at least one flight controller that he should simply pack up and go home.

Exemplary leadership is what got them through that first hour. Kranz kept his team and the vehicle together masterfully, buying time enough to start solving the problem. When reviewing the response to sudden crises, we often overlook that chaotic period, simply because it has little real structure and doesnt appear to move things forward. But preventing a team from disintegrating in the face of an apparently overwhelming challenge is a feat in itself. The average age of the flight control team was 27; some were freshly graduated from university. During routine mission operations you would never guess that; their statements are so clear and confident, their knowledge so deep. But immediately after the accident there are times when, listening to the mission audio loop, you hear a hint of fearful youth.

Nasa had learned to be wary they knew that plans hatched in theheat of the moment often harbour flaws

After a torrid hour of failed troubleshooting, a new shift of flight controllers arrived, as well as a new flight director, waiting to take their turn. They were at this point still in the thick of the fight and the temptation for Kranz to keep going and refuse to relinquish control must have been enormous. Nevertheless he passed the baton to the incoming team, recognising that fresh eyes and minds were what was needed. This is the true spirit of teamwork the ability to know when your part is done, when someone new can bring something better than you can.

That ability to relinquish control and delegate authority didnt stop there. The Apollo missions were complex endeavours. Nobody could be across it all and Nasa knew that in mission control it had a team of people who, as a whole, were far greater than the sum of their individual parts.

In approaching this crisis, their delegation of authority and deference to expertise is almost total. In the face of high-stakes scenarios, it is tempting to wrest control from more junior colleagues. But in 1970 the approach of mission control was quite different. They empowered their most junior team members, giving them total ownership of their specialist stations. They would interrogate their recommendations but not second-guess them. It is a lesson that industry and wider society has largely failed to heed.

The other aspect of the Apollo 13 mission that I found fascinating during our interviews with the team was the depth of Nasas preparation. I had always imagined Apollo 13 to be a feat of wall-to-wall improvisation. After all, the rupture of the oxygen tank had torn the heart out of the command module, leaving it dead, forcing the astronauts to use the lunar module as a lifeboat and means of propulsion.

But what surprised me was how little of the response to the accident demanded improvised solutions. Nasa had learned to be wary of creativity and inventiveness in the heat of the moment. That doesnt mean it refused to improvise, nor that it wasnt capable of doing it well only that it knew plans hatched in the heat of battle often harbour hidden flaws.

Incredibly, Nasa had already rehearsed many of the contingency and fallback plans required to rescue Apollo 13. In earlier missions, it had experimented with using the lunar modules engines to drive both it and the command module. It had a checklist ready to manage the sudden powering down of the command module that was required to save dwindling battery power. Nasa even had a procedure for flying the spacecraft without their primary navigation and guidance computer. And then, when finally it had no choice but to improvise, it did it with same obsession and attention to detail it brought to everything else.

Finally, we should turn to the things we think we know about the mission through retellings in popular culture. The best quotes are often misquotes. For example nobody ever said: Houston, we have a problem. The precise words were: Houston, weve had a problem. That is just a glitch in tense.

More significant is the missions other catchphrase Failure is not an option which we have taken to characterise Nasa as the sort of steel-willed organisation that steadfastly refuses to entertain the possibility of failure. But in truth nobody uttered those words during the mission. The quote itself derives from a line of script in the 1995 movie and Kranz then borrowed it as the title for his autobiography, published in 2000.

And while the flight controllers enjoyed regurgitating that particular strand of mythology to us, it was clear that the possibility of failure remained very real throughout the mission. Fifty years later, several of the flight controllers were still moved to tears when describing the moment when Apollo 13 finally reappeared after the communications blackout.

Despite their protestations, it became obvious that they all must have known how perilous the scenario was. But, importantly, what they didnt do was devote any time to contemplating disaster. As flight director Glynn Lunney, who relieved Kranzs first shift told me: If you spend your time thinking about the crew dying, youre only going to make that eventuality more likely.

The second series of 13 Minutes to the Moon starts on the BBC World Service at 11.30am on Wednesday 11 March. It will be available on BBC Sounds from Monday 9 March

Originally posted here:
50 Years on how Apollo 13's near disastrous mission is relevant today - The Guardian

The World Health Organization launched a TikTok account on Friday as part of its efforts to cut through coronavirus misinformation online. A specialized public health agency of the United Nations, WHO is one of the leading organizations working to contain the spread of the virus.

In WHOs first video, Benedetta Allegranzi, technical lead of infection prevention and control, describes measures people can take to protect themselves from the novel coronavirus and directs them to the organizations website for additional information.

We are joining [TikTok] to provide you with reliable and timely public health advice, WHO wrote in the description of its first video.

TikTok has been flooded with memes about the novel coronavirus over the past few weeks, with some users pretending to be infected. In one case, a teenager made a video suggesting that their friend was the first Canadian confirmed to have caught the virus. TikTok did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The launch of the TikTok account is part of WHOs work to get accurate information concerning the novel coronavirus to people online. According to the MIT Technology Review, WHO and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have spent the last couple of weeks of the outbreak fighting misinformation regarding the virus on platforms like Facebook, Twitter, Tencent, and TikTok.

Information from WHO already tops Google results for search queries about the novel coronavirus. Facebook users scrolling through their news feeds are also met with messages directing them to visit government websites for information on the virus. Twitter users see a message that says Know the facts and directs them to visit the CDCs website for the best information on the novel coronavirus when they search for content related to the virus. TikTok also links users who search for virus-related content to the WHO website.

The coronavirus information partnerships are similar to how platforms reacted to criticism over anti-vaxx content on their platforms over the past few years.

WHO has also made strides to post accurate novel coronavirus information to its other social media accounts like Instagram. The organizations Instagram feed is filled with infographics outlining how people can protect themselves from the virus.

WHO did not immediately respond to a request for comment from The Verge.

Read more:
The World Health Organization has joined TikTok to fight coronavirus misinformation - The Verge

The former New York mayor seeks to contrast himself with President Donald Trump. Bloomberg will argue that he has the experience needed to handle the crisis, according to an advanced copy of the remarks provided by his campaign.

The ad, called "Leadership in Crisis," will air at approximately 8:30 p.m. ET on CBS and NBC.

"At times like this it is the job of the President to reassure the public that he or she is taking all the steps necessary to protect the health and well-being of every citizen," the remarks by Bloomberg read.

"The public wants to know their leader is trained, informed and respected," Bloomberg's speech continues. "When a problem arises, they want someone in charge who can marshal facts and expertise to confront the problem."

It is unclear how much the Bloomberg campaign is spending on the spot.

The novel coronavirus has killed more than 2,900 people worldwide, the vast majority in mainland China. The Trump administration announced new travel restrictions on Saturday after confirmation of the first coronavirus death in the US.

The World Health Organization says the outbreak has reached the "highest level" of risk for the world, with the director-general warning it can go in "any direction."

In the ad, Bloomberg accuses Trump of "putting lives at risk by ignoring science and dismissing the spread of the virus as a 'hoax'," according to a news release by the Bloomberg campaign. He calls Trump's actions "dangerous" and his public communications with the American public on the issue "dishonest."

Bloomberg, who served as mayor of New York City from 2002 to 2013, touts his experience handling crises. Bloomberg says he was elected mayor weeks after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and "dealt with a hurricane, a blackout, attempted terror attacks, the West Nile virus and swine flu."

The billionaire businessman said he focused on planning ahead and working with hospitals and first responders "to develop plans in advance, to improve communication and to invest in preparedness."

Bloomberg made a late entry into the 2020 Democratic race in November 2019, offering a more moderate vision for the country and casting himself as a problem solver. He is the co-founder, CEO, and owner of Bloomberg L.P., a privately-held financial, software, data, and media company.

See the article here:
Bloomberg to air coronavirus address in 3-minute TV ad - CNN

By 1690, Jamaica was the jewel of Britains American possessions. An economy largely based on the production of sugar brought wealth and led to the beginnings of an imperial system.

But that system was built on the almost unimaginably brutal reality of slavery, enforced by almost equally unimaginable cruelties and daily punishments and control.

The system was ruthless and relentless. In the mid-18th century one plantation in Westmoreland Parish, site of the most serious slave revolt in 1760, recorded twice as many deaths as births, many from pure overwork. Importation of fresh slaves, often from the Gold Coast of Africa, filled the gap and reinforced the system yet contained the seeds of the systems eventual destruction.

Vincent Browns Tackys Revolt: The Story of An Atlantic Slave War, places the Jamaican revolts of 1760 firmly within the broader history of the time, notably the Seven Years War, for which Brown comments that historians have barely noticed that the Jamaican insurrection was one of its major battles. The judgment is correct when one remembers that the Caribbean, not just Quebec, was key to British strategy.

This is not popular history, perhaps in either sense of the word. But it is important history

War suffuses this book: wars among African polities, wars between the European powers such as the War of Jenkins Ear and the Seven Years War, war and violence on the daily life of the plantation between master and enslaved. These wars within wars, Brown writes, ensured that slaverys violent conflicts integrated Europe, Africa, America, and the Atlantic ocean.

Brown endorses the phrase of freed slave and soldier Olaudah Equiano: that slavery was itself a state of war. Overseer and diarist Thomas Thistlewood chronicled the inhumanity of slavery, including his own brutalities. The daily violence of plantation life was a war for control no less than the broader contest in the Caribbean between Britain, France and Spain.

It is thus a small step for Brown to conclude that recognizing slave revolt as a species of warfare is the first step toward a new cartography of Atlantic slavery.

African commanders including Tacky, who had probably held a royal office or lineage in one of the Gold Coasts eastern kingdoms, and Apongo, a leader among the Akan-speaking peoples in both Africa and Jamaica, brought knowledge of military strategy and tactics.

Brown studies the movements of the insurrection closely and draws conclusions about its military and political aims. With experience of African political and economic life, the slaves sought something more than freedom alone. As Brown writes, their pattern of warfare indicates an attempt at territorial and political control, a strategy of maneuver rather than of retreat, evasion, or escape.

The revolt of the title was put down suddenly and fiercely. It began on 7 April 1760 in St Marys Parish but was possibly premature. A larger conflict, which the British called the Coromantee war, was timed for the Whitsun holidays and for when the merchant fleet sailed to Britain, leaving the island less defended. It continued for months.

After initial success in Westmoreland Parish and retreat into the mountains and forests from which they conducted skirmishes and other tactics largely derived from African warfare, the Coromantee rebels succumbed to overwhelming British power.

The Navy brought the full resources of transatlantic empire to bear against the rebels, Brown writes, articulating the local conflict to the wider war.

Dense, closely argued and meticulously researched, this is not popular history, perhaps in either sense of the word. But it is important history. Historians have long recognized the Seven Years War as a global conflict but this book brings the role of Africa and Africans fully into the struggle.

As Brown writes in conclusion: The Coromantee war was at once an extension of the African conflicts that fed the slave trade, a race war among black slaves and white slaveholders, an imperial conquest, and an internal struggle between black people for control of territory and the establishment of a political legacy.

The economic, political and cultural consequences of this war within wars reverberated out from Jamaica to other colonies, across the ocean to Great Britain and back again to the island, where the revolt reshaped public life and lodged deeply in collective memory.

The Jamaican revolts influenced, sometimes in subtle ways, the movement for abolition of the slave trade, and eventually slavery itself, on both sides of the Atlantic. To correct a victors perspective and recover lost history and the dignity of the enslaved, Brown has written a 21st-century military history one which takes full account of all the combatants and those for whom they fought.

See the original post:
Tacky's Revolt review: Britain, Jamaica, slavery and an early fight for freedom - The Guardian

A senior State Department official said Tuesday that Xinhua, China Global Television Network, China Radio International, China Daily and People's Daily will be designated as "foreign missions," effective immediately, in accordance with the Foreign Missions Act.

The change in designation means these companies will now need US government approval to buy or lease office space and will have to register personnel changes, including new hires and staff departures, with the State Department just as foreign diplomatic missions do.

The official justified the step by saying the outlets are owned and effectively controlled by the government in Beijing and that each meets the definition of a foreign mission.

"They are part and parcel of the People's Republic of China propaganda machine," the official said. "The fact of the matter is each and every single one of these entities does in fact work 100% for the Chinese government and the Chinese Communist Party," the official added. "These guys are on the organizational chart."

None of the media outlets responded to CNN's requests for comment. The Chinese Embassy also did not immediately return requests for comment.

But on Wednesday, Foreign Ministry spokesperson Geng Shuang condemned the US decision and accused Washington of prejudice and hypocrisy.

"We deplore and reject the wrong decision of the US," Geng said, adding that media facilitate communication between different countries. "The US touts its press freedom. However, it is wantonly restricting and thwarting Chinese media outlets' normal operation there. This is totally unjustified and unacceptable. We urge the US to discard its ideological prejudice and Cold War zero-sum game mentality and stop ill-advised measures that undermine bilateral trust and cooperation."

Geng added that China would "reserve the right to take further measures in response."

In the same briefing, Geng announced that China is revoking the press credentials for three Wall Street Journal journalists in Beijing in retaliation for the paper's recent op-ed titled "China is the real sick man of Asia."

The State Department official, speaking on background, said the move was not meant to "put any constraint" on the work done by employees of the five firms, or change how they operate, but was intended to create some transparency. A second senior State Department official said the Chinese entities were informed Tuesday.

The Trump Administration is acting now, the first official said, because Chinese leadership has tightened its control over these media outlets while it has expanded their global reach in recent years. State control "has gotten stronger over time, and it's far more aggressive, their activities outside of China including here in the United States," the first official said. "Based on that, we decided it was time to act," they said.

This official also pointed to the 2017 National Security Strategy, which identified great power competition as a central focus and China as one of the US' main competitors, along with Russia.

No move against Russian outlets

Neither official could explain why Russian state-owned media outlets operating in the US were not being designated as well.

The move on the media companies comes as senior US officials have turned up the volume on their criticism of China on the world stage, even as they seek Beijing's cooperation on foreign policy issues from Iran to North Korea and wants its help in understanding and containing the novel coronavirus.

In Washington on Tuesday, the first State Department official said they would not speculate on China's response or possible retaliation against American journalists working in the country. "Western journalists already suffer very severe restrictions," the official said.

Neither official offered an answer when asked if the information about personnel could be used in counterintelligence efforts against China, a recent administration focus. The second official said that making the media entities register as foreign missions "helps improve our understanding of how these entities do operate in the United States." This official added that the administration doesn't currently have a list of the media companies' employees.

Guidelines about the the way information about the media outlets' foreign and American employees will be used will be laid out in a System of Records Notice on the State Department website and a notice about the change will be published in the Federal Register on Thursday, the second official said.

Asked what happens if the entities do not comply and provide the required information, the second official said, "We don't expect them not to comply."

Read the original here:
US to treat Chinese state media like an arm of Beijing's government - CNN