Archive for the ‘Media Control’ Category

During catastrophic flooding, press poses Trump hurricane ‘test’ – Fox News

What will it take for Donald Trump to pass the test?

With the president and first lady arriving in Texas today, will the journalists who questioned whether Trump could handle Hurricane Harvey at least give him credit for showing compassion?

He is, at the very least, avoiding the symbolic mistake of George W. Bush in flying over New Orleans after Katrina. (Bush later admitted this was a huge mistake that made him look detached and uncaring.)

While Harveys catastrophic flooding is overwhelming authorities in Houston, Trump hasnt made any significant missteps so far. He held video conferences with senior officials from Camp David--with the White House sending out pictures to create an image of control.

Virtually every mainstream media outlet has been touting the hurricane as the first natural disaster test for Trump, often rooted in an assumption that a guy with no government experience has no idea how to deal with this. And its early in the process. If FEMA screws up, the president will rightly be criticized. But lets not jump the gun.

The real test, in my view, for a president whos been at war with both parties, is for him to pull together a Texas aid package on the Hill, because staggering amounts of money are going to be needed to rebuild these areas in the coming months and years. And in past battles over Katrina and Sandy, some Republicans have argued against federal disaster aid without offsetting spending cuts.

But as the hurricane drama plays out, the media are pursuing a parallel story line about Trump becoming more isolated within his administration.

(Interesting aside: The press is free to cover political controversies as the hurricane damage mounts, but if Trump, amid a series of Harvey messages, tweets about having won Missouri before visiting the state, some critics say aha, he doesnt care!)

Axios reports that the president is getting fed up with Rex Tillerson, a narrative that was fueled when the secretary of State spoke about the American peoples values on Fox News Sunday.

When Chris Wallace said, And the presidents values?, Tillerson replied: The president speaks for himself.

Pundits are coupling this with the fallout from chief economic adviser Gary Cohn speaking out against Trumps handling of Charlottesville.

At the same time, the media are increasingly focused on what the Wall Street Journal editorial page calls Trumps divorce from the GOP Congress. For example, Trump took a Twitter shot at Bob Corker after the Tennessee senator said he hadnt yet demonstrated the stability or competence to be successful.

And Republicans such as Paul Ryan and John McCain are criticizing Trumps during-the-hurricane pardon of former Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio.

One thing is clear: Trump, as always, puts himself in the eye of the storm. And that may be his real test, long after the Houston floodwaters have receded.

Howard Kurtz is a Fox News analyst and the host of "MediaBuzz" (Sundays 11 a.m.). He is the author of five books and is based in Washington. Follow him at @HowardKurtz. Click here for more information on Howard Kurtz.

Go here to read the rest:
During catastrophic flooding, press poses Trump hurricane 'test' - Fox News

COMMENT: Today goes fully digital – what’s next for Singapore media? – Yahoo Singapore News

The writing was on the wall for Mediacorp when Ernest Wong came back to the national broadcaster as its chairman last July. And two weeks ago, Mediacorp appointed a surprise choice as its chief executive: former CEO Tham Loke Kheng.

Tham is not your normal, safe choice to run a sensitive business like Mediacorp. She is a battle-hardened media executive, having spent considerable time in the dog-eat-dog world of Hong Kong and Taiwan. Wong, who was CEO from 2000 to 2005, seems to have come with specific plans for the media giant as it flounders in a market facing declining advertising revenues and stiff competition from disruptive digital streaming businesses.

Then on Friday (25 August) came the news that the company has struck a deal with its rival Singapore Press Holdings (SPH) to buy back the print giants stakes in the publisher of Today, Mediacorp Press, and the national broadcaster for $18 million. The deal comes with two catches that Today, the print arm of Mediacorp, goes fully digital and, more importantly, that it stops publishing any soft copy of the computer-readable format of the newspaper that looks and feels like the print version of the paper for five years.

The bottom line is this: Today, which came on to the scene in 2000 with audacious ambitions to gobble up 10 per cent of The Straits Times advertising revenue, has now surrendered the print market to SPH. The deal comes 13 years after the latter gave up fighting a bloody war with Mediacorp in the TV market.

Theduopoly of Mediacorp and SPH

With that, SPH has been given a respite but the bout has got a few more rounds to go. Will it continue to put its faith in The New Paper? Can the Chinese afternoon newspapers, Shin Min and Lianhe Wanbao, continue to provide very similar content and survive?

And the biggest question of all: Can SPH continue to bite at the fringes instead of executing some big bang decisions and, if so, for how long? But there is no doubt about one thing: that the reality of the death of print can now be discussed by observers without them being accused of purveying a doomsday scenario.

For Today, it is a scenario the paper has been looking at for a couple of years. Print is the highest cost item for the paper because it does not have a printing press of its own and had to pay a bomb to a private printer, Kim Hup Lee, to get out 200,000 copies a day from Monday to Friday. The weekend edition went fully digital in April this year.

Today faces other challenges as well. Ad revenues in the digital world are miniscule and the fight is with world media giants like Google, Facebook and Amazon. There is also the question of how Mediacorp will rationalise the digital offerings of Channel New Asia and Today.

The media scene has come one full circle after the government initiated a liberalisation drive to get the two giants to compete. Although the government does not have an official hand in the latest change, it is not beyond belief that it hadat least some influence on proceedings. Look at what the government said in a Today article on the latest move, This is a commercial decision. In the next breath, it said, We have no objections to the proposed move. If it is a commercial decision, then why say it has no objections?

The ever-present government

Singapores media history is littered with examples of the governments visible and invisible hand. It was instrumental in getting United Overseas Bank (UOB) to underwrite a newspaper, The Singapore Monitor, in 1981. The goal was to provide competition for The Straits Times, which the authorities felt was getting a little laidback. A new company was formed to include the Chinese papers in the Monitor fold. That attempt failed miserably.

Then came another rationalisation move to get the Chinese papers under the SPH umbrella as a sop to the Chinese-educated, who were still sore about the forced closure of Nanyang University. Then came the liberalisation drive in 2000, with SPH getting a TV licence and Mediacorp a print licence. All these measures have failed.

Most of them were made under the late Lee Kuan Yew, whose obsession with media control was legendary. But times are changing dramatically and the current political leadership must decide if such government interventions are still useful for an industrystruggling with declining revenues and fewer and fewer eyeballs.

As both Ernest Wong and new SPH chief Ng Yat Chung attempt to ensure the survival of their respective companies in a post-print world, a new reality will hopefully dawn on them. A post-mainstream media world has arrived and it is here to stay.

P N Balji is a veteran Singaporean journalist and the former chief editor of Today, as well as aformereditor at The New Paper. He is currently a media consultant. The views expressed are his own.

Link:
COMMENT: Today goes fully digital - what's next for Singapore media? - Yahoo Singapore News

Gun Control Advocates, Cheered on by the Media, Claim Victory in Losing – NRA ILA

Each month when I write about our right to keep and bear arms, its difficult to predict what the state of play will look like by the time this article hits your mailbox. This is especially so when it comes to the dizzying array of fake news from an opposition that is not only increasingly desperate but also increasingly detached from reality.

This time, however, The Washington Post made it easy. In July, the Post published a story that is so ridiculous, so outlandish in its shading of the truth, that it may very well take its place alongside Rolling Stones timelessly ludicrous expose on Americas five most dangerous guns (i.e., pistols, revolvers, rifles, shotguns, and derringers). The story ran under the headline: Gun-control advocates pushed back a tough year at the state level, and theyll take the win. The basic premise of the Post article is that gun control is winning because its not losing as badly as it conceivably could.

Thats right. According to The Washington Postmaybe Americas second-most prominent nationwide newspapergun control is winning at the state level in 2017.

And, yes, the reporter actually calls it gun control in the piece, not one of the usual euphemisms like gun violence prevention or gun safety laws. Apparently, its acceptable to be honest about the agenda when spiking the football, rather than trying to sneak something by the public.

The storys byline is from a reporter whose biography says she writes about politics. The content, however, is derived from a report by the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence (LCPGV), a group of gun-hating lawyers now formally associated with Americans for Responsible Solutions (ARS), the gun ban group led by Gabby Giffords and her husband, Mark Kelly.

The basic premise of the Post article is that gun control is winning because its not losing as badly as it conceivably could. It attempts to conjure a sort of Rocky Balboa theme by portraying the NRA as an entrenched titleholder facing a plucky upstart in the likes of organizations including ARS, LCPGV, and the Bloomberg-backed Everytown for Gun Safety. According to the article, the outcome of their clashes in Trumps overwhelmingly red America is a foregone conclusion: the reigning champ will prevail. But without a conclusive knockout blow, so the storyline goes, the champs victory is hollow and short-lived and only sets the stage for the sequels in which the contender finally turns the table.

An LCPGV attorney is quoted as saying, 2017 marked a year where we held our ground and then some. An ARS executive enthuses, Were getting better and better. And Everytowns president even claims, When you look at whats happening in statehouses across the country, the gun safety movement is winning.

In reality, however, winning for the gun control side was nothing of the sort. Even with many legislatures still in session and numerous pro-gun initiatives on the move, the NRA has landed all of the years significant wins to date, and the opportunities that were missed this year will be revisited until success is achieved in coming legislative sessions.

The Post article glosses over the fact that the ratio of pro to anti-gun bills actually signed into law at press time was 20:1. Only in the modern era of fake news running amok would that ratio result in the clear loser proclaiming victory and the media reporting it as true.

Moreover, the anti-gun legislation that did pass affected only peripheral issues, whether incremental expansions upon existing prohibited person categories, erosions of due process rights for persons accused of misbehavior, or funding for gun control activity already authorized by law.

None of those developments is welcome news for anyone who respects the U.S. Constitution or rule of law, and they were all opposed by your NRA. But they demonstrate how eager the opposition is to capitalize on any development they can portray as a turning point.

Meanwhile, the pro-gun victories were substantive and in some cases game-changing. Last month I mentioned the omnibus bill signed into law in Iowa, legislation that catapulted the Hawkeye state into the upper ranks of pro-gun jurisdictions. Indeed, it might have been the most important pro-gun bill in Iowas history, apart from 2010s shall-issue concealed carry law.

Leading-edge developments also made their way into law in numerous states. Permitless concealed carry was enacted in New Hampshire and North Dakota. Campus carry forged ahead in Arkansas and Georgia. Gun owners received additional protection for the storage of firearms in personal vehicles in Arizona, Arkansas, Indiana,

Tennessee and Texas. And self-defense laws were materially strengthened in Florida, Iowa and Oklahoma. The Post article glosses over the fact that the ratio of pro to anti-gun bills actually signed into law at press time was 20:1. Only in the modern era of fake news running amok would that ratio result in the clear loser proclaiming victory and the media reporting it as true.

Florida has been a leader in popularizing Stand Your Ground laws that allow victims to determine for themselves whether retreat or defensive force is the safer option in the face of unlawful aggression.

A precedent-setting law passed this year in Florida would revamp the legal procedure in Stand Your Ground cases to ensure the prosecution carries the burden of proof through all phases of the proceedings. Unsurprisingly, the law is generating controversy with those who dont believe in self-defense, but its enactment demonstrates a commitment to freedom that goes beyond the status quo.

The logic of the Posts own story, such as it is, also requires acknowledgement that precious little has happened to advance the gun control agenda, even where anti-gun forces have a relatively free hand. In New Mexico, for example, national anti-gun groups poured hundreds of thousands of dollars into a failed bid to push universal background checks through a legislature newly controlled by Democrats.

The Posts story, standing alone, has little value or important data, but its worth talking about for what it reveals about the modern gun control movement. It might be that at this point in history the mainstream press simply isnt sophisticated or self-aware enough to understand, much less critically evaluate, the nuances of the gun control debate. But even if they were, its clear that the mass media have so attached themselves to the gun control cause that theyre distinguishable from groups like ARS/LCPGV only because they have a broader portfolio of social issues to promote, not in their viewpoints or desire to see America disarmed. Media and gun control advocacy have effectively merged.

Thats not exactly a new development, but the transparency and shamelessness of the alliance is notable even to those of us who have been observing the process for a long time. This collaboration allows gun control advocates to use the reach and prestige of the press to push as the truth their science, their studies, their facts and their narratives.

The premise that a lie told often and insistently enough eventually will be accepted as truth is an idea attributed to tyrants throughout world history. And so the media tells the American public again and againdespite obvious evidence to the contrarythat firearms arent necessary for self-defense, that Americans dont want guns but do want more gun control, and that firearms not fielded by any Army are military-style assault weapons.

And now theyre insistingegged on by gun control groups with a financial interest in delivering results to patrons like Michael Bloomberg and George Sorosthat the tide is turning against the right to keep and bear arms in America and that the glorious victory they have long sought is inevitable.

But it would be a mistake simply to dismiss all their claims and aspirations as fantasies. It is certainly true that firearm prohibitionists are as emboldened, determined and well-funded as ever. It is also true that they have insinuated themselves not just into the mass media apparatus, but into nearly every opinion-influencing sector of American society, from education, to entertainment, to laweven to sports and medicine.

Over time, the combined efforts of these entities have eroded other bedrock and once uncontroversial American values. It would be foolish for us to think the values embodied in the Second Amendment are immune from the same process.

But even if some newspaper writers want you to believe that their version of history is already carved in stone, they dont get to write the next installment in the unfolding story of Americas devotion to its Second Amendment protected freedoms. That remains the job of the American people. Rest assured, your NRA is here to ensure that the good guys, as they always have in the American saga, will find a way to win.

Continue reading here:
Gun Control Advocates, Cheered on by the Media, Claim Victory in Losing - NRA ILA

John Kelly, the pro-Trump media could be coming for you next – Washington Post

It is not every day that Breitbart News highlights commentary from MSNBC's Chris Matthews, but the Hardball host said something on Thursday that Breitbart wanted to amplify. Matthews said that if he were President Trump, he would fire White House Chief of Staff John F. Kelly.

It was a glib remark, made in the context of a discussion about reports that Kelly is trying to position himself as Trump's gatekeeper, blocking dubious news articles from reaching the president's desk. He's controlling the cage, Matthews said of Kelly. If Iwere Trump, I'd fire him just for saying that.

The implication is that Trump's ego should rebel against Kelly's attempt to control whatthe president sees. To be sure, reports on Kelly's effort, by Politico and the New York Times, are a bit insulting, suggesting that Kelly views Trump as highly impressionable and incapable of discerning fact from fiction on his own.

If Kelly's new system works, perhaps Trump's pride won't be wounded because he won't see Breitbart's article or Politico's or the Times's or this one. But considering the amount of time Trump spends glued toTwitter and cable news, it is extremely difficult to block information from reaching him.

Thus, as Kelly tries to filter out articles from the likes of Breitbart, Infowars, GotNews and the Gateway Pundit, those websites will likely try to erode his standing in their readers' and the president's eyes. And their message will probably get through to Trump, one way or another.

President Trump said his new chief of staff John Kelly will do a "tremendous job," after his swearing-in on July 31. "We have a tremendous group of support, the country is optimistic and I think the general will just add to it," Trump said. (The Washington Post)

Infowars's Paul Joseph Watson wrote on Friday that Kelly's restrictions will undoubtedly bolster complaints emanating from Trump's base that he has been isolated and surrounded by globalists who have no interest in furthering Trump's 'America first' message.

Mike Cernovich, another Infowars personality, told BuzzFeed that he is confident the presidentwill continue to see news from sources like Infowars because Donald Trump Jr., who does not work in the White House, will pass articles along to his father, unchecked by Kelly.GotNews founder Charles C. Johnson added his belief that first lady Melania Trump also will supply unfiltered news to the president.

An un-bylined GotNews post on Thursday struck a defiant note: We in the alternative media won the election for Trump. We will survive a failed general who was weak on borders. The people who share the truth with the president are those we are interested in helping. Those who seek to control him have not learned the key lesson of the 2016 election: Neither Trump nor the people will be controlled.

Much of the pro-Trump media's fury this week has been aimed at a different general, national security adviser H.R. McMaster, who prevailed on the president not to withdraw from Afghanistan. Chief economic adviser Gary Cohn, always a favorite target, drew new fire for publicly criticizing Trump's response to Charlottesville in an interview with the Financial Times.

But Kelly's turn is coming, if it hasn't already arrived.

See original here:
John Kelly, the pro-Trump media could be coming for you next - Washington Post

VERIFY: Alarming posts spreading on social media are FALSE – KHOU

Leaders are urging residents to stay with verified sources for the latest on Harvey and ignore rumors from other sources.

Adam Bennett , KHOU 8:13 PM. CDT August 24, 2017

With a hurricane churning in the Gulf, it is critical to stay with trusted sources for the latest information and to ignore internet rumors.

One false post, in particular, has city and county leaders urging residents to avoid spreading false information.

The post says they are projecting tens of thousands of homes in Houston will be underwater, among other things. We can verify this post is FALSE.

We can also verify that NO evacuation orders have been issued for Houston or other inland cities.

Get your news from legitimate news services, get your news from official sources, said Harris County Judge Ed Emmett. There are things on the internet and social media that are just false. We're trying to give you the best information, and we'll continue to do that."

False forecasts and irresponsible rumors on social media are interfering with efforts by the city of Houston, and its government and news media partners, to provide accurate information to the public about the expected effects Hurricane Harvey," Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner said. Please continue to monitor mainstream news sources for updates on the weather and act accordingly as an informed resident. Rumors are nothing new, but the widespread use of social media has needlessly frightened many people today.

Meteorologist Jeff Lindner with the Harris County Flood Control District also Verified that those rumors are false. He's asking people on social media to help them by NOT spreading it.

Click here for the very latest on Hurricane Harvey.

Harris County Judge Ed Emmett

Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner

Harris County Flood Control District

National Hurricane Center

Help our journalists VERIFY the news.Do you know someone else we should interview for this story? Did we miss anything in our reporting? Is there another story you'd like us to VERIFY?Click here.

2017 KHOU-TV

Here is the original post:
VERIFY: Alarming posts spreading on social media are FALSE - KHOU