Mediaboss Marketing

ANNA KOVACEVICH/THE HOYAFormer Obama Communications Director Jen Psaki and former Trump Communications Director Mike Dubke discuss their respective experiences in the White House.

Emma Kotfica is a staff writer for The Hoya.

President Donald Trumps habit of communicating his unfiltered perspectives to the public through Twitter poses a unique challenge for the White House communications team, according to former White House Communications Director Mike Dubke.

At an event hosted by the Georgetown University Institute of Politics and Public Service on Tuesday, Dubke shared his experiences from his three-month tenure in the Trump White House alongside Jen Psaki, White House communications director under President Barack Obama. Psaki was a GU Politics fellow for the spring 2017 semester, and Dubke is a fellow for the fall 2017 semester.

Dubke said Trumps tweets allowed him to communicate his unfettered perspectives to the public and are a powerful medium of communication for the president, but also derailed the administrations message. Dubke blamed news organizations for spending too much time covering the presidents tweeted statements rather than his policy.

What Im concerned about is that our news organizations seem to be jumping from tweet to tweet, and short attention span to short attention span, Dubke said. A single tweet would then dictate what the programming was for the next hour and a half on cable news, which was an amazing power but also an amazing distraction.

Because of Trumps tweeting habit, Dubke said he struggled to control the administrations daily messaging.

The challenge, of course is that this narrative continues to change, and thats what I was dealing with when I was there, Dubke said. Specifically because the president has this direct connect with the American people that, while President Obama had it, never really used it to the same degree [as Trump].

Psaki said not being in control of the narrative is part of the job, not solely a problem faced by the current administration.

The unique thing about being in the White House is that you are responsible for commenting and speaking to everything, so its like the best-laid plans can often change, Psaki said.

Nevertheless, Psaki described the communications director role as one of the best jobs you can have in the White House.

It is way better than the press secretary job, because you get your hands in all of the strategy and you have a seat at the table with the policy teams determining decisions that are going to be made about policy, when things are going to be announced, how they should be rolled out and how they should be talked about, Psaki said. You are a decision-maker in ways that the press secretary is entirely capable of being but cant be because their day is consumed by the press briefings.

Dubke added that communications directors take the fall when plans go wrong.

Youre also blamed for all the bad things that happen, even when its not your fault or youre brought in after the decision has been made to explain the cleanup, Dubke said.

Dubke served as Trumps communications director for three months before tendering his resignation on May 18.

Dubkes former boss has been noted for his attacks on press coverage. Trump routinely criticized the media in campaign rallies and called the press the enemy of the American people in a February tweet. According to Dubke, Trumps frustration with media coverage derives from his understanding of the importance of their role.

I know the president understands the role that the press plays in the democratic process, Dubke said. I think thats where a good level of his frustration comes, where he is hearing things come out of the press that he doesnt believe are true or are a slant on the truth that is trying to paint an entirely different picture.

Have a reaction to this article? Write a letter to the editor.

Read this article:
Media Narrative Difficult to Control, Former White House Comms Directors Say - Georgetown University The Hoya

A veteran Irish jockey has been giving a four-day ban from the sport for punching the back of a horses head at a race last month, the BBC reported Tuesday.

The incident, which animal rights groups and many on social media labeled appalling, took place Aug. 18 at the Tramore racetrack. Davy Russell, a two-time champion jockey in Ireland, lost control of his emotions while atop Kings Dolly after the horse pulled up ahead of a handicap hurdle. Russell didnt just scold the mare; he punched heron the back of thehead.

Russell wasnt immediately punished for striking the horse. Instead the Irish sports governing body, the Turf Club, gave Russell a warning for bringing the sport into disrepute through his violent action.

This failed to satisfy animal rights groups and fans on social media, where video of the incident began to go viral. One tweet, which complained about the lack of punishment and included video of the incident, was retweeted nearly 10,000 times.

Meanwhile, animal rights groups, including the Irish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty of Animals, began to speak out.

The ISPCA is appalled by the incident . . . and believes that this behavior is completely unacceptable, the animal rights group said in a statement last week. We are disappointed that the jockey was sanctioned not for hitting the horse but for damaging the reputation of horse racing, under rule 272.

The same jockey was banned for 14 days last year for being rude to a steward, the ISPCA added. It is alarming that the Irish Turf Club treated that breach of its rules more seriously than hitting a horse.

David Murit, the equine consultant for the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, appeared to have a softer view of the 38-year-old jockey but still disagreed with the Turf Clubs decision.

Davy Russell is not a bad jockey, and it was out of character, but hitting a horse like he did is completely unacceptable. Its a nonsense, Muir told the Racing Post last week. Where he struck her is a major muscular area and it probably hurt Russell more than the horse but that doesnt make it acceptable. Horses, like any other animal, should be treated with respect, and punching one is disrespectful.

With criticism ramping up, the Turf Club asked its appeal body to review the case, which it did Tuesday and found the original warning unduly lenient, according to the Guardian.

Russell defended himself by arguing the hit was a slap and that he was just attempting to get the horse to concentrate.

At that stage she was out of control and if she had continued in that vein during the race then I would have had a very difficult time trying to control her, he told At the Races (via the Independent). I just needed to let her know there was someone on her back and I thought a slap on the soft of the neck was the appropriate action.

Russell has not publicly commented since his four-day ban was announced.

Social media, of course, had a lot to say, with many complaining the four-day ban remains an inadequate punishment.

Read more:

The best new college football tradition? Iowa fans waving to patients in a childrens hospital

NBA legend Tracy McGrady hosts Labor Day barbecue for 800 Harvey victims

NFL, Florida officials weigh decision on Dolphins-Bucs game as Hurricane Irma gains steam

Brazilian prosecutors investigating evidence of vote-buying in Rio 2016 Olympic bid

Read the rest here:
After social media outrage, Irish jockey gets four-day ban for punching a horse in the head - Washington Post

This article first appeared on the History News Network.

On August 14, President Trump reluctantly read a statement intended to assure Americans that, contrary to an impression left by his earlier speech, he condemned the neo-Nazis and white supremacists who marched in Charlottesville.

The next day, he returned to Twitter to complain about the press:

Keep up with this story and more by subscribing now

Made additional remarks on Charlottesville and realize once again that the #Fake News Media will never be satisfied . truly bad people!

Trump has been picking fights with the media since he declared his candidacy. But these latest outbursts reveal more than ordinary presidential frustration with the press. And theyre no ordinary way of expressing that frustration.

Trump has long played on racism against African-Americans to attract white supremacists. He does the same when he demonizes the media.

The president is deploying, consciously or not, a classic trope from the Russian anti-Semitic fabrication, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, published in 1905.

When he says fake media, anti-Semites hear Jewish-controlled media, which exerts disproportionate power over other media outlets and public opinion.

Anti-Semites understand what Trump is doing. They blame the whining Jew media for forcing Trump to condemn the Nazis who marched in Virginia.

The Protocols are the Bible of the anti-Semitic movement. They purport to be the minutes of a meeting where Jewish elders detail their plan to conquer the world.

In the part of the Protocols titled Control of the Press, it is revealed that Jews control every aspect of the press to protect their new worldwide government from attack or criticism.

The unnamed narrators admit their real aim is a false-flag attack on the legitimate press: Among those making attacks on us will also be organs established by us, but they will attack exclusively points that we have pre-determined to alter.

Fake news, then, begins as Jewish infiltration of the legitimate press and transforms into complete domination: Not a single announcement will reach the public without our control.

Arthur Sulzberger, chairman and publisher of The New York Times, at the Digital Life Design (DLD) conference at HVB Forum on January 23, 2011 in Munich, Germany. Miguel Villagran/Getty

The first American to put the Protocols before a mass audience was Henry Ford. In the 1920s his newspaper, the Dearborn Independent, alleged that American Jews worked to advance the interests of an amorphous International Jew.

As the Protocols presaged, Ford lumped all Jews into an anonymous cabal who aimed to seize control of world banks, industry, and government.

Of all the distinguished Jewish Americans whom Ford libeled, it was a relatively obscure lawyer, Aaron Sapiro, who finally sued. When Sapiros case came to trial in 1927, Ford decided to issue an apology in order to avoid a damaging jury verdict.

He said,

I deem it to be my duty as an honorable man to make amends for the wrong done to the Jews as fellow-men and brothers, by asking their forgiveness for the harm I have unintentionally committed.

But many skeptics refused to believe Ford meant it. In Europe, anti-Semites contended that Jewish bankers forced the apology out of Ford. Publishers who wanted to reprint Fords anti-Semitic publications insisted that the statement had been faked to assuage the International Jew.

Having followed the Sapiro trial through a German reporter he planted in the courtroom, Adolf Hitler called the apology Fords subjugation to the All-Jewish High Finance.

In time, Ford eliminated all doubt. In 1938, he accepted the highest civilian honor Hitlers government could bestow. Photographs of a smiling Ford wearing the Grand Cross of the German Eagle splashed across the world.

The automaker could not have repudiated his own apology more effectively. Accepting the medal made it clear he had not capitulated to the core of the Jewish danger.

Thus the language and tactics that Trump uses today have already been validated by one of Americas foremost proponents of anti-Semitism. The president declares that the mainstream media filter must be eluded. Ford did this by buying his own newspaper, while Trump does it with Twitter. The result is the same.

In 2016, Trump signaled his neo-Nazi/radical right sympathies by initially refusing to reject David Dukes endorsement. Recently, Trump waffled when pressed to condemn those who declare Jews will not replace them.

What links Trump and Ford most strongly are their anti-Semitic methods. Both refract their beliefs through relentless attacks on the very media that they use to advance their businesses and polish their images.

Trumps collusions with white supremacists, his declaration that many sides are morally responsible for Charlottesville, and his defenses of the fine people carrying swastikas and torches are shocking.

But they are also eerily reminiscent of Fords genteel anti-Semitism, which flourished when most everyone knew who was behind the fake media and believed instead the businessman in charge.

Victoria Saker Woeste is a Research Professor at the American Bar Foundation and the author of Henry Fords War on Jews and the Legal Battle Against Hate Speech.

Read this article:
Are Trump's Attacks on the Press a Dog Whistle to Anti-Semites? - Newsweek

File picture shows Datuk Jailani Johari, Deputy Minister of Communication and Multimedia speaking at the Institute of Journalists Malaysias Journalism Now forum, May 12, 2015. Picture by Saw Siow FengKUALA BERANG, Sept 5 All media and online portals in Malaysia must be aware that their operations are subjected to the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 (Act 588).

Communications and Multimedia Deputy Minister Datuk Jailani Johari said the Act had long been introduced to control the reporting of news which were slanderous in nature, especially those disseminated by online portals.

The Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 (Act 588) has two main provisions which enable enforcement action to be taken on complaints related to offensive contents on the Internet under Section 211, (ban on the uploading of offensive contents) and Section 233 (on inappropriate use of the facility and network services).

Under Section 211, anyone who is guilty of flouting Subsection (1) can be fined not more than RM50,000 or jailed not exceeding two years, or both. They can also be fined a further RM1,000 daily or part of a day the offence is perpetuated after being found guilty.

He said this to reporters after the annual general meeting of the Terengganu branch of the Federation of Peninsular Malay Students (GPMS), here, today.

Jailani, who is also Hulu Terengganu Member of Parliament, was commenting on the issue raised by GPMS deputy president Ezaruddin Abd. Rahman on Sept 2 that the government should introduce an act to control slanderous media reports, especially those disseminated by news portals or social media.

Whatever offences committed online are offences in the real world. So, online media practitioners or netizens must be more responsible in managing the contents uploaded on their portals. Differentiate contents which criticise, insult, instigate, sow hatred or are slanderous and false in nature to avoid action being taken later, he said.

Meanwhile, from 2016 to Feb 1, 167 cases of Internet and social media abuses were investigated by the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC), including the dissemination of false contents and information via WhatsApp, Facebook and Twitter. In the same period, 1,375 websites were also blocked because of their false contents. Bernama

More:
All media in Malaysia subjected to Act 588, says deputy minister - Malay Mail Online

There are two kinds of politicians: those who value an evidentiary and principles-based approach to law-making; and those who spurn analysis in favour of short-termism.

Paul Keating was the consummate member of the first category.

The cleansing power of competition. The will to drive unprecedented economic and social transformation. The threshold test of believing in something before committing to it, and then sparing no effort in delivering it.

Australias media ownership rules are a case in point.

Mr Keatings oft-quoted queens of screen or princes of print was deeply rooted in theprinciple of media pluralism and its benefits in a modern liberal democracy.

Heunderstood the importance of constructing a regulatory framework to promote a diversity of voices in the face of concentrated media power. And the only way to achieve that, he said, was through competition.

Malcolm Turnbull falls into the second category.

Dismissing the relevance of a rule which prohibits a person from controlling all three regulated forms of media commercial radio, commercial TV and associated newspapers in the one licence area, his sole justification is: time.

The rule is old. It pre-dates the internet. Throw it out.

Mr Turnbull is only too eager to repeal the twoout of three cross-media control rule and hand unprecedented power to a privileged few, despite Australia having one of the most concentrated media markets in the world.

He views the two out of three rule as an anti-competitive fetter on industry. Paradoxically, this is the law which does the heavy lifting in fostering competition and diversity in Australian media.

The proposed CBS acquisition of Network Ten demonstrates as much.

After so opportunistically exploiting Tens voluntary administration to spruik his case for repeal, Mr Turnbull appeareddismayed when CBS entered the frame.

CBS eclipsedan Australian joint bid that seemed good to go, save for the small matter of it not being permitted under law.

Mr Turnbull even stoked the protectionist fire of CBS being a US entity, despite the fact that he was a minister in the Howard government which abolished foreign ownership media limits.

And Mr Turnbull peddles the furphy that existing competition law is adequate for the task performed by the two out of three rule. The ACCC decision on the Birketu/Illyria bid to acquire Ten confirms that it is not the job of the ACCC to consider pluralism or democracy and that competition laws are no safeguard for diversity.

Chairman Rod Sims was at pains to clarify that, while the transaction would not substantially lessen competition, it would reduce diversity across the Australian media landscape.

After almost four years, the Abbott-Turnbull government has failed to achieve media law reform. Their response blame Labor is as predictable as their ineptitude.

Instead of rolling up their sleeves and devising a long-term roadmap for transition in the face of relentless disruption,the Turnbull government rolls out the red carpet for big business, cherry-picking a few measures to benefit select vestedinterests.

They bemoan the two out of three rule as archaic, but propose no alternative in its place to adapt our laws and preserve pluralism in the new media environment.

All of this undertaken with complete disregard for consumers. An Essential Poll showed 61 per cent of Australians are opposed to repeal of the two out of three rule.

As for the argument that this is about saving jobs, show us the evidence that the synergies, efficiencies and scalability behind mergers creates rather than sheds them.

Mr Turnbull gifts a cool $30 million to Fox Sports but nothing for audio description for the blind. He waives $127 million in licence fees for commercial broadcasters, but cuts a deal with One Nation to undermine our public broadcasters.

The PM who once called for innovation now regards the internet as the reason for junking public interest safeguards as though the internet appeared overnight or as if traditional media doesnt already use it to run multi-platform businesses.

He complains Labor isnt co-operating, yet twice he has voted down Labors constructive amendment to save the two out of three rule while letting other measures pass the Parliament measures industry should already be enjoying.

As Mr Keating said, the idea that convergence is turning all forms of media into one is the most powerful reason for not making it easier to concentrate ownership.

The principles of pluralism and diversity are enduring.

Just as hes failed engineering and economics on the NBN and sold out his beliefs for power at every turn, Malcolm Turnbull has confirmed he is no Keating.

Michelle Rowland is Labors shadow communications spokeswoman.

Read more:
Media reform package hands 'unprecedented power to a privileged few' - The New Daily