Mediaboss Marketing

We shouldnt have triggered Article 50 at all before agreeing an exit deal

When John Kerr, the British diplomat who drafted Article 50 wrote it, he believed it would only be used by a dictatorial regime that, having had its right to vote on EU decisions suspendedwould then, in high dudgeon, want to storm out.

The process was designed to maximise the leverage of the remaining members of the bloc and disadvantage the departing state. At one stage, it was envisaged that any country not ratifying the Lisbon Treaty would be expelled under the process Article 50 is not intended to get the best Brexit deal or anything like it.

Contrary to Theresa Mays expectation that she would be able to talk to individual member states, Article 50 is designed to ensure that agreement is reached de vous, chez vous, mais sans vous about you, in your own home, but without you, as I wrote before the referendum result.

There is absolutely no reason for a departing nation to use Article 50 before agreement has largely been reached. A full member of the European Union obviously has more leverage than one that is two years away from falling out without a deal. There is no reason to trigger Article 50 until youre good and ready, and the United Kingdoms negotiating team is clearly very far from either being good or ready.

As Dominic Cummings, formerly of Vote Leave, said during the campaign:No one in their right mind would begin a legally defined two-year maximum period to conduct negotiations before they actually knew, roughly speaking, what the process was going to yieldthat would be like putting a gun in your mouth and pulling thetrigger.

If we were going to trigger Article 50, we shouldnt have triggered it when we did

As I wrote before Theresa May triggered Article 50 in March, 2017 is very probably the worst year you could pick to start leaving the European Union. Elections across member states meant the bloc was in a state of flux, and those elections were always going to eat into the time.

May has got lucky in that the French elections didnt result in a tricky co-habitation between a president of one party and a legislature dominated by another, as Emmanuel Macron won the presidency and a majority for his new party, Rpublique en Marche.

It also looks likely that Angela Merkel will clearly win the German elections, meaning that there wont be a prolonged absence of the German government after the vote in September.

But if the British government was determined to put the gun in its own mouth and pull the trigger, it should have waited until after the German elections to do so.

The government should have made a unilateral offer on the rights of EU citizens living in the United Kingdom right away

The rights of the three million people from the European Union in the United Kingdom were a political sweet spot for Britain. We dont have the ability to enforce a cut-off date until we leave the European Union, it wouldnt be right to uproot three million people who have made their lives here, there is no political will to do so more than 80 per cent of the public and a majority of MPs of all parties want to guarantee the rights of EU citizens and as a result there is no plausible leverage to be had by suggesting we wouldnt protect their rights.

If May had, the day she became PM, made a unilateral guarantee and brought forward legislation guaranteeing these rights, it would have bought Britain considerable goodwill as opposed to the exercise of fictional leverage.

Although Britains refusal to accept the EUs proposal on mutually shared rights has worried many EU citizens, the reality is that, because British public opinion and the mood among MPs is so sharply in favour of their right to remain, no one buys that the government wont doit. So it doesnt buy any leverage while an early guarantee in July of last year would have bought Britain credit.

But at least the government hasnt behaved foolishly about money

Despite the pressure on wages caused by the fall in the value of the pound and the slowdown in growth, the United Kingdom is still a large and growing economy that is perfectly well-placed to buy the access it needs to the single market, provided that it doesnt throw its toys out of the pram over paying for its pre-agreed liabilities, and continuing to pay for the parts of EU membership Britain wants to retain, such as cross-border policing activity and research.

So theres that at least.

The rest is here:
Brexit Big Brother is watching: how media moguls control the news - New Statesman

Last Tuesday, a 66-year-old man from Illinois armed with a semi-automatic assault rifle showed up at a baseball field in Virginia to kill GOP lawmakers and others who were practicing for their annual baseball game.

The only police personnel that were at the location were there to provide security for the Republican Whip Rep. Steven Scalise of Louisiana. If they had not been there, there would have been a lot more people shot or killed, according to those who were involved.

Sadly, this is not a new story for Americans to hear. President Obama had to deal with this violence and tragedy several times during his presidency especially the Dec. 14, 2012, slaughter of 20 elementary school children and six educators in Sandy Hook, Conn. That incident was the third deadliest mass shooting by a single person in U.S. history.

Passing a stricter gun control law had failed even after that tragedy in Sandy Hook and the June 12, 2016, killings of 49 people and 58 wounded at Pulse, a gay nightclub in Orlando, Fla.

The Second Amendment to the Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms for all American citizens, which I dont think those who drafted it had any idea how it would play out in todays world.

Its ironic and interesting that Congressman Scalises pro-gun stance has earned him an A- plus rating from the NRA, which is the strongest lobby in Washington. Scalise is a member of Second Congressional Task Force that continues to fight for Second Amendment rights for all Americans. If he recovers from his extensive injuries I wonder if he will change his mind?

My question is: Will this shooting open up a conversation again for stricter gun control laws now that it literally has hit home to its members of Congress? In the weeks and months ahead there will be a lot of talk about this but if history is an indicator of the future, I feel nothing will change. If the killing of school children didnt change and tighten up gun control laws, what hope do we have for any kind of reform? And if Congress did nothing after the shooting of Gabby Giffords, why would we expect anything to change with the shooting of Scalise?

In the weeks and months ahead, law enforcement will find out more information about the shooters motivation to kill Republicans.

I feel that the world is blowing up and that theres no safe place anymore, even here in Aitkin County. The only power we have as voters is to insist on changes in gun control laws through our lawmakers. I know that Minnesotans love to hook and shoot but do we really need AR-15 or AK-47 assault rifles to go deer hunting?

Politics aside, be you Republican or Democrat, we need laws to protect our families from senseless violence. But will this recent act of insanity change anything?

Sadly, lots of talk and no action seem to be the precedent.

View original post here:
Gun control and the potential of slaughter - MessAge Media: Our ... - Aitkin Independent Age

Actor Johnny Depp introduces his film The Libertine at the Glastonbury Festival of Music and Performing Arts on Worthy Farm near the village of Pilton in Somerset, South West England, on Thursday.

AFP/Getty Images

A daily roundup of the biggest stories in right-wing media.

Voices in conservative media continued to criticize left-wing political rhetoric on Friday. The Federalists Mary Katherine Ham wrote that the events of the past week and the responses to them in the media and the Democratic Party showed that many on the Left and in elite institutions dont want to understand the other half of the country:

On Fox and Friends, Fox host Jeanine Pirro said that the Democratic Party had become a party of hate and destruction. I think its anti-American, she said. I really do. Im sorry. When you talk about, you know, killing the president, doing the stuff theyve been doing, its disgusting.

During the day, audio circulated of Nebraska Democratic Party official Phil Montag saying that he wished that Steve Scalise, who was seriously wounded in the June 14 congressional baseball shooting, was dead. This motherfucker, like his whole job is like to get people, convince Republicans to fucking to kick people off fucking health care, he said. I hate this motherfucker. Im fucking glad he got shot. Montag was fired on Thursday. [Nebraska Democratic Party chairwoman Jane] Kleeb deserves to be recommended for her clear stance against violence in political rhetoric, PJ Medias Tyler ONeil wrote. Both the Left and the Right should denounce it. In the Washington Examiner, Becket Adams criticized Kleeb for saying that rhetoric on both sides of the aisle needed to be toned down. After a politically-motivated assassination attempt carried out by an alleged left-wing fanatic, and after her own people have been caught celebrating and snickering over the near-massacre, Kleeb has the gall to pull the both sides card, he said. We're not sure what's going on in Nebraska, but it sounds like the states Democratic Party is in desperate need of a leadership overhaul.

Montags comments drew attention on Twitter.

So too did a joke Johnny Depp made Thursday night at the British music festival Glastonbury about assassinating Trump. Im not insinuating anythingby the way, this will be in the press and it will be horriblebut when was the last time an actor assassinated a president, he asked. I want to clarify, I am not an actor. I lie for a living. However, it has been a while, and maybe it is time. He later apologized.

The White House released a statement asking Depps colleagues to speak out against violent rhetoric. Those Hollywood elitists wont speak about it, of course, the Daily Wires Amanda Prestigiacomo wrote. Depp is a leftist and apparently advocating something with which they agree.

Multiple outlets applauded the news that former Attorney General Loretta Lynch is the subject of a new probe by the Senate Judiciary Committee over her involvement in the Clinton email investigation. RedStates Susan Wright called the move well overdue:

Other conservatives rejoiced on Twitter:

Read more from the original source:
Today in Conservative Media: The Left Is Still Out of Control - Slate Magazine (blog)

Photo: Mark Schiefelbein, Associated Press

Staffers of Sina Weibo promote the site at the Global Mobile Internet Conference in April in Beijing. Three Chinese Internet services have been ordered to stop streaming video.

Staffers of Sina Weibo promote the site at the Global Mobile Internet Conference in April in Beijing. Three Chinese Internet services have been ordered to stop streaming video.

China tightens online video controls

BEIJING Three popular Chinese Internet services have been ordered to stop streaming video after censors complained it contained improper comments on sensitive issues. The move prompted a sell-off in the U.S.-traded shares of Sina Corp. and its microblogging service, Sina Weibo.

Thursdays announcement adds to efforts by President Xi Jinpings government to tighten media control ahead of a Communist Party congress late this year. Xi is due to be appointed to a second five-year term as party leader.

Video streamed by users of Sina Weibo, AcFun and Phoenix New Medias Ifeng.com contained negative comments about unspecified sensitive issues, the State Administration of Press, Publication, Radio Film and Television said. It ordered them to stop the services.

Communist leaders promote Internet use for business and education but try to block access to material deemed subversive or obscene.

Beijing has been especially wary of social media since some sites were used by organizers of the Arab Spring protests that spread across the Middle East in 2010 and led to the downfall of the Egyptian and Tunisian governments.

Rules that took effect June 1 bar private or foreign companies from directly disseminating news or investing in online news services. Those that want to work with foreign partners must undergo a security review.

In January, the government announced a 14-month crackdown on cloud-hosting and content-delivery services. The technology ministry said it forbids use of virtual private networks and leased lines to circumvent government filters and access banned websites abroad.

On the Nasdaq Stock Market, Weibo shares fell 6.1 percent and shares of Sina fell 4.8 percent after Thursdays announcement. Both regained less than 1 percent Friday.

The company is communicating with the relevant government authorities to understand the scope of the notice. It intends to fully cooperate with the relevant authorities, Weibo said.

Sina Weibos main business is a microblogging service similar to Twitter. It is one of the worlds most popular social media services, with 313 million users as of December, according to the company.

Weibos stock market value surpassed Twitters early this year. It stood at $15.8 billion after Thursdays sell-off or more than double the $6.2 billion market value of its parent company compared with $13.2 billion for Twitter.

AcFun is a video-sharing site that is popular with young Chinese, and Ifeng broadcasts brief news and entertainment videos.

In a statement on its Weibo account, AcFun promised to carry out a comprehensive rectification of its website management to create a clear and bright online environment.

Joe McDonald is an Associated Press writer.

Read this article:
China tightens online video controls - SFGate

According to the newly released Heritage Committee report on Canadian media, we are a nation smothered under the power of excess media concentration. The data available on this subject indicates that media concentration is increasing in Canada to the point where Canada has the highest vertical and horizontal media concentration in the world.

Wow. Thats terrible. Theres nothing worse in liberal economic circles than corporate concentration, unless the concentration is in the hands of government. Then its okay, even desirable. In this case, the committee is zeroing in on alleged concentration of private industry control over the telecommunications, broadcasting, social media, web browsers, wireless, desktop operating systems, newspapers, pay TV, etc.

The committee says it has the data to prove that Canada is under the heels of the most concentrated media structure in the world. If it has the data, then it must be fact, right? Unless, of course, the data is a little shaky as is often the case in the area of economics and law that covers anti-trust, monopolies, competition enforcement, market power, industrial structures, control and concentration and other bogeys of the alt-left.

So what is this data and how did the (Liberal majority) politicians on the Heritage Committee come up with its alarming conclusion? It gets complicated. Some math is involved, along with a lot of massaging and manipulation of media ownership and market share numbers.

The supplier of the data, it turns out, was Dwayne Winseck, director of the Canadian Media Concentration Research Project at Carleton Universitys School of Journalism and Communications. The institutes name sort of gives away its lack of objectivity and Winseck has been cranking out claims of media concentration for many years.

For the committee, Winseck employed a basic data head-spinner called the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index. It was developed by U.S. researchers more than 60 years ago and adopted by U.S. Justice Department anti-trust enforcers.

Heres the basic math exercise: To determine market concentration, begin with a list of all the firms in the business and their market shares. Lets say there are four firms supplying widgets: Firm One has 40 per cent of the market, Firm Two has 30 per cent, Firm Three 20 and Firm Four 10.

From this data, the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index of industry concentration (widely known as the HHI) calculates the square of each firms market share. Firm Ones data point then becomes 1,600, while the square of each of the others is 900, 400 and 100 respectively. The total, 3,000, is the HHI for the widget industry.

Under HHI theory, if the total of the squares of the market share in an industry exceeds 2,500, then it is already excessively concentrated, even oligopolistic.

Whether this makes any sense or not has been hard to discern from the economic literature. There are dozens of YouTube videos on how to calculate the Herfindahl index, but none that explains why it matters.

The foundational point appears to be the old perfect competition myth of corporate organization. If there are 10 firms in the market, then the market is perfectly competitive. Ten times 10, 10 times, equals a 1,000 HHI score, perfect competition. If theres only one firm with 100 per cent of the market, the HHI is 10,000, monopoly.

If this strikes you as the mathematical flapdoodle that it is, never mind, because it gets more complicated. A key to the Herfindahl index is determining the market thats being measured and squared. In Winsecks analysis, cited by the Heritage Committee, the definition of markets are narrowed down to the point where just about every nook and cranny of the media world is a self-contained concentrated market. When it comes to todays media industries, that approach makes no sense.

For example, Winseck runs an HHI on Social Network Sites and comes up with a score of 2,762, thereby creating the idea that Twitter, Facebook and a few other sites are standalone examples of highly concentrated media. Separate HHI calculations are done on broadcast television, mobile web browsers, pay and specialty TV channels, newspapers, mobile wireless, desktop operating systems, and many more. All but a few (magazines, radio) hit HHI scores of below 2,100 (moderately concentrated) while most top 2,500 and up to 8,300 (highly concentrated).

But breaking off each little segment and sub-segment of todays media industries makes no sense. Many of these isolated industries are part of vicious inter-industry and inter-market competition. Consumers are constantly shifting from one medium to another, one technology to another, from YouTube videos to magazine sites to print newspapers to radio to cable channels to Netflix to Twitter to wireless videos its an endless and giant smorgasbord of content and technology.

In a 2014 law review paper, California attorney Toby Roberts commented that Orris Herfindahl, creator of the index, warned that there are many factors that play into the complex business of industrial competition and that the index suffered the deficiency of considering only two indicia of industry behavior. Roberts added another point: The precision and sophistication of the HHI may cloak its limitations and create a false impression of scientific accuracy in the courts.

And, one might add, among researchers and politicians who are in the business of policy-based evidence making, one of the hallmarks of junk science.

See the original post:
Junk Science Week: Little data on big media - Financial Post