Mediaboss Marketing

MYRNA BROWN, HOST: Today is Friday, May 5th. Good morning! This is The World and Everything in It from listener-supported WORLD Radio. Im Myrna Brown.

NICK EICHER, HOST: And Im Nick Eicher. A quick comment about yesterdays interview with Erin Hawleysenior counsel at Alliance Defending Freedom and WORLD Opinions contributor.

During our interview she referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee. In the spirit of full disclosure, we missed an opportunity to let the listener know that Hawleys husbandSenator Josh Hawleyserves on that committee. We should have mentioned that. We didnt. So we are now.

BROWN: All right, time now for Ask the Editor. Today, we answer a recent listener question about how we occasionally identify a particular political ideologyand those who hold it. Heres WORLD Radio Executive Producer Paul Butler.

PAUL BUTLER: Before I get to todays question, I want to start by playing a soundbite of Al Sharpton from April 13th. It provides some necessary context to todays question. Sharpton was speaking at the National Action Network conference:

SHARPTON: We gotta stop using progressive as a noun and use it as an adjective. Your label is progressive but your action is regressive.

I hadnt heard this clip until a couple weeks ago, when I read this note from listener Michael Mosley:

Even Al Sharpton has figured out that so-called progressives are not progressive. So when is WORLD going to stop calling them progressive? They're more like regressive.

Ill admit I was a little defensive when I first read the noteyou see, our WORLD Radio style guide includes this encouragement for us as reporters and editors:

The term progressive should be avoided, except when its part of the proper name of an organization. The term suggests that one faction supports progress and its opponents are against progress.

So I was ready to fire off that response when I thought: perhaps I should do a quick search of our recent transcripts first. I didnt expect to get many returns, but was surprised to find out that the terms been used quite a few times recently. Here are four examples:

STEVE WEST: But the larger issue is whether Disney knows its audience well enough, it needs to hear from shareholders concerned about its foray into progressive gender ideology and its films

JULIANNA ERICKSON: And so Somerville is a fairly progressive liberal city

CAL THOMAS: with the goal being a good education, not fulfilling some secular progression, objective of diversity

KATIE MCCOY: The UK, Sweden, and Finland are all countries that have been very progressive about transgender therapies for minors. They are reversing course in our own cultural psyche. We tend to believe that all change is progress and all progress is good

I think its clear in all four clips that were not using the term positivelyin fact, I like what Katie McCoy saidnot all change is actually progress. So I think most of you understand exactly what were saying when we use the term: progressive.

But that doesnt change the fact that our style guide discourages us from using the term. So I decided to bring the topic up during this weeks Editorial Council meeting.

Heres a few highlights of that conversation:

MICKEY: It's kind of a euphemism to me. To me it's just kind of a namby-pamby way of calling a liberal a liberal.

TIM: But theyre not liberal.

MICKEY: Not in the classic sense, no.

NICK: And thats the problem.

TIM: I prefer progressive to liberal because they're not liberal. And I do think that progress is how they think of their ideology. Just as a conservative belief in conserving something that, that sort of seems like the opposite of conserving is, is moving forward...

NICK: It's sort of the bad politics version of being reformed, you know, always reforming, they're always progressing, but progressivism, there's no limit to it.

LYNDE: Ive told my writers instead of saying progressive, lets reference what belief is relevant to the story

Proverbs 11:14 and 24:6 both teach that in a multitude of counselors there is safety. Thats really thethe purpose of our weekly meetings: to discern together what is best when it comes to questions like this one.

Albert Mohler doesnt sit on our editorial council, but as the executive editor of WORLD Opinions, I thought it would be helpful to hear what he had to say:

ALBERT MOHLER: Writing is about communication and communication requires accurate but reductive language. For the WORLD Opinions side I simply have to say that if we avoid using the language currently employed in the larger culture, we would make no sense to ourselves or to others.

I will say that there is no way to write editorial content without using words like conservative, liberal, progressive/progressivist, and, occasionally, reactionary. The same holds for left, right, and center. Again, each contains a thousand arguments.

The listener makes a moral point but, if adopted, his proposal would mean that no reader will be able to understand our eccentric vocabulary.

Now you should know that we are in the process of updating our WORLD Policy Handbook and style guide for the first time since 2019, so this is an ongoing discussion that were addressing for the upcoming edition. But the growing consensus within our current editorial leadership is that we must avoid using the term progressive if its merely covering for sloppy reportingthats true of any label.

But as Albert Mohler rightly points out there are times when the term progressive is appropriateshorthand for identifying those who desireas Tim Lamer saidto move beyond Biblical truth and traditional values. Or as Nick Eicher pointed out, for those who only wish to progress to the next restraint in order to cast it off. And that brings us back to what Mickey Mclean suggested, that sometimes we need the courage to use more accurate termscalling a spade a spade

Finally we acknowledge that the term progressive is abstract. So, as Lynde Langdon said, if we can identify the specific belief in question instead it will make our stories more concrete more clear and frankly better.

So Michael, thanks for the questionits provided a great opportunity for our editors to discuss it, and bear with us as we make progress toward a unified answer.

Im Paul Butler.

WORLD Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of WORLD Radio programming is the audio record.

Read the original here:
Ask the Editor: Why use the term progressive? - WORLD News Group

Views expressed in opinion columns are the authors own.

How does Wes Moore make you feel?

When you saw his brightly-colored logo on billboards or heard his enthusiastic tone in campaign ads, did it make you feel hopeful for Marylands future? If you were anything like one-third of Democratic gubernatorial primary voters or two-thirds of this states voters in November Moores brand won you over. Our states next senator will need a progressive brand like Moores to win.

In this case, branding is not just about logo design or social media aesthetic, although thats certainly part of it. Every candidate in American political history had a brand that was defined by how people viewed them. Some of these brands came with taglines.

Remember Tippecanoe and Tyler too? No? How about, Make America Great Again? The aggressive, vaguely-patriotic slogan summed up Donald Trumps whole brand in four words.

Marylands gubernatorial primary last year had three main candidates: state Comptroller Peter Franchot, former Secretary of Labor Tom Perez and Moore.

Of those three, only Moores campaign had a slogan: Leave No One Behind.

This catchphrase, combined with Moores youth and boundless charisma, formed a winning brand and helped him overcome his relative lack of political experience. Summed up in a word, the brand was progressive.

Design-wise, progressive brands in politics have included vibrant blues and sans-serif block lettering. Minimalist logo designs have found success in recent years, with Obamas O providing a blueprint for future Democratic candidates.

Obamas inspiring message evoked a feeling in voters that catapulted him into the White House: hope. After his election, Americans view of race relations reached a high point, international opinion of the country improved and the electorate diversified racially. A unifying brand centered on change and optimism, as evidenced by his presidency, makes our country stronger.

With the nations hope invested in a candidate, their mandate becomes impenetrable. Marylands next senator can capture this progressivism to instill hope in their constituents.

Moores high approval rating goes hand-in-hand with a majority of Marylanders characterizing Moore as progressive. In contrast, moderate President Joe Bidens approval in Maryland is seven points lower than Moores. Its clear that, in Maryland, progressivism sells.

Progressives have dominated Marylands political scene, which boast some of the bluest waves in the country. Campaigns setting sail this cycle must heed the winds of change, which blow firmly to the left as Generation Z floods the scene.

Progressive branding will guide legislative candidates into Senate seats, one of which will be vacated by Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.) in 2024.

Over his 58 years campaigning and serving in the government, Cardin has formed a brand centered on moral integrity, character and accomplishment. While these are noble traits to aspire to, Cardins outdated branding is falling out of style with younger voters.

Another prominent, older legislator, 89-year-old Dianne Feinstein, is currently facing calls to resign amid an extended leave of absence that has left Democrats shorthanded. Nationally, the median age of the American population is 38, while the median age of Congress members is two decades older.

Looking for an alternative, Maryland voters seem likely to flock to older politicians opponents. Cardins eventual replacement may lack in experience and rapport, but would make up for it with charisma, modernity and a forward-thinking brand.

As the crowd of Democratic candidates for the coveted seat gets bigger, candidates may have a difficult time standing out. With many candidates agreeing on core political values, voters may end up choosing based on vibes alone. In politics, vibes are simply the results of a carefully-curated brand forged by highly-paid professionals. Public perception will decide the winner, and branding will decide public perception before the race even begins.

Furthermore, if these candidates fail to separate from one another, a fractured Democratic base could be an opportunity for Republicans to swoop in. Even though their party garnered less than one-third of the gubernatorial vote last year, a Republican could use modern branding to whittle away the 24 percent gap between Republican and Democratic voters in Maryland.

Marylanders deserve a senator that can show the country what we offer: a model for the equitable policies that our nation desperately needs. The candidate who embraces this people-focused, progressive approach will emerge from the Democratic crowd and unite our state under their brand.

Joey Barke is a sophomore government and politics and journalism major. He can be reached at joey@terpmail.umd.edu

Read the original:
Maryland's next senator will need a distinctive progressive brand - The Diamondback

Personal income tax rates won't increase in New York's state budget, a move that never seemed to gain much traction in the talks and a development that disappoints progressive advocates who had called for the increase.

The budget is expected to be finalized this week and is more than a month late.

Progressives this year had organized an effort to once again increase taxes on the highest income earners in New York in order to fund a variety of safety net programs in the state.

"This year was a critical opportunity to address growing inequality in New York," said Carolyn Martinez-Class, a campaign manager for the Invest in Our New York campaign. "The budget could have generated billions of dollars in sorely needed new public funds by raisingtaxes on New York's wealthiest residents and corporations and investing those dollars directly into our communities a move that poll after poll shows is widely popular with New York residents, regardless of political affiliation."

Lawmakers and Gov. Kathy Hochul have agreed to a $229 billion budget that will include a handful of tax increases: Taxes on cigarettes will increase by $1 per pack and a "modest" increase in a mobility tax will go toward funding mass transit in the New York City area.

But broad-based tax increases, especially on upper income earners, never seemed to gain much attention in the negotiations even as Democratic lawmakers called for higher tax rates on those who make $5 million and above.

New York closed out the fiscal year in April with a budget surplus estimated to be at more than $8 billion. A tax hike this year on wealthy New Yorkers would be the second tax hike in three years.

Hochul, however, never embraced the calls for income tax rates to rise in the state.

Fiscal watchdogs and Republican lawmakers had opposed tax increases as well, calling them unnecessary and potentially counterproductive.

"You know the New York motto is Excelsior, right? It means 'ever upward.' I guess this means under one party rule, that means our taxes are going ever upward," Republican Assemblyman Robert Smullen said last month.

Go here to read the rest:
New York's budget won't hike income tax rates, disappointing ... - Spectrum News

After the indictment of Donald Trump, a chorus of progressive celebrities clutched pearls in fits of moral superiority claiming nobody is above the law."

These were the same progressives who spent years pushing the phony Russian Collusion narrative along with other false narratives to destroy Trump and his family. This comes despite the Rasmussen Poll of American voters, taken after the indictment, showing Trump went from trailing Biden 45-42 before the indictment to overtaking Biden by seven points (47-40) after the indictment

Reasoned politicians like even Trump haters Jeb Bush and Mitt Romney are clear this indictment is politically motivated and unfair. This is an outrageous double standard already undermining the law and our republic. Let me explain.

First, its critical to understand the forces bringing this indictment and what its about. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg ran for office promising to indict Trump even before seeing evidence. Famed Professor and author Victor David Hanson summarized some of the critical reasons this indictment was unjust and political: At least two left-leaning federal and state prosecutors (and the FEC) previously have passed on the same evidence Bragg is now using for his indictments. They have explained that such a prosecution is infeasible because of statutes of limitations, because of a state attorney improperly appropriating the role of a federal prosecutor, and because non-disclosures agreements are a fact of life and not strictly illegal.

People are also reading

Hanson continued, Braggs chief witness Michael Cohen is a felon and confessed liar, with a deep personal hatred of Donald Trump -- a fact well known to all potential prosecutors.

Despite his get Trump campaign promises, even Alvin Bragg initially decided the case could not be brought. In that decision, Bragg was slammed by the left. However, after Trump announced for president, the indictment came. The indictment alleges that Trump paid porn star Stormy Daniels through his lawyer Michael Cohen for her to sign a non-disclosure agreement to silence the allegations.

Trumps business records show the payments as legal expenses. The misdemeanor records-keeping charge was turned into a felony by Bragg by alleging this misdemeanor was a felony by covering up a felony. To convict, this appears to require proving that the sole reason Trump tried to keep the alleged affair secret was for the campaign. Not his wife, family or business. Nancy Pelosi spoke for most on the left in claiming Trump has the right to prove his innocence (while facing over 130+ years in prison).

While the left is clutching pearls, they throw rocks from the most fragile glass house. Bill and Hillary Clinton grossly violated federal law repeatedly. This goes beyond Bill Clintons affair and perjury felonies in the Lewinsky matter. I quote Victor David Hanson again: Trump did not violate federal law, as did Hillary Clinton, by destroying federally subpoenaed emails and devices in order to hide evidence ... sending classified government communications on her own, through an unsecured home-brewed server ... hiring through three paywalls a foreign national, who is prohibited from working on presidential campaigns, to compile a dossier to smear her presidential opponent ... hiding her payments (as 'legal services') to Christopher Steele through bookkeeping deceptions ... Bill Clinton, use(d) a crony to search out a high-paying New York job for a paramour in order to influence her testimony before a special counsel ... Bill Clinton, received a $500,000 'honorarium' for speaking in Moscow while his wife, our secretary of state, approved a longstanding and lucrative desire of the Kremlin for North American uranium to be sold to a Russian consortium.

As to the Bidens, Trump did not, as the Bidens did, set up a family consortium to leverage monies from Ukraine, Russia, and China, on their shared expectations that he might soon run for and be elected president and become compromised ... Joe Biden (is mentioned) in family business communications as a recipient of a 10% commission on such payoffs ... Joe Biden, removed presidential papers without any authority to declassify them and (left) them scattered and unsecured in a garage.

Liberal icons John Brennan and James Clapper, and Andrew McCabe (among many others) committed federal felonies lying to Congress under oath. The list is long.

History has shown that political persecution through the law destroys nations. The late Roman Republic lasted hundreds of years but fell apart primarily due to the cycle of political legal persecution. We counsel developing countries against what is happening now with this indictument. Through censorship of the right in academia and big tech and the biased echo chambers of the mainstream media, progressives believe they are morally superior to conservatives and can act with impunity. With that belief, unequal application of the law seems justified for them, and feel safe doing so. This is delusional.

According to the New York Post, at least two non-federal DAs are looking to indict the Bidens, and there is plenty of evidence through Hunters laptop for those charges.

The left is destroying the law and republic. Its time we turn to God and speak the truth in demanding this stop now.

Bill Connor, a retired Army Infantry colonel, author and Orangeburg attorney, has deployed multiple times to the Middle East. Connor was the senior U.S. military adviser to Afghan forces in Helmand Province, where he received the Bronze Star. A Citadel graduate with a JD from USC, he is also a Distinguished Graduate of the U.S. Army War College, earning his of strategic studies. He is the author of the book "Articles from War.

Get opinion pieces, letters and editorials sent directly to your inbox weekly!

Read the rest here:
COMMENTARY: Progressive double standards - The Times and Democrat

The Holston Conference of the United Methodist Church finalized Saturday the departure of 264 churches.{p}{/p}

The United Methodist Church (UMC) saw the departure of more than 200 member churches.

More than 100 of those churches are based in Tennessee.

That's according to Knoxville's WJHL.

The Holston Conference now has 578 churches after starting Saturday with 842.

WJHL reports the number represents 31% of churches in the conference, which stretches from the Chattanooga metro area to the Blacksburg, Virginia area in the northeast.

According to the UMC's website, the Holston Conference of The United Methodist Church is comprised of 842 congregations, organized in nine districts, and located in East Tennessee, Southwest Virginia, and North Georgia.

On Saturday the UMC called a special session of the Holston Conference, which acts as a kind of umbrella organization for the UMC, where delegates considered all the disaffiliation requests in a single vote, which passed.

The departures are the culmination of a years-long rift between more traditional congregations and those that are more moderate or progressive, particularly around issues of sexuality.

We have reached out to local UMC pastors in our area for their comments.

This story will be updated as we hear back from local faith leaders and learn more information.

Read more:
Rifts between conservatives, progressives intensify at United Methodist Church - WTVC