Mediaboss Marketing

THESE are divisive times in politics and public life; strident voices stoking division are all around. Many of them tell us that the age we live in is shaped by culture wars and cancel culture.

Cheap talk is everywhere surrounded by noise, charge and counter-charge. New media platforms like Rupert Murdochs Talk TV assist loud men such as Piers Morgan to broadcast their ill-informed opinions to the world even when there is next to no audience.

At the same time, how division is talked about and understood has become more problematic. This is true across many areas of life, and particularly in how we frame issues of class and race.

Last week the centre-left Centre for Labour and Social Studies (CLASS) think-tank released The UK Race-Class Narrative Report which explored this terrain and conducted extensive polling and interviews. This illuminates how people see class and race, how it is framed in politics and media, and the consequences in how we conduct ourselves in a divided society.

READ MORE:Kirsty Strickland: Rayner puts the PM off his stride, but not because of her legs

First, it found significant support across the UK public for progressive positions. Thus 58% of respondents said people of colour face greater barriers than white people; 60% think focusing on and talking about race is necessary to advance greater equality; 60% think working class struggles are due to the unfair nature of society; and 65% think wealthy people are wealthy because they know how to use opportunities not because they are more talented or work harder.

Second, dig deeper into the research and it throws light on how people see class in the UK. Class is not understood in relation to inequality and power but as a ladder to climb that is more difficult for many. It is seen as a system with rankings and hierarchies that is rigged against most people.

Third, key in all of the above is understanding the diverse nature of the working class in age, occupation, background, gender, race and ethnicity. Terms such as the white working class are divisive, loaded and racialised, deliberately dividing the working class by race.

Fourth, class is enduring despite decades of mainstream politics and media trying to deny or dilute its relevance. This is not just politicians such as John Major proclaiming that he wanted to turn the UK into a genuinely classless society and Tony Blair saying that I want to make you all middle class but much more pervasive is how class is represented in media.

This typically links working class identity to ancient, obsolete images of cloth-capped men working in manufacturing industry in massive sized plants, usually with pictures of strikes, picket lines and tales of trade union power in the 1970s. The underlying message is that class and working class are relics from Britains past and that today we live in an age of individual aspiration and choice.

Hence one of the major takeaways from this report is the enduring nature of class, even though politics and media attempt to diminish and marginalise it, and to sell us a version of ourselves and society individualised, fragmented and divided, where we are all reduced to atomised customers. Increasingly this account has come up against the very different reality of the UK even before the current cost of living crisis.

The CLASS report proposes that the language of the right of talk about culture wars and cancel culture seeks to disguise the fundamental divisions that exist in society and aims to prevent us holding those with power to account by inventing a whole host of spurious divisions which obfuscate matters of substance and galvanise the forces of reaction.

It is not surprising that right-wingers want to launch culture wars, defend statues the length and breadth of Britain and divert our gaze now. They have dominated the politics of economics for the past 40 years. The grim landscape we inhabit is a direct product of their dogmatic policies with rising poverty and hardship and millions of people unable to feed their families and heat their homes.

Rishi Sunak, the richest MP in the Commons and richest person to be Chancellor, cannot possibly grasp these realities as he is so far removed from them but also because he is a Thatcherite ideologue and product of corporate class groupthink. In this world winners matter if you cannot eat or feed your family it is because you are a failure and it is your fault.

The CLASS report poses that the left across Britain needs a better set of stories to deal with the rights culture wars and to talk about class and race. One aspect on the former is to talk about the issues which unite people and which people care about. But on this the left has shown an ill-ease and nervousness, similar to how it has approached class and race.

It is not enough in todays insecure world just to talk about the abstracts of inequality and privilege which are particular favourites of the left in their critique of neoliberalism. Most people do not see the world by such relational terms, and as for neoliberalism, very few people outside of the left-wing tent or academia has any grasp of what the term means.

READ MORE:Sister of Sheku Bayoh says Scotland is a racist country

The stakes are high in this terrain for getting it wrong and the political discourse will be increasingly filled with angry white men blowing off with outrage about some petty injustice while not offering any insights into how society is run and how it could be changed for the better.

It is also not enough to hope as John Harris did in The Guardian on Sunday that the serious times we are living in will produce a weariness for the superficial and a yearning for the substantial. That does not happen automatically; it has to be willed. And parts of the media have over decades become even more trivial and blatant in their propaganda witness the Mail and Express on Boris Johnsons many crises.

The CLASS report shows that people still see themselves in terms of collective identities and want to see collective solutions as answers to the problems of the present. But this needs to be advocated, nurtured and advanced through accounts in which people can see themselves, allowing them to recognise that they have power and, as in previous generations, that they have the potential to change the nature of the economic and social order.

After 40 years of a class politics of reaction and the right we have to restate the power of class and the working class, of trade unions and other organisations of workers and work. And that might be a problem for politicians, even on the centre-left in Scotland and the UK, who have grown up accommodating themselves to the politics of individualism in recent decades.

See the article here:
Gerry Hassan: Progressives in politics must start speaking more on class and race - The National

MAYFIELD VILLAGE, Oh Progressive Insurances most dedicated employee, Flo, is falling in love well, maybe.

In a new advertising campaign, set to launch Monday, May 23, consumers will get another chapter of Flos story -- one that links her to one of the most loved actors in Hollywood -- Jon Hamm.

During the three-commercial series, Flos Love Interest, we find the two were set up on a blind date when he was still a struggling actor. He liked her, but she only seemed interested in saving him money on his home and auto protection.

This unlikely pairing and love story arc is a first for Flo, played by comedian Stephanie Courtney, and Progressives line-up of campaigns and characters.

Flo has been at the heart of Progressives marketing for nearly fifteen years. Weve witnessed her undying love of insurance, watched as friendships have developed, and have even met her family, but one aspect of her life has remained a mysteryuntil now, said Progressives Chief Marketing Officer Remi Kent. In partnering with Jon Hamm, we fan the flames of brand love in a way that consumers can relate to, because who hasnt experienced the awkwardness of unrequited love.

Progressive is set to launch a new advertising campaign, this one following the unlikely pairing of the company's iconic pitch woman, Flo, with Hollywood actor Jon Hamm. (Photo courtesy Progressive Insurance)

The advertising campaign follows Flo navigating an unexpected encounter on the street with Hamm. While he, again, seems eager to capture her heart, Flo only has room for one love in her life: insurance. The commercial series is slated to run nationally throughout the summer on broadcast and digital channels, as well as Hulu. You can watch the campaign videos here.

Years after their unsuccessful blind date -- and his subsequent rise to stardom Hamm once again crosses paths with Flo, rekindling his interest in the apron-clad insurance maven. The three-part journey features Hamm pining for Flos attention, complete with romantic gestures and unexpected insurance emergencies.

Why Hamm?

Like any episodic story, guest stars and are a great way to bring new life into familiar storylines, said a Progressive representative. When choosing our guest stars, we look to identify those who have deep followings or are culturally relevant. Thats why we chose Jon, one of the most well-known actors in Hollywood. Additionally, his name is synonymous with the advertising world thanks to his iconic role on Mad Men, so he was a no-brainer to work with.

Unanswered love is something we can all relate to, so I was thrilled to be able to play a role in this campaign, said Hamm, in a release from Progressive. I really enjoyed the dynamic between Flo and I and was excited to play myself in a campaign with a trusted brand and an iconic character.

Will Hamm win her affections? Will Flo stay true to herself, offering insurance discounts whenever and however she can? We will just have to watch to find out.

Progressive is the third-largest auto insurer in the country and is one of the top 15 homeowners insurance carriers.

Go here to see the original:
Progressive Insurance to launch new Flo ad campaign with Mad Men actor Jon Hamm as romantic suitor - cleveland.com

Once upon a time, Milwaukee elected Frank Zeidler, the last socialist mayor of a major American city. His last term ended in 1960. As famously noted in Waynes World, he was actually one of three socialists the city historically elected to the seat. But historyeven if some argue that parts of what such mayors accomplished later became mainstreamis what it is.

In fact, in 2019, Milwaukee was rated the worst city for Black people to live. That has much to do with decisions by the citys contemporary leaders, including Milwaukee District Attorney John Chisholm, who still refuses to stop prosecuting marijuana possession unlike his peer progressive prosecutors.

Luckily enough for Chisholm and many others who suffer by comparison, the number of progressive prosecutorsidentified particularly as those elected post-2014 with the help of George Soros-affiliated Super PACs seeking to remold the professionhas stopped growing.

On May 17, two candidatesBrian Decker in Washington County (suburban Portland), Oregon and Damon Chetson in Wake County (Raleigh), North Carolina, whose platforms included elements of decarceration, drug policy reform and death penalty abolitionwere electorally defeated. That was despite major problems in the administrations of the incumbents they were challenging.

The movement is now firmly on defense, if not life support.

In Washington County, District Attorney Kevin Barton has opposed drug decriminalization and described defunding the police as a mistake. He has long wanted to criminalize violent video games, despite this being unconstitutional and far from mainstream public opinion. One of his top deputies, Bracken McKey, has infamously suggested that marijuana is associated with people beating their wives and neglecting their kids.

In Wake County, District Attorney Lorrin Freeman has repeatedly tried to shove capital punishment down local jurors throats, even though they have time and time again rejected it. After her office was forced to exonerate not one but two innocent Black men convicted of serious felonies, Freeman gave an impassioned defense of the prosecutor who obtained both convictions at trial.

No matter: Both Barton and Freeman secured comfortable election victories.

Numerous incumbent luminaries of the progressive prosecutor movement, such as Baltimore States Attorney Marilyn Mosby, are meanwhile under heavy fire. The movement is now firmly on defense, if not life support.

The broader political picture is that the momentum we saw for sweeping reform of the criminal-legal system in the wake of the 2020 George Floyd protests seems to have been well and truly stalled by right-wing exploitation of rising rates of violent crime (rates that still remain far below historic highs). Never mind that the fear of crime that conservatives love to stoke is not assuaged by higher incarceration rates.

There are of course nuances as to why the latest races may have turned out the way they did. Unlike in the recent past, Soros did not give millions or even hundreds of thousands of dollars to political unknowns running on a progressive platform for top local prosecutor seats. After giving $1 million to then-Manhattan DA candidate Alvin Bragg last year, Soros gave a comparatively measly $20,000 to Decker in Oregon. In North Carolina, Chetson got nothing.

Candidate selection has proven a major issue, in part because very few people want the stress of being a district attorney. It is a thankless job, and one that marks attorneys for professional retaliation if they lose.

And in the case of Damon Chetson, until very recently, he was a registered Republican, even if he also has a past of opposing the drug war. It is unsurprising that Soros would not spend money on him. And Soros money is all-but-essential to secure wins for reform candidatesa fact that underlines, as I have previously written, the argument for public financing for prosecutor campaigns.

The stigma against Republicans turned alleged progressives is not entirely irrational, either, especially with the impending repeal of Roe v. Wade. When I worked on Mecklenburg County (Charlotte) DA Spencer Merriweathers re-election campaign in 2018, part of my motivation was to prevent progressive challenger Toussaint Romain, also a recent former Republican, from getting elected.

While many fellow public defenders supported Romain, I could not get past the fact that Romain, a graduate of Regent Universitys hyper-conservative law school, called obtaining an acquittal for a man who attempted to incite violence against doctors who perform abortions a a win for the Kingdom; a win for this alum; a win for my Calling; a win for us!

San Francisco DA Chesa Boudin is almost certain to be recalled, and Los Angeles DA George Gascn faces a similar fate.

Did the so-called progressive prosecutor movement fail to do due diligence? Unfortunately, this is a pattern of such instances. In another 2018 race, the propped-up progressive who challenged Californias most influential conservative prosecutor, Sacramento DA Anne Marie Schubert, was outed for sending racist, misogynistic emails at work. Another so-called progressive who found his home in the movement was 2019 Pittsburgh DA candidate Turahn Jenkins, a public defender whose campaign tanked after it came out that he spewed anti-LGBTQ rhetoric at his church

The one brighter spot for progressives in a May 17 primary was that Durham DA Satana Deberry kept her seat. But compared to other progressive DAs, Deberry barely qualifies. When she first ran for DA in 2018, she, like Milwaukees Chisholm, refused to promise any decriminalization policies, for even the most trifling of nonviolent misdemeanors.

With San Francisco DA Chesa Boudinalmost certain to be recalled, and Los Angeles DA George Gascn facing a similar fate, the progressive DA movement is in dire straits.

Perhaps progressive prosecutors will one day be remembered similarly to Milwaukees socialist mayors: politicians ahead of their time, some of whose policies would later be mainstreamed. Is that the best supporters of criminal justice reform, unswayed by rampant media alarmism, can hope for?

Photograph by Domesticat via Flickr/Creative Commons 2.0

Read more:
Is the Progressive Prosecutor Movement on Its Last Legs? - Filter

For people who love name-calling and mudslinging, progressives sure have their collective panties in a bunch over the word groomer. As the debate over Floridas Parental Rights in Education bill continues to rage, folks on the hard left are all kinds of upset because conservatives are giving them a small dose of their own medicine.

In case youve been living in a cave over the past few months, the issue started when far-leftists became angry at people for supporting the notion that teachers should not be instructing seven-year-olds on matters pertaining to gender identity and sexuality and cutting their parents out of the equation. Conservatives responded by referring to those pushing this type of ideology on schoolchildren as groomers.

Of course, these folks dont mean groomers in the traditional sense in which a pedophile grooms a child in order to victimize them. Nobody is saying teachers and people opposing Floridas law are trying to have sex with minors. But the fact that they want state employees to speak to children without their parents knowing is a form of grooming.

But now, high-profile leftists are whining about what they believe to be an unfair label after spending five years calling anyone to the right of Bernie Sanders Nazis and literally Hitler.

In Politicos newsletter, author Matt Friedman deceptively claimed the groomer term was being used to promote the false stereotype that gay people regularly prey on children to convert them into homosexuals. He wrote:

Lately, commentators on the right are characterizing these standards and laws as indoctrination or, arguably worse still, grooming. Thats playing on an age-old anti-gay trope that theres a compulsion among non-heterosexual people to convert vulnerable children to their sexual orientation. Nevermind that some of the organizations that have had the worst sexual abuse scandals have historically been anti-gay. Do you really need me to name them?

The New York Times published a piece featuring four progressive podcasters and columnists. These folks also chimed in on the cultural battle over school curriculum. Podcaster Jane Coaston took issue with the use of the term, referring to a right-leaning writer who has used it:

Rod Dreher, the conservative writer said that, oh, no, no, when were talking about grooming, were not talking about pedophiles which is ridiculous. But he essentially said that, oh, it means that an adult who wants to separate children from a normative sexual and gender identity to inspire confusion in them, which just reminds me of Anita Bryant in 1978, essentially arguing that homosexuals must recruit, and that all children are cisgender and heterosexual until something happens.

Former Vox editor Ezra Klein also complained about people being called groomers and even made a pathetic attempt to link it to conspiracy theory cult QAnon. He said:

And on the other side you have this groomer thing, which is an attempt to take QAnons view which is one reason its resonating on the far right that all of politics is an effort by Democrats to protect pedophiles and then find some way to sort of wink, wink that youre on board with that view of politics while saying its actually a little bit about something else.

Last, but not least, we have New York Times commentator Jamelle Bouie, who also pretended the term was being used specifically for members of the LGBTQ community. He said:

To go back to what weve been talking about, I think that something similar may happen with these bills. Screaming that your kids gay third-grade teacher is a pedophile or a groomer when you know that this person has been absolutely lovely to you, your child and your family its not going to fly, I think, for most people or for people outside of this narrow bubble.

Of course, these folks dont actually believe for a second that when conservatives use the term groomer, they are referring to the stereotype about members of the LGBTQ community. They know better.

The problem is that they know they or people in their camp have been engaging in this type of behavior for decades. Are conservatives inaccurately labeling some folks as groomers? Of course, they are in many not all cases. Does the term get its point across? Depends on who you ask, but for those who arent taking the progressive line on this, it is more likely to make sense.

But the left has no leg to stand on when it comes to the use of this particular political tactic.

Where were the folks on the left criticizing their comrades when they tried to convince the public that anyone who disagreed with them was a racist/sexist/homophobe/other slur? When Democrats were calling Republicans racist for disagreeing with Obamacare, we didnt see these folks call out anyone on their own side.

Democrats and the activist media have been comparing Trump supporters to people who gassed millions of Jews and killed millions more during World War II. There was nary a peep coming from the left.

Their president tried to lump in people who disagreed with the Democrats Voting Rights Act with the likes of Bull Connor and other purveyors of Jim Crow. Where was the pushback coming from his party?

Case in point.

Sure, there are a few on the left who will criticize their fellow leftists for engaging in this behavior. Jane Coaston is one of them. Conversely, there are folks on the right who will rightly point out that not everyone who questions Floridas law is supporting the sexual grooming of little kids. But this is the world the far-left has created. These are the rules they wanted to play by. Like Ive said before, dont dish it out if you cant take it.

Now, would American political discourse be much healthier if neither side engaged in this behavior? Of course it would. It would also be nice if someone gave me a million dollars, but that aint happening today, is it?

What we are seeing is progressives losing a battle they thought they could win. Although, for the life of me, I cant figure out why they thought arguing against parental rights and promoting teaching sexuality and gender identity to small children was ever going to be a winning issue. But they are now dealing with backlash coming from Democratic and Republican voters alike. They dont like being hit with that label. But if they didnt want this to happen, they shouldnt have started it in the first place.

Read more here:
Progressives Exhibit Woke Fragility Over Being Labeled Groomers

I live in Philadelphia, a hugely unequal city. Our access to education, transportation and health care and the quality of these services often depends on our ZIP codes. And nobody knows that better than people who live in minority communities.

So lets suppose I said theyre wrong. Sure, they think they need better services. But they dont know what theyre talking about, and the rest of us dont need to listen to them.

Progressives would be outraged and rightly so. The residents in our minority neighborhoods want to be afforded the same dignity and opportunities as anyone else. Its callous and, yes, racist to ignore their wishes.

Except, it appears, when it comes to policing. Poor and minority people want more police on their streets. And progressives arent listening.

Consider a recent survey by the Pew Charitable Trusts, which found that roughly two-thirds of Black and Hispanic citizens in Philadelphia dont believe the city has enough police officers, whereas white people were more than twice as likely as Black citizens to say that there are too many police. And the people who said the city had enough or too many police were also more likely to have a college degree and an annual income of over $100,000.

You dont need a criminology degree to figure out why. As the same survey confirmed, over half of Black and Hispanic residents in the city reported that gun violence has affected their quality of life, while a little less than 20% of white citizens said the same. Minority communities face more danger, so they want more policing. And white and wealthier communities have less to fear, so theyre less likely to demand more police.

Its not just a Philly thing; we can see the same trend in national polling. And African American elected officials are taking note of it. In New York, Chicago and San Francisco, Black mayors have called for more police. And here in Philadelphia, Councilwoman Cherelle Parker has led a charge to add 125 officers to the citys strapped police force.

The response from many progressives? Police are the problem, not the solution. We can get more surveillance, more cops patrolling the streets harassing our neighbors, but we cant actually get safety with that, said Kris Henderson, executive director of the Amistad Law Project. Instead, Henderson argued, the city should devote resources to what minority communities really need: education, health care and so on.

But thats a false dichotomy, as the Pew survey confirms. Of course, our poor and minority communities need and deserve much better social services. But they also need more police officers, as residents of those communities have made clear. Theres nothing inconsistent about wanting both.

Nor is there anything contradictory about demanding better policing along with more officers. Racial profiling and brutality remain endemic problems on many municipal police forces. Thats why fewer than half of all respondents in the Pew survey said they feel confident that police in their community treat Black and white people equally.

But minority residents think thats a reason to improve policing, not to reduce it. So why wont progressives listen to them?

One answer lies in what political analyst Ruy Teixeira calls the Fox News Fallacy: If something appears on right-wing media, anyone who repeats it must be wrong. Turn on Fox, and youll see an endless loop of crime stories plus demands to step up policing. So if you want more police on our streets, the story goes, youre enabling the other team.

Nonsense. The best way to empower Fox News and to elect Republican candidates in November is to dismiss minority concerns around policing. Ignoring them will confirm the GOP narrative about progressives as out-of-touch elitists, who hate on the police from the safety of their Uber rides and doorman-protected apartments.

I dare you to tell someone who lives with gun violence every day that we need less policing. And then tell me how you can call that progressive. Im listening.

Jonathan Zimmerman teaches education and history at the University of Pennsylvania. He is the author, with cartoonist Signe Wilkinson, of Free Speech and Why You Should Give a Damn.

Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email letters@chicagotribune.com.

Read this article:
Jonathan Zimmerman: Progressives have turned a deaf ear to minority ...