Left Wing View – Mov Soc http://movsoc.org/ Fri, 24 Sep 2021 04:45:00 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=5.8 http://movsoc.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/mov-soc-icon.png Left Wing View – Mov Soc http://movsoc.org/ 32 32 Is civil discourse a thing of the past? | Blogs http://movsoc.org/is-civil-discourse-a-thing-of-the-past-blogs/ http://movsoc.org/is-civil-discourse-a-thing-of-the-past-blogs/#respond Fri, 24 Sep 2021 04:45:00 +0000 http://movsoc.org/is-civil-discourse-a-thing-of-the-past-blogs/

I have read a lot recently about the lack of civil discourse in the country today. Much of the attention has been focused on attacks or “cancellations” of people who have some level of public exposure. For example, Jon Stewart was hammered for suggesting that the COVID virus originated from the Wuhan lab. Obviously, Stewart’s point, which is supported by a lot of evidence, is off-limits, something that cannot be argued.

Mike Gonzalez, a former Wall Street Journal reporter, wrote a book on the Marxist Black Lives Matter Global Foundation. In it, he takes care to distinguish between “Black Lives Matter” as a slogan or sentiment, which he endorses, and the organization, which he seeks to expose as revolutionary.

No matter. Amazon has informed the Heritage Foundation, of which Gonzalez is affiliated, that it will not accept the advertising copy offered by the foundation. The reason? Amazon says the ad does not meet its “standards” but does not specify exactly what those standards are.

Last year, Twitter deleted tweets linking to a New York Post article about the contents of Hunter Biden’s laptop, another subject that an unspecified censor of Google-owned Twitter decided to to prohibit. More personally, I see constant complaints on my feed of people saying their followers have been deleted or their tweets have been deleted. Not all of them are from people whose tweets are “conservative”. Several are of those whose tweets and profiles show them to be quite progressive.

Personally, I try to avoid getting involved in any political debate on social media, which in my opinion are poor platforms for debate. But as I wrote before, my rather moderate tweets in favor of vaccination drew name calling from committed anti-vaccines. In contrast, hip-hop singer Nicki Minaj, herself an anti-vaxxer, drew a lot of abuse for saying she would not get the vaccine. His reasons are crazy. But deserve a full press from the government? Barely.

On Facebook, where I carefully avoid political discourse, I notice accusations directed at officials avoiding closures and masking warrants, suggesting that those officials are agents of death. The same people celebrate every death in Florida as a very good thing.

So much for civil discourse. Can’t someone politely disagree?

Sometimes I think not. Not anymore. Even in private conversations, I notice a rapid rise in the temperature in the room. Many are quick to make all kinds of accusations similar to what I’ve seen on Facebook, sometimes without any provocation from anyone else. Others I know quickly get angry, don’t want to listen to fact-based arguments, and resort to name calling almost immediately.

We notice such behavior from those with whom we disagree, but an honest assessment leads me to conclude that people on our side of a problem are capable of the same behavior. I’m trying to understand the reasons.

I think there are several. First, the pandemic has made us all fearful, tense, frustrated, and in some cases a little crazy. In such an atmosphere, trying to strike a balance, get the best information possible, and make decisions accordingly, has become difficult.

Second, we all live in our own bubble. There are “red states” and “blue states”, left-wing media and right-wing media, and so on. We see colleges teaching ideology for granted, and TV commentators voicing all kinds of wacky opinions. Many of us are shocked that there are people outside our bubble who have different points of view.

You can still get factual information, but you have to work on it. I find it necessary to consult a number of sources and decide which ones are reliable. For example, Fox News can be useful for reporting stories that the beehive mindsets that control other media will not cover; but at the same time some Fox talking heads are spitting out all kinds of garbage.

Fortunately, it is always possible to find people with whom we can have reasonable discussions. I know several of them and enjoy my conversations with them because I hear more than “but Trump,” “but January 6,” or “but voter fraud” from them. It doesn’t take long to find out who they are.

But these opportunities are fewer and fewer. I find it sad, but I don’t think things are going to change anytime soon. It will take a real commitment from many people to bring us back to a civil society.

But I think it will be worth it.

Try the Kingsport Times News app today. Download here from Google Play and the App Store.

Source link

http://movsoc.org/is-civil-discourse-a-thing-of-the-past-blogs/feed/ 0
If Labor is to win, they must promise the change the Tories will not bring | Ellie Mae O’Hagan http://movsoc.org/if-labor-is-to-win-they-must-promise-the-change-the-tories-will-not-bring-ellie-mae-ohagan/ http://movsoc.org/if-labor-is-to-win-they-must-promise-the-change-the-tories-will-not-bring-ellie-mae-ohagan/#respond Thu, 23 Sep 2021 13:36:00 +0000 http://movsoc.org/if-labor-is-to-win-they-must-promise-the-change-the-tories-will-not-bring-ellie-mae-ohagan/

Af the government announced a tax hike to pay for social care last week, political scientist Matthew Goodwin called it “a new era in British politics”. Already hugely popular Conservatives were stealing the opposition’s playbook. “This is what leaning on the left on the economy and leaning on the right on culture looks like,” he said.

And he wasn’t the only one. When Boris Johnson said the responsibility for paying for social care should lie with those with the broadest shoulders, Mirror political editor Pippa Crear, commented: “Close your eyes and it could be a Labor PM speaking. I think that will make many Conservative members uncomfortable. And the anxious Labor.

We have been here before. For more than a decade of Conservative rule, every time the government announces that it is going to intervene in the economy, we can trust the media to announce breathlessly that the Conservatives are parking their tanks on the lawn of Labor. The viewer asked if anyone “noticed Tory tanks rolling across the Labor Lawns” when George Osborne defended the minimum wage in 2014. And in 2017, when Theresa May proposed a policy to reduce labor bills. energy, The Times headlined its article: “May Parks Tanks on Labor Lawn.

The underlying rationale here is the idea that having a laissez-faire state is on the right and having an interventionist state is on the left. So every time the Conservative Party steps into the economy or spends money on utilities, it has to do something left – and Labor should feel the heat.

The logic of “interventionist state = left” was at the base of much of Tony Blair’s strategy. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the winter of discontent and a string of conservative victories, New Labor felt that rejecting left-wing orthodoxy in order to “”[move] ahead of where Thatcher left off, ”as Peter Mandelson put it, would signal voters that he was ready to rule.

Philip Gould, a senior party official, believed New Labor should reject its 1970s iteration, which oversaw “public spending, strikes, and uncontrollable taxes.” So the tax increases went out the window, and the militant tendency – a Trotskyist subgroup of the party – was outlawed.

Almost a quarter of a century after the landslide victory for New Labor, Keir Starmer is taking hold of the old Blairite playbook. This is in its regrettable observation that “the conservatives can no longer claim to be the party of low taxes” after the increase in national insurance announced last week, and in the party’s decision to outlaw the Marxist group Socialist Appeal. Don’t scare the public by suggesting that you will overspend, the top Labors seem to think to themselves, and excommunicate the left so they know you are serious.

But the Blairite playbook won’t work against a Tory party that apparently ditched the rules of 1990s politics in favor of splashing money. And to understand why, we need to rethink what conservatism means, and what the Conservative Party’s real goal is.

In his 2011 book, The Reactionary Mind, political theorist Corey Robin argues that conservatism is first and foremost an exercise in preserving hierarchy, and more specifically resistance – or reaction – to attempts to redistribute wealth and wealth more broadly. power from the left. Robin believes that conservatives are prepared to employ almost any strategy that protects traditional holders of power in society, and that so-called conservative shibboleths such as limited government and individual liberty are just “under.” -products’ of this ultimate goal.

This means that a Conservative government will happily ignore the principles it claims to uphold in favor of its larger project – as long as the actions it takes do not limit elites or hold ordinary people too accountable. Robin writes that “the curator privileged freedom for the higher orders and the constraint for the lower orders”.

Indeed, a few years earlier his point had been made concrete by Guardian columnist Owen Jones when he wrote: The party, he explained, was a “coalition of privileged interests.” Its main objective is to defend this privilege. And the way he wins elections is by giving just enough to just enough to other people. “

When you think of conservatism in this way, the activities of the Conservative Party over the past two years make more sense. The leave scheme does not become an act of socialism, but of self-preservation. The same is true of the meager increase in universal credit – perhaps that is why it was suppressed at the very first opportunity.

You can even see Robin’s argument in the fact that the government introduced the Coronavirus Act, which allows police to detain anyone they deem “potentially contagious,” even though Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak themselves. they themselves ignored the obligation to self-isolate (they later backed down following public outrage).

The increase in national insurance will be spent on the provision of care – but will be disproportionately paid for by low incomes. Rather than concluding that the Conservatives’ drive to expand the state is proof that they are turning to the left, we should ask ourselves how state power is exercised by the current government – and in the best interests of the government. from whom. A true left-wing government would not put the cost of social care on the backs of the poorest workers in the country.

If Labor is to forge its own identity, it must do the one thing the Conservatives are constitutively incapable of doing: create a genuine redistribution of wealth and power agenda, and present it to the public in a clear and credible manner. This is what Keir Starmer promised to do when he ran for Labor.

A true redistribution of wealth and power has the added benefit of being popular. I was part of the Labor Together commission gathered to understand why Labor lost in 2019, and our research revealed that the Labor voting coalition was ready to put aside cultural differences to vote for an agenda for economic transformation. As a trade union party and the traditional representative of the working class in parliament, Labor here has the institutional capacity to outrun the conservatives.

But in order to do that, Labor must accept that the Blairite manual is obsolete. And he must realize that if his offering to the public is egalitarian rhetoric combined with tinkering around the edges and satisfying the establishment, then he will find – in fact – Tory tanks parked on his lawn. Because that is the approach the Conservatives have taken – and they are already in government.

Source link

]]> http://movsoc.org/if-labor-is-to-win-they-must-promise-the-change-the-tories-will-not-bring-ellie-mae-ohagan/feed/ 0 Biden’s foreign policy: too leftist or too Trumpist? | JONAH GOLDBERG http://movsoc.org/bidens-foreign-policy-too-leftist-or-too-trumpist-jonah-goldberg/ http://movsoc.org/bidens-foreign-policy-too-leftist-or-too-trumpist-jonah-goldberg/#respond Wed, 22 Sep 2021 04:01:00 +0000 http://movsoc.org/bidens-foreign-policy-too-leftist-or-too-trumpist-jonah-goldberg/

This is one of the strange ironies of American politics. Few things are as politically polarizing as foreign policy, and yet it is on foreign policy that the party differences are often narrowest. Indeed, seen from abroad, our allies and adversaries often think that the biggest problem with any new administration is the continuity of American policy, not the change of direction.

Consider two opinion pieces on Biden’s foreign policy published late last week. Fareed Zakaria, writing in the Washington Post, asked, “Is Biden normalizing Trump’s foreign policy?” Michael Rubin, writing in the Washington Examiner, asked: “Is Biden’s foreign policy really any different from Bernie Sanders?”

The two foreign policy experts plead well. Zakaria notes that despite his campaign rhetoric, Biden largely maintains Trump’s trade policies. A Canadian politician, Zakaria points out, even complains that Biden’s “Buy America” ​​provisions are more protectionist than Trump’s. The Biden campaign had bludgeoned Trump’s decision to withdraw from the deal with Iran, but the Biden administration did not reinstate the deal, arguing instead to “lengthen and strengthen it.” Biden maintained Trump’s Cuban policy and even stepped up sanctions.

Rubin sees Cuba as one of the only glaring differences between Biden and Sanders in foreign policy (the other being Israel). The most obvious similarity concerns commerce. Sanders, like Trump, hated the Trans-Pacific Partnership championed by Barack Obama. As vice president, Biden praised him, but now he’s following the Sanders-Trump consensus.

The evidence for continuity or consensus does not end there. On Afghanistan, while Republicans and many Democrats are rightly critical of Biden’s chaotic pullout, the underlying policy is in line with stated goals of not only Trump but Obama as well.

Last week, the Biden administration announced a defense and trade deal with the UK and Australia dubbed AUKUS that angered the European Union, particularly France, largely because ‘it will cost them billions of dollars in sales of submarines to Australia. This trilateral security alliance is a smart move. But it doesn’t take a lot of imagination to see that it could have blossomed in the Trump administration.

And on Friday, the Biden administration appealed a federal court ruling that suspended a Trump administration policy of using a public health law, known as Title 42, to deport migrants. asylum seekers.

Now, I don’t think Biden is starting from the same ideological assumptions of Trump or Sanders. The point is, ideological pledges and rhetorical streaks tend to mask the reality that presidents don’t have a free hand in foreign policy, everyone claims they do.

For example, Obama saw the world very differently from George W. Bush, but he retained many of the Bush administration’s most controversial national security measures, including a heavy reliance on targeted drone strikes and the maintenance of Guantanamo. Bay open. He even launched a “war of choice” in pursuit of regime change in Libya.

Jimmy Carter took office looking for deep cuts in defense and bragging about not having the “inordinate fear of communism” that justified Cold War warmongering. He ended his presidency by asking Congress for a sharp increase in defense spending to “contain Soviet aggression.”

Former British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan was reportedly asked what he thought was the biggest challenge for his administration. “Events, dear boy, events,” he would have replied.

What is good about the word “events” is that it does not distinguish between internal and foreign affairs or between left and right. It is likely that Biden is no more fond of refusing asylum seekers at our border than Obama is. But events at the border create a political and political necessity to stem the flow, and there is no “left” way to do it.

The downside of the word “events” is that it excludes the role of interests and inertia. It may have been easy for Biden to join the Paris climate agreement – just as it was easy for Trump to leave – but that’s because it’s a largely symbolic and toothless deal. . Joining the TPP – which America should do – would require intersecting the vested interests Biden relies on, risk alienating the voters Democrats need, and overthrowing a vast bureaucratic enterprise.

It can be frustrating, but it’s also a little reassuring. Robert Gates, Obama’s Republican Defense Secretary, said Joe Biden was wrong about almost every major foreign and national security policy issue over the past four decades. I am okay. Trump, of course, also had a deep reservoir of bad opinions, ranging from wanting to confiscate Middle Eastern oil and defenestrating NATO to banning all Muslims in the United States.

I understand why you would want a president you agree with to have a free hand on foreign policy, but channels have their advantage.

Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.

Source link

http://movsoc.org/bidens-foreign-policy-too-leftist-or-too-trumpist-jonah-goldberg/feed/ 0
CNN’s Stelter addresses Nicki Minaj’s vaccine tweets on media show, avoids rapper’s feud with MSNBC’s Joy Reid http://movsoc.org/cnns-stelter-addresses-nicki-minajs-vaccine-tweets-on-media-show-avoids-rappers-feud-with-msnbcs-joy-reid/ http://movsoc.org/cnns-stelter-addresses-nicki-minajs-vaccine-tweets-on-media-show-avoids-rappers-feud-with-msnbcs-joy-reid/#respond Tue, 21 Sep 2021 00:48:04 +0000 http://movsoc.org/cnns-stelter-addresses-nicki-minajs-vaccine-tweets-on-media-show-avoids-rappers-feud-with-msnbcs-joy-reid/

CNN’s left-wing media guru Brian Stelter managed to talk about rapper superstar Nicki Minaj’s controversial tweets on her so-called media show while avoiding the explosive viral feud she had with the host by MSNBC Joy Reid.

The biggest news story of the week was the feud that erupted between Minaj and Reid, who lambasted the hip-hop artist on his show for expressing his hesitation over the vaccine to his massive Twitter account. Minaj retaliated by hurling several insults at the host of “ReidOut”. Reid tried to defuse on-air tensions the next day.

On Sunday’s episode of “Reliable Sources,” Stelter managed to respond to Minaj’s tweets but looked into Reid’s involvement and instead condemned the rapper for using the “do your own research” rhetoric, which he called the “four little words that hurt America’s pandemic response.”


“This ‘go it alone’, ‘do your own research.’ It sounds so innocent, but it can have serious consequences, ”Stelter warned viewers.

Reid, who frequently makes controversial statements both on air and on Twitter, is rarely the subject of conversation on the media show from Stelter, who has not spoken to her since 2018, according to transcripts from Grabien.

In fact, despite being CNN’s big liberal rival in cable news, MSNBC receives little mention of “trusted sources,” making just 20 transcript appearances so far this year against the. 563 mentions Fox News received by Grabien.

Stelter has become a serial evader of controversies that portray his liberal allies in the media in a negative light when it comes to the coverage of his media-centric show.

Over the summer, Stelter failed to mention CNN’s awkward return of disgraced network legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin, the departure of “The View” co-host Meghan McCain, the outcry over Mara Gay, a member of the New York Times editorial board, calling the sight of American “disturbing” and the collapsed media story In the 2020 election, President Trump ordered the evacuation of peaceful protesters from Lafayette Square for a photoshoot outside a church set on fire by rioters.


Stelter glossed over the Washington Post’s major correction of his January report which accused Trump of urging Georgian election officials to “find the fraud,” the major MSNBC management reshuffle, Toobin’s dismissal from the New Yorker following her Zoom call masturbation scandal, ousting MSNBC contributor Jon Meacham after it was revealed he was moonlighting as a speechwriter for the Biden campaign and scandals that tormented media darlings in 2020, Project Lincoln.

Last year, Stelter skipped Glenn Greenwald’s dramatic exit from The Intercept after the founding editor accused his colleagues of censoring his critical Joe Biden story and ignored Twitter collapsing in deadlock with New York Post on his report on the Hunter Biden story.

Stelter also ignored the controversy surrounding presidential debate moderator and C-SPAN host Steve Scully, who alleged his Twitter account was hacked after it emerged he was reaching out to Trump’s enemy. , Anthony Scaramucci. Stelter only recognized the controversy after Scully admitted he lied about the hack.


In 2019, Stelter completely avoided the revelation that ABC News opened an investigation into convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein.

Stelter, who is widely regarded as the media’s “room monitor”, has also spent much of the year downplaying journalistic ethics violations committed by his CNN colleague Chris Cuomo, who has repeatedly been embroiled in the scandals plaguing his brother, the former Democratic government of New York. Andrew Cuomo.

Source link

http://movsoc.org/cnns-stelter-addresses-nicki-minajs-vaccine-tweets-on-media-show-avoids-rappers-feud-with-msnbcs-joy-reid/feed/ 0
Norway, oil and climate http://movsoc.org/norway-oil-and-climate/ http://movsoc.org/norway-oil-and-climate/#respond Mon, 20 Sep 2021 18:52:23 +0000 http://movsoc.org/norway-oil-and-climate/

The BDN Opinion section operates independently and does not set newsroom policies or contribute to reporting or editing articles elsewhere in the newspaper or on bangordailynews.com.

Gwynne Dyer is a London-based freelance journalist whose comments are published in 45 countries.

You can see why Saudi Arabia wants to keep pumping as much oil as possible. Oil exports represent 87% of the Saudi government budget and 42% of the GDP. Saudi Arabia’s population, now 35 million, is growing by two-thirds of a million a year, and the country already imports 80 percent of its food. They would starve in a few years if they stopped pumping.

Norway, however, is in a much more interesting place. It is the world’s seventh largest exporter of oil and gas, and these exports represent 42% of the country’s GDP. Per capita income is higher than in the United States, in part due to the fossil fuel industry, and income is much more evenly distributed.

So the five million Norwegians have a major stake in their fossil fuel industry. Indeed, 7% of the population works there. Yet Norwegian attitudes towards carbon dioxide emissions are seriously conflicting, and the question of whether the country should stop pumping has even become an issue in national politics.

The Conservative Party, which lost last Monday’s election after eight years in power, has never had a big problem living on revenues from fossil fuel exports. When asked during an election debate last week what was the party’s preferred date to end production, a Conservative candidate said, “About 300 years from now. Not a lot of nuance there.

The Labor Party, which has won the most seats and is now due to form a left-wing coalition government, has also been careful not to alienate potential supporters worried about their jobs. Party leader Jonas Gahr Store has vowed not to include any party in the new coalition that demands a halt to all exploration or production – but that leaves some leeway.

The two traditional Labor coalition partners, the Socialist Left and the Center Party, are taking a firmer approach to the issue of limiting Norway’s fossil fuel exports. “Our demand is to stop looking for oil and gas and to stop issuing new permits to companies,” said Lars Haltbrekken, spokesman for the Socialist Left Party for Climate and Energy.

No one wants to stop all oil and gas production now – that would be too much of a shock to the economy – but just under half of the population would be ready to stop exploration now. In the absence of new deposits, this would automatically imply that oil and gas production would decline to practically zero in twenty or thirty years.

It’s not a sight you’ll come across very often in Kuwait, Russia, or Alberta, but Norway is a very conscientious place where people are very concerned about climate change. Its grid runs almost entirely on hydroelectric power and 70% of new car purchases this year were fully electric. Indeed, nothing else will be available on the domestic market after 2025.

It also helps that Norway has a very strong safety net. It is one of the most generous welfare states in Europe, and its $ 1.4 trillion sovereign wealth fund (saved from past oil revenues) is the largest in the world. In fact, it is so big that the whole country could be absent from work for three years while still maintaining its current standard of living.

But it’s not a crime to be cautious, and this safety net creates the possibility that Norway could be the trailblazer where other fossil fuel-producing countries eventually have to follow. The first step could even be taken in the next coalition talks.

An imaginable compromise that could bridge the gap between Labor and its potential partners was presented last week by Labor spokesman for energy, Espen Barth Eide. Most of the country’s oil and gas still comes from old offshore fields in the North Sea, he pointed out, but most of the untapped and unexplored reserves lie in the Barents Sea, above the North Sea. Arctic Circle.

Drilling there is a red line for environmentalists, but the outgoing Conservative government has refused to stop licensing it. The Labor Party has made no such commitment, and denying these licenses would be a small but significant step in the right direction: no dramatic costs at the moment, but an implicit commitment to a decline in the longer term production.

Source link

]]> http://movsoc.org/norway-oil-and-climate/feed/ 0 Leigh Sales, Twitter and the Power of Mainstream Media http://movsoc.org/leigh-sales-twitter-and-the-power-of-mainstream-media/ http://movsoc.org/leigh-sales-twitter-and-the-power-of-mainstream-media/#respond Mon, 20 Sep 2021 07:22:09 +0000 http://movsoc.org/leigh-sales-twitter-and-the-power-of-mainstream-media/

Leigh Sales’ attack on Twitter and its users is indicative of the mainstream media’s dissatisfaction with being challenged, writes Dr Victoria Fielding.

ABC 7.30 Host Leigh Sales – a national prime-time news anchor with a Twitter platform of 436,000 people – this week called those who criticize her “sexist” and “bullies.”

As the usual caveat goes, of course I oppose sexism, bullying, and personal attacks in any forum – social media, mainstream media, or in person.

I am the victim of personal and abusive comments several times a day on social media and, like Sales, I have learned to block at the first sign of a problem. It’s unpleasant and intimidating. And that doesn’t just happen to women journalists.

Yet Leigh Sales didn’t use her platform to call out specific tweets or tweeters, but instead used her power to delegitimize social media users who dare to criticize her. The criticism Sales was undoubtedly referring to when she called people “imbalanced” – a way of suggesting that those who disagree with her can’t think clearly – is the anger response. that she received to an opinion that she shared via a Twitter feed on the effects of COVID-19 on children.

In this thread, Sales continued a story she promoted on her powerful TV platform to oppose health restrictions such as lockdowns and border closures.

This anti-health policy stance – which has been blatant throughout the pandemic – has seen its Twitter feed and news coverage focus almost entirely on the negative impacts of health restrictions on human freedom and the consequences. on business owners, with little coverage of the success of these health restrictions in saving thousands of lives.

In this position of anti-COVID restrictions, Sales has promoted a view that polls are shared by 20% of Australians who support:

“We have to accept some deaths to reopen our borders because the cost of staying closed is too high.”

This is opposed to the arguments of 45% which propose to us:

“… accept some deaths but must take all reasonable steps to minimize deaths, even if that means slowing our reopening.”

34% say we can’t:

“… accept any deaths that could be avoided by keeping our borders closed until it can be safely reopened”.

A balanced representation of health restrictions – an unbiased perspective – would represent those perspectives in proportion to the position of the public.

This is not what Sales served the public.

Given that Sales has chosen to take the minority “living with COVID” stance, it’s no surprise that many Twitter users have objected to her. Argumentation and debate are the whole point of engaging on Twitter.

Twitter is supposed to be a marketplace of ideas where you “sell” your ideas and people are free to disagree and argue.

Yet rather than engage with the mass of Twitter users who disagreed with her, Sales instead decided to use her media power to do what those in power usually do to anyone. challenge them – crush criticism by delegitimizing the public.

As journalist and journalism scholar Margaret Simons wrote, sales did, failing to “Distinguish between abuse and legitimate criticism”, which in this case meant not differentiating between those who troll in bad faith and those who have legitimate concerns about the dangers of living with COVID-19, such as the consequences for unvaccinated children.

If you browse the responses to Sales’ offending thread, you’ll see hundreds of reasonable and savvy Twitter users, including experts, expressing fears that their children are suffering from the mostly unknown effects of long-standing COVID and that children are at risk of serious illness and illness. to die.

Although Sales argues that bullying and abuse on Twitter is a “leftist” problem, there is little to no evidence in the mass of offensive responses to the thread that people have a particular political ideology. There is also no major evidence that people personally abuse Sales, call her by misogynistic names, or really comment on anything except the stance she has taken on children who get COVID.

People dared to argue with Sales, so she tried to run over them all.

Power comes in many forms – democratic, industrial, cultural, wealth and media power – and in each of these forms there is a structural imbalance of power. As long as there has been an imbalance of power, the powerful have mocked people who challenge their power.

This sneer serves two purposes: to delegitimize the challengers by characterizing them as villains and to make the powerful person untouchable as the hero and victim of these illegitimate villains.

The end goal, of course, is the maintenance and strengthening of power.

We often see this behavior in politics, especially when right-wing politicians are challenged by public protests. When 250,000 Australians marched to protest Australia’s involvement in the Iraq war, Howard called the protesters a “crowd”, saying they were not representative of mainstream opinion.

When the young people went on strike for climate action, Morrison told them to go back to school.

And when Black Lives Matter’s international protests call for an end to racial discrimination, leaders like Peter Dutton have accused them of being part of the “cancellation culture.”

This week, former Attorney General Christian Porter channeled Leigh Sales into justifying his decision not to reveal the identity of the person (s) who funded his legal fees as it would subject them to “The social media crowd”.

Politicians have the power to fire hundreds of thousands of people with one word.

The same happens when unions and workers challenge the unilateral power of their employers to dictate their wages and terms. Ever since Australian unions have existed, employers have used their structural and cultural power to label unions as illegitimate thugs, accusing them of undermining peace and stability and of being responsible for economic damage.

Employers make workers the bad guys, so that they can powerfully co-opt the dual role of hero and victim of union violence.

This same delegitimization strategy is used by people and organizations with media power. For decades, the media audience has had no way to challenge the power of the media. Those who had the means of media production had complete control over the content produced.

News media are crucial for democracy, but those who live in these democracies had no way of criticizing what was served to them. Then came social media, which forever changed the power between media producers and their audiences. Boy, do media producers want it.

Mainstream media roll out pro-Coalition narrative for election year

It is important to note that the powerful monopoly that media owners have on news production remains intact in the post-Internet age. The mainstream media still sets the news agenda as it always has, always deciding what issues get public attention and how those issues will be presented to the public.

Indeed, a study of the relationship of social media with mainstream media shows:

“Twitter is very interested in mainstream media content: commenting, criticizing and referring to it [in] like up to 36.9% [of tweets]. ‘

Additionally, even when Twitter talks about issues that the mainstream media doesn’t address, those issues don’t tend to gain traction in the mainstream media. There are of course exceptions to these conclusions, but for the most part, the power to set the agenda rests with the powerful owners of mass media platforms, not the everyday users of social media.

Despite the disruption of social media leaving the power of mainstream media intact, it has changed the relationship between the public and media producers, especially journalists and news consumers.

Where the only recourse the public once had to challenge the power of journalists was to write a letter to the editor, social media has opened up the market for media ideas to allow anyone to criticize the work of journalists – to challenge their one-sided power to dictate how the world reflects on the general public.

The precautionary principle is lacking in the mainstream media

To say that journalists did not adapt well to this revolution is an understatement.

Just like when 250,000 people in “the crowd” protested Howard’s decision to go to war in Iraq, social media audiences are not afraid – en masse – to tell reporters they think they’ve taken a bad decision, distort reality or have taken a position with which the public does not agree.

This is the reality of the age of social media.

Journalists still have tremendous power to influence the ideas that are debated and discussed in the social media ideas market and their powerful platforms give them a lot of influence over how these issues are discussed.

When people don’t like their ideas, they tell them this is a deal.

If journalists, who use social media platforms to become commentators as well, dislike this criticism and find it difficult to justify their views after mass disagreement, the problem may be with their ideas and not of those who argue against them?

Dr Victoria Fielding is a freelance Australian columnist. You can follow Victoria on Twitter @Vic_Rollison.

Related Articles

Support independent journalism Subscribe to IA.

Source link

http://movsoc.org/leigh-sales-twitter-and-the-power-of-mainstream-media/feed/ 0
Netanyahu suggests on Facebook that Biden fell asleep upon meeting new Israeli prime minister | World news http://movsoc.org/netanyahu-suggests-on-facebook-that-biden-fell-asleep-upon-meeting-new-israeli-prime-minister-world-news/ http://movsoc.org/netanyahu-suggests-on-facebook-that-biden-fell-asleep-upon-meeting-new-israeli-prime-minister-world-news/#respond Sun, 19 Sep 2021 19:55:00 +0000 http://movsoc.org/netanyahu-suggests-on-facebook-that-biden-fell-asleep-upon-meeting-new-israeli-prime-minister-world-news/

(Remove the typographical error in the first paragraph)

JERUSALEM (Reuters) – Former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu suggested in a video posted to Facebook on Sunday that US President Joe Biden fell asleep when he met new Israeli leader Naftali Bennett last month.

A Reuters fact check https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-biden-asleep-idUSL1N2Q00H8 previously debunked the idea that Biden dozed off, after social media users shared a video clip of the US President who they said showed him looking down and falling asleep while Bennett spoke in the Oval Office.

The clip that was shared was deceptively cropped, according to Reuters fact-checking. Seconds after the clip was cut, longer footage showed Biden responding to Bennett.

In a video Netanyahu posted to his Facebook page on Sunday, an off-camera voice said: “You know, Bennett met Biden.”

Political cartoons about world leaders

“I heard. I heard that Biden was very attentive at this meeting. He bowed his head in agreement,” Netanyahu replied, letting his own head fall back in a quick motion, as if to imitate someone. one who falls asleep.

Netanyahu, 71, and leader of the right-wing Likud party, was largely in tune with the Middle East policies of Democrat Biden’s Republican predecessor, Donald Trump.

Netanyahu’s reference to Biden’s meeting was a brief segment of an almost 26-minute video that addressed various political issues. But he made headlines on Israeli news sites, several of which accused Netanyahu of mocking Biden.

In June, a new government of left, centrist, right-wing and Arab parties led by Bennett replaced Netanyahu’s administration, ending the conservative politician’s 12-year tenure as Israel’s longest-serving leader. .

Now in opposition, Netanyahu has vowed to rule again.

(Reporting by Jeffrey Heller; Editing by Edmund Blair)

Copyright 2021 Thomson Reuters.

Source link

http://movsoc.org/netanyahu-suggests-on-facebook-that-biden-fell-asleep-upon-meeting-new-israeli-prime-minister-world-news/feed/ 0
Afghanistan and its implications for Israel and the Palestinians http://movsoc.org/afghanistan-and-its-implications-for-israel-and-the-palestinians/ http://movsoc.org/afghanistan-and-its-implications-for-israel-and-the-palestinians/#respond Sun, 19 Sep 2021 04:21:04 +0000 http://movsoc.org/afghanistan-and-its-implications-for-israel-and-the-palestinians/

BESA Center Perspectives Paper No. 2.155, September 19, 2021

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Palestinian cheers over the “victory of the Afghan Mujahedin over the American crusaders” give the impression that they believe the Taliban are a worthy model to follow in eliminating “the Zionist occupation”. However, a ruined Lebanon, a Gaza Strip plagued by poverty and unemployment, and Afghanistan itself, now under Taliban rule, do not indicate the success of the Islamic model. What the Palestinians need is not a new model of “armed struggle” but a reconciliation with the existence of Israel while struggling for a lasting peace settlement that will ensure security, prosperity. and respect for mutual rights.

In May 2000, following massive pressure from left-wing organizations and after failing to reach an agreement with Syria and Hezbollah, Prime Minister Ehud Barak ordered the hasty withdrawal of the IDF from southern Lebanon. Israel’s local ally, the Army of South Lebanon, which had cost millions of dollars to build and maintain, collapsed and was unable to stand up to Hezbollah. Eighteen years of Israeli military presence ended in a frightened and confused retreat.

These events strongly influenced the leader of the PLO and the Palestinian Authority, Yasser Arafat (as well as the other Palestinian terrorist organizations), who saw in them the confirmation of the mukwama (the resistance) believes that only a determined “armed struggle” (ie terrorism) could lead to achievements against Israel. Barak had no chance of reaching an agreement with Arafat, and the Camp David conference of July 2000, mediated by President Clinton, ended in shambles. It was followed two months later by the outbreak of a four-year terrorist war (euphemistically referred to as the “Intifada al-Aqsa”). The lessons of the flight from Lebanon were perfectly clear to the Palestinian terrorist organizations.

The events of recent weeks in Afghanistan strongly resemble Israel’s exit from Lebanon. The extremist Islamist Taliban regime, which supported and protected al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden at the time of the 9/11 attacks and has not changed its position since, has regained control of Afghanistan, ISIS marking the withdrawal the United States. in a series of bloody terrorist attacks.

According to Ismail Haniyeh, head of Hamas’s political bureau, once Israel has completely evacuated the entire West Bank, Hamas will take it back and establish a Palestinian Islamic state there. According to him, Israeli settlements in the West Bank are the main obstacle to the creation of such a state, as they could lead to the annexation by Israel of the region or large parts of it. This would grant Israel permanent borders, cut the Gaza Strip off from the West Bank, and divide the Palestinian people.

If Israel is to survive, it must recognize Hamas’s aspirations and strengthen its towns and villages in the West Bank. They are the main factor that can prevent a possible humiliating withdrawal like those from Lebanon and Afghanistan.

Palestinians applaud the “Afghans mujahideen victory over the American crusaders ”suggest that in their opinion the Taliban model is the one to emulate if they want to finally eliminate“ the Zionist occupation ”after decades of“ armed struggle ”. However, the crumbling state of Lebanon, the poverty and unemployment plaguing the Gaza Strip, and the Taliban’s instant setback to Westernization reforms in Afghanistan do not indicate that the Islamic model is a success. What the Palestinians need is not a new model of “armed struggle” but a reconciliation with the existence of Israel while struggling for a lasting peace settlement that will ensure security, prosperity. and respect for mutual rights.

View PDF

Colonel (res.) Dr Shaul Bartal is an associate researcher To the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies.

Source link

http://movsoc.org/afghanistan-and-its-implications-for-israel-and-the-palestinians/feed/ 0
Wallabies face Springboks in four attempts | Australia Rugby Union Team http://movsoc.org/wallabies-face-springboks-in-four-attempts-australia-rugby-union-team/ http://movsoc.org/wallabies-face-springboks-in-four-attempts-australia-rugby-union-team/#respond Sat, 18 Sep 2021 14:22:00 +0000 http://movsoc.org/wallabies-face-springboks-in-four-attempts-australia-rugby-union-team/

Australia breathed life into their rugby championship campaign with a 30-17 bonus point victory over South Africa to pierce the aura of world champions for the second time in a week.

After upsetting the Springboks 28-26 on the Gold Coast last Sunday with a Quade Cooper penalty after the siren, the Wallabies running game shone in the twilight of Lang Park as center Len Ikitau and winger Marika Koroibete each scored two tries.

Koroibete’s runner-up gave the Australians a 13-point lead with 12 minutes remaining and they defended brilliantly to win two turnovers in front of their posts to protect the lead to the finish.

The Breakdown: Sign up and receive our weekly rugby union email.

South Africa had one try, thanks to center Lukhanyo Am shortly after halftime, but pulled two yellow cards in a flat performance before heading to back-to-back testing against New Zealand.

“We’ve talked a lot about coming back to back here. Building a performance is good, but we wanted to start over with these guys, ”said Australian captain Michael Hooper. “We love playing here in front of a crowd… We couldn’t be happier right now.”

Australia move up to third in the world rankings ahead of back-to-back testing against Argentina.

Wallabies players celebrate winning the Mandela Plate. Photograph: Darren England / AAP

In a choppy start to the game, South African scrum-half Faf de Klerk was shown a yellow card for slowing the ball in a 13th-minute ruck and Ikitau was quick to capitalize with the first try from Australia a minute later. Nic White threw a pass to a charging Ikitau, who beat two defenders in a 10-yard flurry to the line.

Barnstorming mainstay Taniela Tupou then crashed into the South African line, clearing the way for a Koroibete offload which set up Ikitau’s second try in the right corner seven minutes later.

De Klerk’s return after his 10 minutes in the Sin-bin rejuvenated the South Africans as his precise kicks put pressure on the hosts. Wallabies full-back Tom Banks came out squeezing forearm in the 28th minute and flanker Lachie Swinton was yellow carded seven minutes before halftime after a high tackle on No 8 Duane Vermeulen. Pollard was then given a fourth penalty after Australia was taken offside to reduce the lead to 15-12 at the break.

With Swinton still not on the pitch, a kick from De Klerk to the right corner allowed Am to touch the ground and take the lead within two minutes of the restart.

Cooper gave Australia the advantage with his second penalty before Koroibete took control of the game with a flurry of two tries in six minutes. Taking a daring pass from Tupou, Koroibete hit the left wing for the first of his tries in the 62nd minute.

A turnaround by Reece Hodge followed by an offload from Samu Kerevi to Pete Samu resulted in a brilliant attempt to counterattack against Koroibete on the same left wing. Cooper missed the second conversion, but Australia defended solidly to protect the 13-point lead, fending off waves of attacks in their 22 to complete a confidence victory.

Jacques Nienaber then apologized to South African rugby fans, saying the Springboks’ performance was not worthy of the jersey.

“We were really beaten in all departments,” said the South African coach. “We were beaten hands down: defense, kicking, attack. We just made too many mistakes.

Source link

]]> http://movsoc.org/wallabies-face-springboks-in-four-attempts-australia-rugby-union-team/feed/ 0 Venezuelan leader Maduro arrives in Mexico ahead of Latin American leaders’ summit | World news http://movsoc.org/venezuelan-leader-maduro-arrives-in-mexico-ahead-of-latin-american-leaders-summit-world-news/ http://movsoc.org/venezuelan-leader-maduro-arrives-in-mexico-ahead-of-latin-american-leaders-summit-world-news/#respond Sat, 18 Sep 2021 04:16:00 +0000 http://movsoc.org/venezuelan-leader-maduro-arrives-in-mexico-ahead-of-latin-american-leaders-summit-world-news/

MEXICO CITY (Reuters) – Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro arrived in Mexico City on Friday, Mexico’s Foreign Ministry said, ahead of a recently elected “pink tide” of left-wing Latin American leaders.

The socialist leader will attend a meeting of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC), a regional body that former Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez helped set up in 2011.

The CELAC summit will also bring together the leaders of the “pink tide” whose elections have stimulated left movements in the region.

Maduro’s arrival in Mexico comes hours after his vice president, Delcy Rodriguez, landed in Mexico City to represent Venezuela at CELAC.

Mexico has also hosted hesitant talks between Maduro’s government and the opposition in recent months. Venezuela said on Friday the opposition aimed to “sabotage” an international dialogue process between the two.

Political cartoons about world leaders

Mexican leftist leader Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador will host the summit because his country, which celebrates the 200th anniversary of its independence, is the pro tempore president of CELAC.

In a demonstration of left-wing solidarity, Cuban President Miguel Diaz-Canel https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/cuban-leader-mexico-new-latin-america-pink-tide-summit-2021-09 -16 attended a lavish military parade on Thursday to mark the 200th anniversary of Mexico’s independence and delivered a speech thanking Mexico for offering to help amid a US blockade.

The Latin American left made its biggest strides with the first “pink tide” of socialist leaders in the early 2000s. But some of them, like Chavez and the Bolivian Evo Morales, have died or been overthrown.

(Reporting by Diego Ore; writing by Drazen Jorgic; editing by William Mallard)

Copyright 2021 Thomson Reuters.

Source link

http://movsoc.org/venezuelan-leader-maduro-arrives-in-mexico-ahead-of-latin-american-leaders-summit-world-news/feed/ 0