Mediaboss Marketing

Negative coverage of the European Union in British newspapers nearly doubled over the last 40 years, a study has found.

Researchers from Queen Mary University of London (QMUL)found negative coverage of the EU increased from 24 per cent to 45 per cent between 1974 and 2013, at the expense of positive and neutral coverage.

Positive coverage fell from 25 per cent to 10 per cent over the same period.

The study, published in the Journal of Common Market Studies,analysed16,400 newspaper articles during five periods from 1974 to 2013 duringwhich the EU washighly prominent in UK news.

Government suffers defeat in Lords over plan to begin Brexit negotiations

By individually analysing each newspaper, the authors showed negative coverage increased steadily fromthe mid-1970sto themid-2010s, a period in which centre-right tabloids increased their EUcoverage.

By the mid-2010s, 85 per cent of EU coverage in the Daily Mailwas negative, compared with less than 25 per cent in the mid-1970s.

Coverage of the EU in centre-right broadsheet newspapers such asThe TimesandtheFinancial Timesremained stable and tended to be factual and based on a pragmatic cost-benefitperspective, the study found.

The researchers said the study illustrates how a minority view can come to be accepted into the mainstream.

Dr Paul Copeland, senior lecturer at QMUL, said:While coverage across the 40 year period stays fairly stable in terms of volume, theres a significant increase of negative coverage in centre-right tabloids.

Our results show that with the exception of the Daily Mirror, the only counter-weight to the noisy and negative minority is factual and neutral reporting: good journalism, but not necessarily effective as a spirited public defence of the EU.

He added: What is interesting is that the noisy minority in the media is reflected so acutely in politics. The pro-European cause is made without passion or vigour.

It is the absence of a truly pro-EU faction that gives the impression that the UK is more Eurosceptic than it truly is. There are no real defenders of the EU to be found.

Read the original post:
Negative coverage of EU in UK newspapers nearly doubled in 40 years, study finds - The Independent

#42. @realDonaldTrumpwhat do you plan to do in Afghanistan? #100Days100Qs

Here's one word President Donald Trump didn't say during his first address to a joint session of Congress on Tuesday: Afghanistan.

Hours after Trump's speech, two bombs ripped through Kabul. The first hit a police station and the second went off near the offices of Afghanistan's intelligence agency, theNational Directorate of Security. The Taliban took credit for the attack, which killed at least 23 people and wounded more than 100 others.

The US Embassy in Kabul issued a statement condemning the attack. Trump, however,remained quiet.

America's invasion of Afghanistan began as a military operation to strike back at al-Qaeda after 9/11 and capture or kill Osama bin Laden. It turned into the longest war in US history. More than 2,200 US service members have been killed thereand more than 20,000 have been wounded.

The new American president has said very little about what he plans to do in Afghanistan, but he won't be able to ignore the situation.

According to the US Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction, the Afghan government lostground against the Taliban and other militants over the course of last year. The government now controls less than 60 percent of the country. About a third of Afghans now live in contested territory.

"The numbers of the Afghan security forces are decreasing," SIGAR said in a report to Congress, "while both casualties and the number of districts under insurgent control or influence are increasing."

ISIS seems to be gaining ground, too. And while Trump has promised to destroy the group, he hasn't spoken to the specific challengesof battling ISISoutside its strongholds in Iraq and Syria.

Meanwhile,the US military campaignin the country remain very much active, despite the fact that combat operations technically ended in 2014.

Airstrikes this week have killed top Taliban commanders, and there are still8,400 American troops on the ground training, advising and assisting Afghan forces. When youadd in support from NATO allies, the total US-led force is about 13,000.

Will Trump bring those American soldiershome? Will he deploy more?

Trump said in 2013 that the USshould "leave Afghanistan immediately." But in a recent conversation with Afghan President Mohammad Ashraf Ghani, he reaffirmed America's committment to the country.

USGen.John Nicholson, the top commanderin Afghanistan, says he needs more boots on the ground. During testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee in early February, he described "a shortfall of a few thousand" troops.

Nicholson also said worrying things about Russia and Afghanistan. (As though the Trump administration needed any more worrying Russia stories in the press.) He told the Senate that Russia had been seeking to undermine the US and NATO by spreading a "false narrative" that the Taliban was fighting ISIS in Afghanistan, but not Afghan police and army forces.

Figuring out US policy on Afghanistan is about more than just managing thewar there. More than 15 years of US-involvedconflict has helped create a massive refugee crisis. It's not clear whether that's a crisis Trump will help solve.

So Mr. President, we're asking: What do you plan to do in Afghanistan? Click here to tweet that question to the president.

Over President Donald Trump's roughly first 100 days, we'll be asking him questions that our audience wants answers to. Join the project by tweeting this question to @realDonaldTrump with the hashtag #100Days100Qs. See more of our questions atpri.org/100questions.

Continued here:
President Trump, what are you going to do in Afghanistan? - PRI

Amid increasing tensions on the western border between Afghanistan and Pakistan, former Afghan president Hamid Karzai in a tweet on Sunday said Pakistan has "no legal authority to dictate terms on the Durand Line".

Karzai's comment followed Pakistan's decision to close the border between the two states for an indefinite period on February 16 after a recent surge in terrorist attacks across the country.

The border closure has strained Pak-Afghan relations.

Read more: Durand Line status

"While we wish freedom for the people of [the Federally Administered Tribal Areas [Fata] from Frontier Crime Regulation [FCR] and other repressive measures, we remind the Government of Pakistan that Afghanistan hasn't and will not recognize the Durand line," Karzai added in his tweet.

Karzai seemed to echo the sentiment of many of his country's officials, such as Ambassador Omar Zakhilwalal, who in a Facebook post on Saturday said Pakistan does not have a valid reason for the continued closure of crossing points on the Pak-Afghan border.

Zakhilwal said the argument presented by Pakistan that the border closure is intended to stop terrorists from crossing over does not carry any weight, as these points such as Torkham and Spin Boldak have been manned by hundreds of military and other security personnel and have all the necessary equipment and infrastructure in place to prevent such a possibility.

Also read: Durand Line is recognised border: US

"Continuous unreasonable closure of legal Pak-Afghan trade and transit routes cannot have any other explanation except to be aimed at hurting the common Afghan people," the envoy said in his social media post, apparently in breach of diplomatic protocol.

The Durand Line is the a 2640-kilometre-long border between Afghanistan and Pakistan, established in 1893 following an agreement between Sir Mortimer Durand, a representative of British India, and Abdur Rahman Khan, the Amir of Afghanistan.

Afghanistan's national security adviser, Mohammad Haneef Atmar, left for India on Sunday for a three-day-long trip to attend the 19th Asian Security Conference.

The conference, titled 'Combating Terrorism: Evolving an Asian Response', is being held in New Delhi, a press released issued by the Afghanistan Office of National Security Council stated.

Apart from being the keynote speaker at the event, he will also have bilateral meetings with several Indian security and political officials, such as his Indian counterpart, Ajit Kumar Doval, the national security adviser to the prime minister of India.

Atmar will "discuss counter-terrorism measures" as well as strategies to expand "political and security ties between two countries", the statement added.

The conference, organised by India's Institute of Defense Studies and Analyses (IDSA), begins on March 6 and concludes March 8.

Read the original here:
Afghanistan will never recognise the Durand Line: Hamid Karzai - DAWN.com

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

Even as the Trump administration seeks to designate the Revolutionary Guard as a Foreign Terrorist Organization, Iran continues its blatant defiance of international norms. Promising roaring missiles if threatened, Tehran has test fired several ballistic weapons capable of delivering nuclear material in just the past month. A fundamentally weak regime with dated military capabilities, Iran is attempting to call the United States bluff, perhaps to gain leverage in any subsequent re-evaluations of the nuclear deal Tehran struck with the Obama administration. Several blistering statements from the White House backed by a round of sanctions presage the administrations muscular new approach. But if it hopes to secure the region, it must systematically target the core destabilizing activities of the regime.

In a steady stream of denunciations, the White House pledged tougher U.S. action if the mullahs continue to violate international norms through illicit missile tests, making clear that the Obama era of appeasement is over. Instead of being thankful to the United States for these agreements, Iran is now feeling emboldened, an official White House statement read. We are officially putting Iran on notice. While many Iranian officials dismissed President Trumps tough talk on the nuclear deal as empty campaign rhetoric, the presidents appointment of fellow anti-regime hardliner Gen. James Mattis demonstrates his intention to deliver.

Perhaps more importantly, the White House has also challenged the regimes extended proxy offensives against U.S. allies and friends in the neighborhood. Such actions underscore what should have been clear to the international community all along about Irans destabilizing behavior across the Middle East, the White House statement continued. Contrary to President Obamas Middle East policy of abandoning friends and allies and trying to make friends with the adversaries, the Trump administration will fully support its friends. Specifically, this stance challenges Irans practice of hiding behind Hezbollah and Houthis militants as it funds and trains them.

Holding a vastly dated arsenal of weapons, Iran is no match for U.S. firepower, leaving only backchannel mercenaries to promote regional dominance. The White House acknowledged this dynamic, specifically characterizing the affront against Saudi forces as being conducted by Iran-supported Houthi militants. This link was never recognized by the Obama administration. Such oversight left Iran free to grow and strengthen its hand in these groups, which terrorize the region and undermine our partners. If the Trump administration will craft a strategy for stunting Irans proxy network, particularly by cutting funding and armament flows, the region would be far safer and more stable.

Noting Mr. Trumps concerns about the nuclear deal being weak and ineffective, the Trump administration addressed a third key issue in the U.S.-Iranian relationship. Rapidly losing money and influence, the nuclear deal allowed the regime to avoid military confrontation over its development program for which it was grossly unprepared. And despite the intention of weakening the regime and strengthening the Iranian people, rushed U.S. concessions granted the regime an eleventh-hour trickle of lifeblood, both financially and symbolically. By rolling sanctions back, destabilizing behavior was ostensibly met with an influx of funds. As such, the deal signaled that military action against Iran was highly improbable, thus essentially greenlighting the illicit activity that effected warnings and sanctions from the White House over the past month. And despite official remarks by Iranian officials denouncing these statements as naive and weak, the regime would be in dire straits if America turns off the faucet opened by the nuclear deal.

Finally, the administrations condemnation for Irans broader support for terrorism demonstrated clear perspective on the direct threat it poses to international security. In addition to supporting Hezbollah, Iran is currently involved in a life-and-death battle in Syria that includes continuous weapon and militant transfer from Iran to Syria. President Bashar Assads downfall in Syria would destroy the linchpin of Irans terror apparatus.

Further, any sustainable resolution calls for the withdrawal of all foreign forces from Syria, culling both activity in the country and a pipeline to Hezbollah via the porous borders between Syria and Libya. As Iran finds itself backed into a corner by its regional export of terror, Mr. Trump and his team have many cards to play.

By identifying the gross overreach by the Iranian regime and promising a swift, punitive response, the White Houses stance marked the end of a longstanding American policy of naive appeasement. In so doing, the Trump administration has rightly recognized the true source of instability and existential threat the region faces. Now, instead of issuing broad statements, it must act on a smart strategy for dismantling the key pillars of Irans international terror network and stunting the regimes emboldened overreach.

Shahram Ahmadi Nasab Emran, a professor at Saint Louis University, has participated in international policy forums, including the Policy Studies Organizations 2016 Middle East Dialogue, and has written for multiple Iranian news outlets.

See the original post:
Forging a new approach to Iran - Washington Times

New York Times

Trump Under Pressure to Get Answers From Iran on Missing Ex-FBI Agent New York Times WASHINGTON Last year, when the United States and Iran exchanged prisoners, Secretary of State John Kerry announced that the Tehran government had also pledged to help in the search for a long-missing American who had disappeared in Iran in ...

Continue reading here:
Trump Under Pressure to Get Answers From Iran on Missing Ex-FBI Agent - New York Times