Mediaboss Marketing

We all know the Chinese government is keeping a close eye on what content can be found on the Internet. China is not exactly known for freedom of speech or making information easily accessible. Various broadcasters and media platforms have been put on notice regarding broadcasts putting China or its government in a negative spotlight. This is another clear example of how censorship is enforced by oppressive governments.

It is understandable governments are not too happy when negative press gains mainstream traction. Reading about how a government official did X or Y wrong is not fun, even though such information deserved to be shared. Contrary to what the Chinese government may want to believe, negative information deserves to be known by the public as well. However, if it is up to government officials, that situation will come to a halt very soon.

More specifically, the Chinese government has warned local broadcasters regarding what they can and cannot share with the public. Any negative news regarding China or its government will be banned from now on. This appears to be a rather drastic decision, as this is a clear example of censorship. According to the State Administration of Press, Publication, Radio, Film, and Television, airing the dirty laundry violated local regulations.

It has to be said, this is quite an interesting turn of events. According to the government, all of the notified broadcasters share large amounts of programs with the public. However, a lot of this information doesnt comply with national rules. Moreover, there are seemingly more broadcasts regarding negative discussions about public affairs. This seems to indicate the local government isnt doing the job to the best of their abilities, yet no one is supposed to know about these things, it seems.

It is believed the agency will take measures: to shut down these programs airing the dirty laundry of China and its government. Considering the agency contacted both traditional and online broadcasters, it remains to be seen how this new rule will be executed. It is possible some broadcasters may effectively lose their license or suffer from major government repercussions, including fees and potentially even jail time.

It is not the first time we see such drastic actions taken by the Chinese government regarding censorship and freedom of speech. The country ranked in the bottom 5 countries on the 2017 World Press Freedom Index. It is evident freedom of speech and China will never be two peas in a pod, and one can only expect harsh measures like this to become even more common in the future. In fact, the government has recently been granted more control over the Internet and broadcasts in May of this year.

Interestingly enough, it looks as if some broadcasters are taking this new guideline to heart. Both Weibo and Acfun have made a post on their official Weibo accounts to state how they will enforce stricter content management. For Chinese companies, complying with new regulations is a top priority. No one wants to lose a license or face severe punishment for disregarding the rules. Moreover, Weibo will only allow users to broadcast if they have the proper government license to do so.

If you liked this article, follow us on Twitter @themerklenews and make sure to subscribe to our newsletter to receive the latest bitcoin, cryptocurrency, and technology news.

Continued here:
Chinese Government Enforces Censorship by Targeting Local Broadcasters - The Merkle

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But at least the government hasnt behaved foolishly about money

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

So theres that at least.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Osamudia James The Washington Post

"He was very honest." That's how one juror explained the decision last week to acquit Philando Castile's killer, Jeronimo Yanez, formerly of the St. Anthony, Minn., police department, of second-degree manslaughter. The implication: That Castile, the man he shot, was not as honest, not as innocent and not as good. That Yanez's fear of Castile was reasonable.

Before Yanez's trial, we witnessed the immediate aftermath of Castile's shooting live-streamed on Facebook. It triggered outrage across the country, prompting Minnesota's governor to initially ask, "Would this have happened if those passengers, the driver, were white?" before going on to answer, "I don't think it would have." This week, the public saw the dashboard camera footage Yanez's jury saw. It highlights Castile's manifestly appropriate response after being pulled over by Yanez, but it also amplifies Yanez's instantaneous fear, helping the jury conclude that he acted lawfully.

All of which underscores the commitment, ingrained into our moral imagination, to perceiving police officers as good, honest and reasonable, while perceiving black civilians as bad, dishonest and dangerous - the problem at the heart of Castile's killing, Eric Garner's killing, Samuel DuBose's killing and Walter Scott's killing.

Each of these killings was caught on camera, reminding us that despite the public-policy argument for wider use of body and dashboard cameras, police video will not deliver justice.

Much has been made of the introduction of dashcam and bodycam technology. Here, advocates have said, are the tools that produce the evidence needed to help jurors and the public come to a consensus about when police killings are, and are not, justified. "Put body cameras on every cop," argued Mark O'Mara, who represented George Zimmerman in his trial for the killing of Trayvon Martin, to "hold cops accountable for unjustified actions against minorities."

In recent years, as police killings of unarmed African Americans have become widely publicized, polls have shown that Americans support the adoption of the technology. And there are certainly examples of police departments that have effectively implemented their use.

I'm skeptical, though, because of what cameras cannot do: They can't upend the perception that black people present a threat that justifies the use of deadly police force, even when victims are running away, as in Scott's case. Videos won't stop an officer from imagining himself as "a 5-year-old holding onto Hulk Hogan" when engaging a black teenager, or from approaching a 12-year-old black boy as if he were a grown man. The knowledge that he was being recorded did not temper the overreaction of Yanez, a trained, armed police officer. Instead, Yanez immediately reached for his gun after Castile calmly and responsibly informed Yanez that he was carrying a firearm, and within seconds Yanez fired seven rounds in rapid succession into a car where a 4-year-old sat in the back seat.

This irrational fear doesn't only operate in police encounters. Look around at America's segregated settings for evidence: Parents use race as a heuristic for school quality irrespective of test scores, prompting whites to not only avoid majority-minority schools, but to fight attempts at public school integration. Homeowners use race when evaluating neighborhoods, characterizing neighborhoods as significantly less desirable places to live when more black people are featured in pictures of those neighborhoods. Just this week, a viral video illustrated the phenomenon of white patients eschewing care from doctors and nurses of color.

These racial perceptions have other material and unjust consequences. One 2014 Stanford University study found that Americans support more punitive crime legislation when they closely associate criminality with blackness. In a bittersweet change to drug policy, now that the country's opioid crisis is associated with white Americans, greater empathy informs our conversations about drug trafficking and substance abuse. And in the tense moments of a police stop, irrational and racialized fear turns deadly.

What becomes of a society where race warps the functioning of the justice system, where juries, observing these horrors on video, nevertheless deem fear of blackness reasonable? What happens when the killing of unarmed black people consistently and despairingly results in acquittals that leave black victims' friends, families and entire communities convinced that the system is incapable of delivering justice? Faith in our democracy, in our institutions and in each other dies a steady and certain death. In the wake of that death, white supremacy grows, destroying not only black lives but the lives of everyone else complicit in, or benefiting from, that destruction.

Video can't save us from this. Only a reckoning with America's fear of blackness can take us beyond the place where cameras leave us. In that new place, Castile, like his killer, might - must - also be understood in the first instance as honest, good and deserving of life.

Osamudia James is a professor and vice dean at the University of Miami School of Law.

Go here to see the original:
Opinion: Police video won't deliver justice - Holmes County Times Advertiser

Janke will be officially hired at the commissions July 5 meeting when Fisk will bring forward a salary and benefit package she will prepare.

This is the right fit for the city of West Fargo to take us to the next level, and hell add to that, Fisk said.

Janke and North Dakota Highway Patrol Lt. Troy Hischer were narrowed down from 12 initial applicants, four of which were from within the department. The two finalists then each interviewed for a full day June 7 and June 8, respectively.

His 15 years with the FBI and his leadership really stood out to me, Mayor Rich Mattern said. Im hoping to get him onboard as quickly as possible.

Mattern said it was obvious Janke had researched the city and the department before his interview, which was impressive.

The city has been looking for a new police chief since the commission fired Mike Reitan on Feb. 6 after complaints surfaced that he created a hostile, toxic environment.

City Commissioner Mark Wentz, who served on a panel of city staff who interviewed the candidates, said Janke will be able to bring together a department fractured by recent events.

Itll be an adjustment for some, others will like it right away, Wentz said. Hes definitely a team player.

Janke is a North Dakota State University graduate who earned a law degree from the University of North Dakota. His wife, also an NDSU alum, has family and parents in West Fargo. Janke has worked for the FBI since 2005, and since 2013 in its Kansas City office, where he has supervised more than 400 cases.

Janke said he hoped to move to West Fargo because theres family here and a good school system.

Janke also worked for the FBI in San Antonio, Texas, and Washington, D.C. Before joining the FBI, Janke was an associate attorney in Sioux Falls, S.D.

While working for the FBI, Janke said he has been part of national headline-making cases such as the killing of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, who was shot by neighborhood watch member George Zimmerman in Florida, as well as the shooting of Michael Brown, a black man fatally shot by police officer Darren White that sparked riots in Ferguson, Mo.

During a presentation to city and police officials on June 7, Janke showed comments about the former chiefs leadership style and compared them to comments made by his own subordinates about his leadership style to show the stark contrast. Janke said he prefers to lead by example and it is important to admit when wrong, but he will have officers backs when right.

Youll never hear me say department or squad, Janke said. We are a team.

Mattern said he hopes Janke will work well with staff and the general public.

Thats the kind of person I was really looking for, Mattern said.

A phone message left for Janke at his FBI office in Kansas City was not returned Friday.

Read more:
West Fargo plans to hire FBI agent Janke as police chief - INFORUM