Mediaboss Marketing

If youve made a habit of either watching Fox News Tucker Carlson Tonight or following the anti-abortion groups that frequently appear on the program, then youve heard allegations that these organizations and the anti-choice misinformation they spread are being censored by any number of media platforms.

Most recently, Lila Rose, founder of the anti-abortion group Live Action, appeared on the June 26 edition of Tucker Carlson Tonight and claimed that Twitter was censoring Live Actions ads. Beyond alleging that Twitter was biased against the anti-abortion group, Rose also conveniently mentioned that Live Action had a $40,000 fundraising goal to meet within the week. Mere hours after Roses appearance, Live Actions homepage carried alarge addecrying Twitters censorship and begging for donations to meet the fundraising deadline. By June 30, the organization had reached its fundraising goal and wasaskingsupporters to continue donating in order to guarantee it could continue working to expose the abortion industry.

Rose is merely the latest person in a long list of anti-abortion extremists to baselessly allege censorship as a tactic in order to raise support and rile up right-wing media allies. When viewed as part of a larger pattern of behavior, it becomes clear that for these anti-abortion groups, crying censorshipto any perceived slight functions as a strategy to gain attention and support for their anti-choice misinformation.

Live Action ads and Twitter

During her June 26appearanceon Tucker Carlson Tonight, Rose claimed that Twitter was refusing to promote ads from either her or Live Actions Twitter accounts. Rose alleged that a Twitter bot had been telling them for months, that this is banned, we wont let you put this out. According to Rose, It took over a year for us to finally get from Twitter whats wrong with these tweets. and finally they said that any tweet that shows an ultrasound, that shows a prenatal life and affirms it, that exposes Planned Parenthood, violates the hate and sensitive policy. Carlson echoed Roses allegations and called Twitters policy an atrocity.

In a blog post, Live Actionpointedto Twitters advertising policies against inflammatory content andalleged that Twitter told them to delete tweets calling for the end of taxpayer funding for Planned Parenthood, tweets of our undercover investigations into Planned Parenthood, and tweets including ultrasound images of fetuses. Live Action includedemailsfrom Twitter support staff in the blog post, in which a Twitter representative citedtweets mentioninginfanticideand anotherincluding abirth videoas examples of content that violatedthe platforms sensitive advertising content policy.

The hate and sensitive policy Rose cited is in actuality the platformsad policyon hate content, sensitive topics, and violence. In a statement to Carlson, the social media platformsaid, Twitter has clear, transparent rules that every advertiser is required to follow, and the political viewpoints of an organization do not impact how these rules are applied. Twitters hate content policy also covershate speech or advocacy; violence or threats of violence against people or animals; glorification of self-harm or related content; organizations associated with promoting hate; and offensive, vulgar, abusive or obscene content.

Despite this, Live Actionhas continued to assert that Twitter is playing politics,citinga few tweets by Planned Parenthood to demonstrate the perceived imbalance. These Planned Parenthood tweets mention extremists and talk about Trump defunding the non-profit but without pointing an accusatory finger at a specific group. Many of Live Actions tweets which Twitter did not accept as ads target Planned Parenthood specifically.

Letsnot forgot Live Action is still free to tweet and keep such content on its Twitter account, as Roseclarifiedduring an interview onEWTN News Nightly. The content merely does not meet clear and non-ideological standards for promotion or sponsorship, as dictated by Twitters easily locatedadvertising policies.

Given these facts, it appears that Roses appearance on Tucker Carlson Tonight and claims of censorship werepart of a fundraising strategy for Live Action. As RosetoldCarlson, Were actually doing a campaign right now to get people to fund Live Action and to get out the information that Twitter is trying to block using other platforms using Facebook, using YouTube, using the blogosphere, obviously coming on here and talking with you.

After Roses June 26 appearance, Live Action sent afundraisingemailabout the segment, claiming that Live Action is being suppressed and asking supporters to help us strengthen our efforts against the abortion industry. Live Actions censorship allegations also animated other right-wing media outlets.The Washington Timespromoteditsfundraising appeal, stating, Looking to take their business elsewhere, Live Action started a campaign to raise money to inundate other social media platforms with the pro-life message. On June 29, Christian Broadcasting Network published an article on Live Actions claims about Twitters ad policy, at the end of which itstatedthat Live Action has launched a campaign to compensate for their losses due to Twitters censoring, and directed readers to Live Actions fundraising page.RoseandLive ActionalsopushedthenarrativeonTwitter, using the hashtag #DontDeleteMe despite all content remainingpubliclyavailable on the platform.

Center for Medical Progress videos

In May 2017, the anti-abortion group Center for Medical Progress (CMP)circulateddeceptive video footage that had been barred from release by a federal judge. The videoquickly spreadthrough social media accounts of anti-abortion leaders and groups before Judge William Orrick ordered all copies of the video be taken down as there was aheightened concernfor the safety of abortion providers identified in the footage.

As copiesof the video were removed following Orricks order, anti-choice activists claimedcensorship had occurred and pointed a finger at almost every social media platform as potential culprits. During a May 31appearanceon Fox News Tucker Carlson Tonight, Rose accused both YouTube and Twitter of participating in the chilling effect right now on journalism that is the opposing viewpoint on abortion by complying with the court order to remove the video. Live Action alsoclaimedthat YouTube had caved to the abortion industrys censorship pressure while LifeSiteNewsarguedthat video hosting websites such as Facebook, YouTube, and Vimeo were on a witch hunt against the latest undercover Planned Parenthood video, deleting instances of it wherever they find it.

The anti-abortion group Susan B. Anthony ListaccusedYouTube of partnering with Planned Parenthood to cover up the truth that #PPSellsBabyParts a common social media hashtag among staunch anti-choice activists. Liz Wheeler of right-wing news outlet One America News Network (OANN) took personal offense when YouTube removed a clip of her show, Tipping Point, in which she played some of the barred footage. In a follow-up clip, amusinglyavailable on OANNs YouTube channel, Wheeler said YouTube was trying to silence me and asked, What are liberals so afraid people will see that theyll censor me to ensure nobody sees [footage from the barred video].

Although anti-choice groups and right-wing media outlets alike cried censorshipwhen various platforms removed the video, the fact remains that itwas legally barred from release giving these platforms little choice even if they agreed with CMPs highlydiscreditedclaims. Undeterred, these groups and outlets evenextendedtheir criticisms to attack Orrick andattemptedto have him removed from CMPs case an effort that another federal judge ultimatelydismissedas lacking merit.Despite claiming the video was being censored, anti-choice groups still (somehow!)continuedto re-post andspreadthe video across the internet after Orricks order.

Operation Rescues Google ranking

The extremistanti-choice groupOperation Rescueclaimedthat Google was engaged in censorship after its page views decreased for when internet users searched forabortions in US orabortion statistics. The group alleged that Googles search engine has manipulated search parameters to dramatically reduce exposure to Operation Rescues webpages containing misleading abortion statistics.

In April, Googleannounceda policy change regarding how sites containing misleading or false information would be ranked. If Google is censoring anti-abortion pages as Operation Rescue argued it isnot doing a great job with it. Although the page rankings fluctuate,search results for abortions in US and abortion statistic still yield anti-choice sites, includingFox News, National Right to Life Committee, abortion73, and American Life League.

By alleging it wasbeing censored, Operation Rescue effectively sounded the alarm for other anti-abortion groups to use their own rankings on Googles search results to claim discrimination and promote their content. Within a day of OperationRescues initial post, similar stories were running onLifeNewsand the right-wing outletOneNewsNow. Operation Rescue also sent a fundraisingemailasking for support to launch a massive campaign to ensure our critical abortion research and pro-life content is available, and no longer pushed down by the pro-abortion radicals at Google.

March for Life coverage

Every January, anti-abortion groups andmediaoutletsallegethatmainstreammedia are censoring their protest, called the March for Life, againsttheRoe v. Wadedecision. The supposed lack of coverage has galled anti-abortion groups to such an extent that they started anumbrella groupcalled Alliance for Fair Coverage of Life Issues, which primarily focuses on the March for Life Media Censorship. Many members of the group havecomplainedabout the media blackout of the March for Life on major media platforms. Rep. Alex Mooney R-W.Va., who is one of the two politicians in the Alliance, stated, The liberal medias consistent censorship of the annual March for Life is nothing short of shameful.

However, as some right-wing media outlets have themselves suggested, describing coverage of the March for Life as suffering from consistent censorship is inaccurate.After the most recent March for Life, the extreme right-wing outlet Church Militantpraisedthe media because the 2017 March for Life is receiving more media coverage than ever. Church Militant pointed out thatC-SPANandCNNlivestreamed the march, whileNPRfeatured stories from attendees. In addition,The New York Times,The Washington Post, andABC Newsall ran stories about the march.

The March for Life also benefited from the attention garnered by the Womens March in January 2017. Several anti-abortion groups and individuals tried toco-optthe message of the Womens March to push a so-called feminist anti-choice message. The Womens March ultimatelyadopteda pro-choice message, but the anti-abortion groups stillgainedsubstantialmediacoveragefrombeingsupposedlybannedfrom being sponsors ofthe Womens March.

Anti-abortion messages at schools

In March,anti-choicegroupsandmediaoutletsbegan crying censorship when anti-abortion chalk messages scrawled by a chapter of Students for Life of America (SFLA) were scrubbed from sidewalks at Kutztown University in Pennsylvania. Thehate groupAlliance Defending Freedom (ADF) came to SFLAs defensedeclaring, University officials cant chalk up their censorship to following orders to enforce an unconstitutional campus policy on sidewalk chalking. SFLA President Kristan Hawkinsagreed, saying, Too frequently we see that public colleges and universities feel they can engage in censorship of a student group just because officials dont agree with the viewpoint of those students.

In reality, the messages had beenremovedovernight during a regular cleaning process, and had nothing to do with the content of the chalking.

Hawkins also usedTucker Carlson Tonights right-wing platform toraiseanother issue of censorship in schools. During the June 2 appearance on the show, Hawkins supported a high school student whoclaimedher school had denied her permission to form a SFLA chapterbecause it was too controversial. According to school officials, the studentssimplydidnt followthe requirements for club formation and would be approved once they did.

Buffer zones

In 2014, ADF successfully arguedMcCullen v. Coakleybefore the Supreme Court,striking downa Massachusetts buffer zone law that banned anti-choice protestors inside a 35-feet parameter around abortion clinics. ADFclaimedthat this buffer zone in which anti-abortion extremists were not allowed to protest created a censorship zone where the First Amendment doesnt apply. Equating buffer zones with censorship has been a common tactic of anti-choice groups when challenging laws that mandate them. For example, ADF alsousedthe censorship zone argument when arguing against a Pittsburghordinance. Similarly, the anti-abortion group Created EqualclaimedOhios 15-feet buffer zone constituted a censorship zone that infringed on its right to protest outside abortion clinics.

Despite censorshipclaims from anti-abortion groups, buffer zones are essential for abortion access and to deter threats of violence against patients, providers, and clinics. The Massachusetts ordinance that was struck down inMcCullen v. Coakleywasoriginally introducedbecause of a 1994 shooting at a Brookline, MA clinic that killed two people. While anti-abortion protesters complain about the ability to spout their hateful rhetoric,violenceat abortion clinics has not only continued but increased in recent years; in 2015, ashootingat a Colorado Planned Parenthood clinic killed three people and injured nine more. Data from the National Abortion Federation (NAF)showsthat protests outside abortion clinics rose in 2016 to the highest level since NAF began tracking them in 1977. There wasalsoan increase in a wide range of intimidation tactics meant to disrupt the provision of health care at facilities, including vandalism, picketing, obstruction, invasion, trespassing, burglary, stalking, assault and battery, and bomb threats.

As recent cases in Kentucky and Missouri have shown, someanti-choicegroupsintentionally harass abortion providers or engage in civil disobedience outside clinics. When these groups face backlash or legal pushback, they invokecensorshipas a tactic in order to continue their campaigns of harassment.

Crying censorship: An anti-choice tactic

These examples are wide-ranging, reaching from social media platforms, to news coverage, to sidewalk access, but the common thread and indeed, the underlying tactic at play is anti-abortion groups labeling a perceived injustice against them as censorship.These groups have much to gain and very little to lose by employing this tactic. By claiming theyve been unjustly censored, anti-abortion groups not only elevate their lies and misinformation, they are also able to incite followers and raise funds by claiming they are being persecuted.

Crying censorship is a win-win tactic for anti-abortion extremists. Meanwhile, clinic intimidation andviolencecontinues to rise asright-wing mediaagitate their increasingly polarized base to support anti-abortion causes,and an increasing number oflawsare being implemented to limit abortion rights. Anti-choice organizations also have thebenefitof PresidentDonald Trumpsadministrationbeing filled withanti-choiceextremistsalreadyon arampageagainstabortionandcontraception access.

But please, thoughyou have an overtlyanti-choice administration that relies on a direct pipeline of information from anti-abortion extremists, continue to feign outrage about being unable to place ads on Twitter.

More:
How anti-choice zealots cry censorship whenever they are ... - Salon - Salon

In May, Deutsche Telekom AG gathered a few media agencies, advertising technology firms and data companies in Berlin for a two-day workshop. The different types of firms worked together, under the observation of the telecommunications giant, to sketch out plans for how they might use data, technology and media to achieve specific marketing objectives, according to a person familiar with the event.

The workshop was part of a larger effort, dubbed "Project Tetris," to align the company's media operations with a quickly changing media strategy, including spending more with companies like Facebook and Google and exerting greater control over data.

The German company, which controls wireless carrier T-Mobile US Inc., may potentially divide its European media operation into six different groups, such as programmatic buying and media intelligence, and slice up agency duties to support those tasks, according to a copy of an agency review document obtained by The Wall Street Journal.

A person familiar with the review said no decisions have been made yet.

Deutsche Telekom is the latest company to rethink the structure of its media operation as technology changes the way people consume media, and as advertisers discover new technology and data resources to help them get their ads in front of customers.

"The basic insight motivating a change in Deutsche Telekom's media operating model is that continuing with the current media model will lead to stagnation," the company states in the document. "Changes in the market structure as well as internal developments demand changes in Deutsche Telekom's way of working if the group is to defend and strengthen its leadership position."

Continue Reading Below

ADVERTISEMENT

In the document, the company cites a need to attract consumers whose attention is shifting to mobile devices and away from traditional ads amid a "steep rise in users installing ad blockers," as well as a need to outsmart the telecom competition that's "insourcing analytics and investing in advertising technology."

"It is common business practice to review partners and suppliers," said a spokesman for Deutsche Telekom in an email. "Currently we are reviewing media partners within the context as a large advertiser within Europe."

Consulting giant McKinsey and advertising consultant ID Comms have supported the company's media efforts.

It isn't clear what impact the effort will have on the company's T-Mobile operations in the U.S., where wireless providers are engaged in a fierce pricing war.

The change comes as large advertisers rapidly reallocate their media spend from traditional channels like TV and print, to digital firms like Facebook and Google. Global digital advertising spend is expected to increase by 14% this year, according to the latest ad forecast from media buying group Magna. In Western Europe, online advertising sales are expected to grow by an average of 10% to $42 billion.

Deutsche Telekom, which spends hundreds of millions of dollars on media in Europe, according to someone familiar with the review, is no exception.

Traditional TV, which accounts for about one-third of Deutsche Telekom's media spend, will decline "slightly" over the next few years, according to the review document. Print, out-of-home and radio will also decline "sharply," from about a third of the company's media spend. At the same time, the company plans on "sharply" increasing spend on "advertising within walled gardens," like Facebook and YouTube, as well as programmatic advertising, including display and video ad formats in the coming years.

In the document, the company also expressed an interest in reducing its reliance on third parties and suppliers, for "more control over media spend, data, placements and outcomes."

Currently, Deutsche Telekom's media operations are "largely outsourced to agencies, with a low reliance on data, and limited internal collaboration."

Media agencies -- which typically support data and analytics, as well as traditional and digital media buying and planning, for a single client -- may now handle fewer and more specific tasks.

The company invited Omnicom, WPP and Publicis to participate in the review.

Write to Alexandra Bruell at alexandra.bruell@wsj.com

(END) Dow Jones Newswires

July 07, 2017 06:14 ET (10:14 GMT)

See the original post here:
Deutsche Telekom Considers Shaking Up Media Operations - Fox Business

Few cases in history divide the public, but those that do become infamous. The George Zimmerman case, in which an armed neighborhood watch officer shot and killed unarmed black teenager Trayvon Martin, is one such example, where the final verdict led to widespread shock and criticism. Oxygens The Jury Speaks, premiering Saturday, July 22 at 9/8c, takes a closer look at some of these, including the polarizing George Zimmerman case.

George Zimmerman lived at the Retreat in Twin Lakes in Sanford, Florida, where Trayvon Martin was living with his mother and her finac at the time. In September 2011, Zimmerman was elected as the local neighborhood watchs program coordinator. Between his appointment and the February 26, 2012 shooting of Martin, Zimmerman placed several calls to the police reporting suspicious characters in the neighborhood all of them black males.On the evening of Feburary 26, 2012, Zimmerman saw Martin returning to the Twin Lakes community while running a personal errand. At around 7:09pm, Zimmerman called police to report a suspicious character, reporting that Martin was wearing a hoodie, and that he looked up to no good. He also said these assholes, they always get away.

Two minutes into the call, Zimmerman proclaimed, hes running, at which point Zimmerman got out of his car and pursued Martin on foot, which he relayed to the police dispatcher on the phone. He ended the phone call to the police at approximately 7:15pm. What happened next is of great contention, but it ended with Zimmerman shooting and killing 17-year-old Martin 70 yards from the back door of his house. Martin was unarmed. In his pockets there was a bag of Skittles, some Arizona fruit juice, cash, headphones and a lighter.

Police arrived at 7:17pm and took Zimmerman into custody. Martin was lying face down in the grass, but police noticed that his back was wet and covered in grass.Meanwhile, Zimmermans car had been moved by his wife before police were able to establish it as part of the crime scene.On questioning, Zimmerman told police he had been shouting for help before her shot Martin. He also had a bloody, swollen nose, and cuts on the back of his head, apparently from whatever physical altercation had transpired with Martin. After five hours of questioning Zimmerman was released on the grounds that the police chief believed there was no evidence to suggest he wasnt acting in self-defense when he killed Martin. He used Floridas Stand Your Ground law to prohibit police from making an arrest.

During the investigation, there was suggestion that police werent thorough enough, as they hadnt tested Zimmerman for intoxication.The media whipped into a frenzy, and many commentators suggested that based on evidence it looked like not only was Zimmerman the aggressor, that he targetted Martin in a case of racial profiling. It wasnt until March 20, 2012 that the Justice Department and the FBI announced a full investigation would be taking place, including an examination of whether or not Trayvon Martins civil rights were violated.

The county medical examiners autopsy report found that Martin died from a single, close range gunshot to the chest, with only one small wound on his left ring finger. One witness reported having seen Martin on top of Zimmerman, punching him while Zimmerman called for help. A 13-year-old boy reported a similar story, but his mother disputed the testimony on the grounds that police had applied pressure and suggestion on the boy, and only interviewed him five days after the incident, at which time his memory was blurred. The mother also said she didnt believe the shooting was in self-defense. Meanwhile, other witnesses reported seeing no altercation happening at all, and backed up the notion that Zimmerman wasnt acting in self defense at all. These witness reports were obviously at odds with Zimmermans story. But on February 24, 2015, both the civil rights investigation and the FBI investigation were terminated because of a lack of evidence.

The case took on new life in the media, leading to widespread indignation and outrage not only in the States, but across the world. Martins mother hired an attorney and on March 16 won a bid to have Zimmermans 911 calls from the night of the shooting publically released.Protests sprung up across the country, calling for Zimmermans arrest. On April 11, 2012, Zimmerman was finally arrested and charged with second degree murder.

More than a year after the shooting, on June 10, 2013, his trial began. But by July 13, 2013, the had jury found Zimmerman, to the shock of the nation, not guilty. Floridas special self-defense laws made it impossible for prosecutors to prove Zimmerman acted in cold blood beyond a reasonable doubt, and ultimately, allowed him to walk free. The Black Lives Matter movement was titled after the phrase was used in a viral Facebook post about the verdict.

[All photos: Getty Images]

Go here to read the rest:
A Short History Of The George Zimmerman Case - Oxygen (blog)

Todd Richmond, Associated Press

MADISON, Wis. (AP) A Wisconsin law that requires homeowners to let assessors inside as a condition for challenging their property taxes is unconstitutional as applied to a pair of Racine County property owners, the state Supreme Court ruled Friday.

The court said in a 5-2 decision that such visits amount to unreasonable searches and that assessors need to get warrants if they can't obtain the homeowners' consent.

The ruling involves Vincent Milewski and Morganne MacDonald, who own a home in the Town of Dover in Racine County. According to court documents, they tried to challenge their 2013 property tax assessment in front of a town review board.

The board refused to hear the challenge because Milewski and MacDonald wouldn't let an assessor inside their home. Under state law, people who refuse an assessor's request to view their property can't contest the assessment to local review boards.

Milewski and MacDonald sued. A judge dismissed the lawsuit and a state appellate court upheld his decision. The state Supreme Court reversed that ruling.

Writing for the majority, Justice Dan Kelly said Milewski and MacDonald were faced with a difficult decision: relinquish their constitutional right to be free of unreasonable searches so they could challenge the assessment or exercise their rights and forfeit their ability to contest the assessment.

Kelly said an assessors' visit without consent is a search as defined in the U.S. Constitution's Fourth Amendment, which protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures. The town failed to show how assessing taxes is such a special need that the Fourth Amendment doesn't apply, which means assessors must obtain search warrants to enter without consent, he wrote. Assessors can use other means to gather information about the property, he said. Milewski and MacDonald can challenge the assessment without an interior inspection, he concluded.

He said the law was unconstitutionally applied to Milewski and MacDonald's situation. But he said the law isn't unconstitutional on its face, holding only that it can't be read to require a viewing that violates the Fourth Amendment.

The town's attorney, Jason Gehring, didn't immediately respond to a voicemail seeking comment.

The court's conservative-leaning majority reached the decision. Shirley Abrahamson and Ann Walsh Bradley, the only two liberal-leaning justices, dissented.

Abrahamson wrote in a joint dissent with Bradley that such choices are common in the law and are seen as constitutionally valid. She also complained the majority opinion is overly complex and intricate even though her dissent goes on for 47 pages compared with Kelly's 53 pages and doesn't say what should happen next.

The Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty, a conservative law firm that represents Milewski and MacDonald, issued a statement calling the decision "a victory for private property rights."

The Wisconsin Realtors Association, the state Department of Justice and the Institute of Justice, a law firm specializing in constitutional protections, all filed friend-of-the-court briefs urging the Supreme Court to strike down the law.

___

Follow Todd Richmond on Twitter at https://twitter.com/trichmond1

Link:
Homeowners don't have to let assessors in to challenge tax - The Edwardsville Intelligencer

The Hindu

PMO, NSA tracking impact of Chinese FDI in South Asia The Hindu PMO, NSA tracking impact of Chinese FDI in South Asia. Arun S. New Delhi, July 08, 2017 23:56 IST. Updated: July 08, 2017 23:56 IST. Share Article; PRINT; AAA. The Centre has begun its first ever in-depth assessment of Chinese investments in India's ... and more »

See the original post here:
PMO, NSA tracking impact of Chinese FDI in South Asia - The Hindu