Mediaboss Marketing

Broadcast and cable news reluctance to talk about gerrymandering, let alone address the outsized impact it has in state and federal elections, has allowed American democracy to quietly become less representative. As movements build behind redistricting reform, the question remains: Will TV news ever care about gerrymandering?

A yearlongMedia Mattersstudyfoundthat cable news shows brought up gerrymandering in only five segments between July 1, 2016, and June 30, 2017. During that same time period, broadcast morning news programs and nightly newscasts didnt discuss gerrymandering at all. And this isnt a new trend; for years, media have shown areluctance to discussgerrymandering and redistricting. Given the outsized influence partisan and racial gerrymandering has on American democracy, these issues deserve more coverage.

Partisan gerrymandering is not exactly new, butsince 2010, Republicans have takenit to a new level. The Associated Press (AP)foundthat in the 2016 election, gerrymandering helped create the conditions that led to four times as many states with Republican-skewed state House or Assembly districts than Democratic ones. Additionally, among the two dozen most populated states that determine the vast majority of Congress, there were nearly three times as many with Republican-tilted U.S. House districts. As University of Chicago law professor Geoffrey Stonewrotefor HuffPost, Although partisan gerrymandering has been with us from the beginning, it is now worse than ever, because computer modeling enables legislators to design districts that almost precisely maximize their political advantage.

Racial gerrymandering whichinvolvesspreading minorities across voting districts, leaving them too few in number in any given district to elect their preferred candidates, or concentrating the minority vote in certain districts has also helpedRepublicans hold on to their majority. AsThe Washington Posts Wonkblog explained, Since the minority electorate leans liberal, packing minorities has the same effect as packing Democrats, causing the district map to favor Republicans in the same way it favors whites.The New York Times editorial boarddescribedthe radical racial gerrymandering that resulted inunconstitutional districtsin North Carolina as the GOPs unscrupulous efforts to fence off black communities.

While Republicans have been attacking the heart of American democracy, media coverage has been lacking, to say the least. At the same time,activistsandpoliticians fromboth sides of the aislehave been calling for independent, nonpartisan groups to take the charge on redistricting in the near future. With momentum rising, the question remains: Will media, specifically broadcast and cable news, ever care about gerrymandering? So far, the answer appears to be no.

Read this article:
Gerrymandering is ruining our democracy. Will television news ever care? - Salon

Economic forces feeding on coercion and corruption are responsible for the assault on science and democracy in the country like never before, according to ecologist Madhav Gadgil, who headed an expert panel on the conservation of the Western Ghats. This attack was more intense than the one by religious fundamentalism.

Delivering a lecture on Science and democracy in contemporary India in memory of Kerala Sasthra Sahithya Parishad activist I.G. Bhaskara Panicker, he said the Kerala government should drop the Athirappilly hydroelectric project as it was unviable.

He alleged the governments in power at the Centre earlier too had assaulted science and democracy. Mr. Gadgil claimed that the previous Union government had tried to suppress the report of the Western Ghats panel terming it anti-development. The panel had termed projects such as the Athirappilly hydroelectric project unviable, citing available data.

Mr. Gadgil said the River Research Foundation had authentic data from the Central Water Commission on the amount of water flowing in the Chalakudy river and it also had data about the amount of electricity that could be produced as part of the project. The amount of water in the Chalakudy river was far less than what was mentioned in the project document prepared by the proponents of the project. The claim on power production too was highly exaggerated. The impact on tribespeople, irrigation and tourism too were analysed and found unfavourable. During a hearing on the project, the officials could not counter any of these objections, he said.

Mr. Gadgil said the Kasturirangan panel was appointed later to modify the recommendations of the panel headed by him. He said that the Kasturirangan panel had not consulted them while preparing the report, which was unethical. To justify their actions, they lied that they had used better quality satellite data, he said. Mr. Gadgil said he was ready for a debate on the recommendations prepared by both the panels to prove his point.

As far as the assault on democracy and science was concerned, he said there was not much of a difference between the situation in States ruled by BJP such as Maharashtra and Goa or non-BJP parties like Kerala and Karnataka.

Even a Left Front government was supporting capitalistic projects like special economic zones against peoples interests, he said, citing the example of the Indian Oil Corporation plant at Puthuvype.

See the rest here:
Science and democracy under threat, says Gadgil - The Hindu

Protest leader Joshua Wong leaves Hong Kongs high court in a prison van after his sentencing. Photograph: STRINGER/Reuters

For Hong Kongs embattled democracy movement the 20th anniversary of the UKs handover to China has been nothing short of an annus horribilis.

But on Thursday afternoon, just minutes after the former British colonys high court had transformed him into one of the citys first prisoners of conscience, Joshua Wong struck a decidedly an upbeat tone.

See you soon, the 20-year-old protest leader tweeted after he and two friends, Nathan Law and Alex Chow, were jailed for their role in launching 2014s umbrella movement, a historic 79-day occupation that drew hundreds of thousands of young people out on to the streets.

For Wong, who was sentenced to six months behind bars, the ruling is a particularly heavy blow. The student activist, who found fame as Hong Kongs teenage face of protest during the 2014 demonstrations, had hoped to run for political office after turning 21 in October. This weeks sentence has scuppered those dreams for at least five years.

It has also delivered a body blow to Hong Kongs wider democracy movement, already reeling from the disqualification of four its lawmakers from parliament and the growing sense that the international community has abandoned it for fear of upsetting Beijing.

Many supporters in the court were crying because we didnt want to accept this result, said Ray Chan, a pro-democracy politician and Hong Kongs first openly gay legislator, who was among those to turn out in support of Wong, Law and Chow.

The sentences constituted an attempt to intimidate young Hong Kongers who were considering taking to the streets to protest against Beijings refusal to grand them genuine democracy.

But for Chan, and many others within the pro-democracy camp, the message is: we will not be cowed.

It cannot make all of us keep quiet, Chan vowed. We still have hope because we have so many young people who are prepared to sacrifice their freedom to fight for democracy for our society.

I want to make it more positive - a few months is not too long a period, Chan said of his jailed friends. Never give up!

Benedict Rogers, a British human rights activist who knows all three of the campaigners, said he could also see a silver-lining to the storm clouds that have been gathering over Hong Kongs democracy movement.

Rogers decried the trios imprisonment as a travesty of justice. They are absolutely delightful, he said. All three of them are among the most intelligent, bright, thoughtful and fun people that I can think of and the idea that they are guilty of a criminal act is absurd.

[But] if anything is to galvanise the international community into realising that Hong Kongs basic freedoms and one country, two systems are now really on a knife edge if not already dead then it is the sentencing of three young men who have committed no crime apart from a political crime.

In a statement, Wongs party, Demosist, accused Chinas president, Xi Jinping, of eroding the civil and political freedoms that Hong Kong was promised after its return to Beijings control and lamented the immense humiliation the government had inflicted upon their struggle for change.

But Rogers said that by turning the three men into political prisoners, authorities were giving them even greater legitimacy and boosting the very cause they were trying to undermine. When you look throughout history at people who have become iconic figures, theyve often done so because of spending periods of time in prison, he said. One only has to think of Gandhi, or Nelson Mandela or Aung San Suu Kyi, and countless others.

Eddie Chu, a pro-democracy legislator, was another who refused to be downbeat. Chu accused the Communist party of attempting to wipe out a generation of potential candidates by having those who might seek election to oppose its rule thrown in jail.

But he insisted the tactic would fail: Hong Kong people will not be defeated.

View original post here:
Hong Kong jailings could lend democracy cause greater legitimacy - The Guardian

Democratic process should continue. Democracy should not be derailed. A common statement that every political party utter thousands of times. But not all stand with this statement in testing time. Stances change when personal interests clash with this saying. This is something which is observed after the Supreme Court historic verdict in the Panama Case. The deliberate effort is made to make the judgment and the honourable judges of the Supreme Court controversial. Even though everyone knows that an independent judiciary is part and parcel in a democratically ruled country.

Last month, Nawaz Sharif was politically eliminated by an independent and transparent judicial process. The decision was widely criticised especially by the ruling party but one thing is for sure that the whole process and action were within the limits of the constitution of Pakistan and no undemocratic force was behind this case. The unanimous and unprecedented judgment against the sitting prime minister altered the political landscape in our country. It was a watershed moment for the country`s democratic evaluation and has been described as a step forward in efforts towards establishing the rule of law. It signifies a milestone in the development of an independent judiciary, not subservient to the executive. Many independent and credible jurists have regarded the decision as setting a good precedent that will survive the test of time.

Significantly it is a victory for the PTI, a political truth that must be acknowledged. If it were not for the relentless campaign of Imran Khan and his party, the accountability of elected officials would not have been possible. After Mr Sharif`s disqualification, Mr Khan sensibly distanced himself from the perception of a personal war against Mr Sharif. But the ousted prime minister, instead of accepting the judgment, as he and his party affirmed during the proceedings of the case, adopted a collision course. He changed his stance and labelled the decision a conspiracy and directed the partys canons towards the honourable judges. Mr Sharif is not willing to accept his lower political profile.

After the verdict, every political leader stated categorically that democracy is not in danger. But the ouster PM described the event as a setback to democracy. His narration that no prime minister in the country`s 70-year history had been allowed to complete his or her term is beyond comprehension. The fact is that it is the term of parliament that is enshrined in the Constitution and not of the prime minister. It is so apparent that all his talk about democracy and civilian supremacy is about personal political survival. Mr Sharif, unfortunately, directed the anger of his dismissal from the office in an unfortunate direction. He is now trying to present himself as a revolutionary but no one knows what sort of revolution he is talking about.

In order to defend his position, Mr Sharif is appearing to contradict many of his own statements and actions. For example, before setting on his GT Road journey he had to accept that ex-PM Yousaf Raza Gallani should not have been disqualified. But for that he created pressure to make him leave the office. Similarly, the ouster PM and his party had been taking the credit that they made the judiciary an independent institution but during his journey back to Lahore he made fiery speeches against the verdict and termed the decision as conspiracy. One finds it even more contradictory when they express their intentions to file a review petition before the same judiciary which they tried to malign.

The Supreme Court had given more than ample time to the Sharif family to prove their innocence against the charges. But unfortunately they could not produce any credible documents in the court and to the JIT, rather created more complications for themselves by presenting forged documents. Had they given the proofs in the court, they would not have to clarify themselves on roads.

Mr Sharif should also understand that it is decision within the constitution. He was trying to build a narrative that a representative of 20 million people was ousted by five people. The reality is that the constitution which made him the representative of the 20 million people, the same constitution has empowered the honourable judges to disqualify any MNA who is not honest.

While the gloves are already off as political parties run a sordid campaign against each other, post-Panama matters are becoming dirtier. The present political scenario in the country reminds us of the political period of 1990s, when the Sharifs and the Bhuttos attacked each other politically in very personal and aggressive terms. Whatever the judicial fate of Mr Sharif, it has always been clear that the overall democratic stakes are greater than any individual`s political future. The PML-N should continue to act honourably and protect the overall democratic process.

The decision of the Supreme Court is not a blow to democracy but a blow to dynastic politics that has been the biggest deterrent to the development of democratic institutions and values in the country. Most importantly, democracy is the rule of people by the people. It must not become a means to perpetuate dynastic rule. The people`s mandate does not make someone above the law. Democracy will further thrive when our electorate will gain more trust of the people.

See the original post:
Democracy should move forward - The Nation

After the sentences were announced, Mr. Wong posted a series of defiant messages on Twitter saying that he would not give up his fight for democracy. All three were taken into custody immediately.

They all intend to appeal their sentences, according to Lester Shum, a fellow protest leader, who read a statement outside the court.

In a statement issued Thursday night, the Hong Kong Department of Justice defended its appeal for tougher sentencing as its legal right, adding that the three protest leaders were convicted not because they exercised their civil liberties, but because their conduct during the protest contravened the law.

Suzanne Pepper, a Hong Kong-based scholar of Chinese politics, said the new sentences were part of a larger pushback by Beijing against Hong Kongs democracy movement.

Its a two-part strategy aimed at targeting the leaders, making an example of them, showing the cost for all who might want to follow in their footsteps and offering rewards to all who settle down, she said in an email. Sort of a combined carrots-and-sticks strategy, plus killing the chicken to frighten the monkeys.

Mr. Wong and Mr. Chow were found guilty last year of unlawful assembly, while Mr. Law was found guilty of inciting people to take part in the assembly. The charges stemmed from the storming of a fenced government square in 2014 to protest Beijings strict limits on proposed reforms to the way Hong Kong elects its top leader, or chief executive.

The protests and the police response cascaded into weeks of sit-ins, later known as the Umbrella Movement, that paralyzed several major streets across Hong Kong but failed to win the protesters any political concessions.

The former British colony returned to Chinese rule 20 years ago under a one country, two systems governing principle that promised a high degree of autonomy. Yet the publics trust in the political firewall has eroded as the Chinese authorities appear ever more assertive in exercising their will in the city.

Last year, the Chinese government moved to unseat two dissident lawmakers elected in Hong Kongs only citywide direct elections, ostensibly because they deviated from the official text when taking the oath of office. Last month, four more opposition lawmakers were removed from the citys 70-member Legislative Council, including Mr. Law, who was elected last year as the citys youngest-ever legislator.

A lower court had previously avoided deterrent punishment for Mr. Wong, Mr. Law and Mr. Chow, citing their genuine wish to express their political ideals and concerns for society. But prosecutors argued that lenient sentences would send the wrong message as they pursued legal action against even more participants and leaders of the largely peaceful protests.

In 2014, Joshua Wong was at the forefront of a student movement for democracy in Hong Kong.

The three judges at the appeals court were in agreement that tougher sentences were warranted in order to deter unlawful protests.

The freedom of assembly is never absolute, Wally Yeung, a vice president of the Court of Appeal, wrote in the judgment, adding that the court must uphold the importance of public order even though sentencing ambitious, idealistic young people to immediate imprisonment was not a judgment he made readily.

The Hong Kong police arrested more than 900 people during the demonstrations in 2014, when thousands of protesters shut down streets in several major business districts for almost three months. The government has brought charges against fewer than one-tenth of them, and those found guilty have been mostly sentenced to probation or community service.

The sentencing of the three protest leaders capped an emotional week for the citys embattled democracy activists, with one Democratic Party member being accused on Tuesday of falsifying an account of abduction and torture by Chinese agents.

On the same day, prison sentences of eight to 13 months were handed down to more than a dozen people who had stormed the Legislative Council building in June 2014 in opposition to a government development plan.

Those protesters included members of the Demosisto party formed by Mr. Law and Mr. Wong last year. At a news conference on Tuesday, Mr. Law broke down in tears while expressing his support for them.

On Wednesday, the night before the sentencing, others wept for Mr. Law, as he and Mr. Wong addressed hundreds of supporters gathered outside the square where they protested in 2014.

Do not give up on Hong Kong. We can still win, said Mr. Wong, wearing the same T-shirt he did nearly three years ago when he, then 17, climbed over a fence into the square. I dont know what will happen in the next six to 12 months, but I hope in 2018, when we are freed, well see a Hong Kong with hope.

Follow Alan Wong on Twitter @alanwongw.

A version of this article appears in print on August 18, 2017, on Page A7 of the New York edition with the headline: Three Young Democracy Advocates in Hong Kong Are Sentenced to Prison.

Original post:
Joshua Wong and 2 Others Jailed in Hong Kong Over Pro-Democracy Protest - New York Times