Mediaboss Marketing

EVENT ANNOUNCEMENT

While law enforcement agencies and a Congressional committee work to investigate the Jan. 6, 2021, attacks on the Capitolpolitical violence aimed at blocking or overturning the results of the 2020 presidential electiona wave of subsequent efforts seek to undermine the norms and structures that have given Americans basic confidence in elections and in the peaceful transfer of power.

Meanwhile, from statehouses to the Supreme Court, bitter debates rage over voting rights, access and security.

The University of Michigan will host four award-winning journalists who will share their insights into the forces threatening and protecting democratic structures and systems. The series is a partnership between the Ford School of Public Policy, Wallace House, and U-M Democracy & Debate 2021-22, co-hosted by the Gerald R. Ford Library and Museum, and the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Foundation.

The Democracy in Crisis series will also explore the current state of journalism and the role of the press in upholding democratic institutionsat a time of demagogic attacks on the media and dramatic shifts in media ownership and independence.

Here in the United States, and in many countries around the globe, democracy is being threatened, and journalists are standing up to raise the alarm. This series will help our community and the broader public understand whats at stake, and what they can do about it, said Ford School Dean Michael Barr.

Anne Curzan, dean of U-Ms College of Literature, Arts, and Sciences, says strong, free and open, ethical journalism is essential to a well-functioning democracy. The series, she adds, offers an opportunity to learn about the state of U.S. democracy as well as the state of political journalism from an insiders perspective.

Diminishing the role and work of journalists is a key tactic in undermining democracies, she said. Bringing visibility to the work of journalists is a necessary antidote to those efforts. We look forward to giving our community a chance to engage with these experienced reporters in a way that cuts through the noise to prompt thoughtful civic engagement.

The series begins with three events:

The Ford Schools events page has details of the talks, all of which will be streamed and some of which will also include in-person attendance.

See the original post here:
Journalists to share insights as part of U-M's Democracy in Crisis series - University of Michigan News

John Michalski| The Gaston Gazette

While men and women of the Ukraine are fighting and dying trying to preserve democracy, they require countries who proclaim to be supporters of democracy to support them. It is ridiculous beyond belief that radicals in both the Republican and Democratic parties are using this event to try to score political points instead of standing up to Tsar wanna-be Vladimir Putin.

Both major American parties have had inconsistent histories by treating Eastern Europeans as lesser-thans and their respective national struggles as not as worthy as those in Latin America, Asia, Western Europe, and the Middle East.

Both major parties have also had episodes of being true to the democratic self-deterministic aspirations of Eastern Europeans. A few examples of the former include the platform of the Klan so influential in party politics for almost a century, the hyphenated American beliefs and speeches of Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, the immigration quota acts of 1921 and 1924, the SS St. Louis voyage, Yalta, Hungary 1956, Czechoslovakia 1968, and Helsinki Accords just to name a few.

A few examples of the latter include opening immigration to this great country during some of the darkest days in European and human history, providing humanitarian support, pressuring the Soviet Union to lift its iron curtain of oppression, supporting religious freedom, which often led to desires of freedom in other realms, using military means to halt a Balkan genocide, and expanding military and economic alliances that linked the future of portions of Eastern Europe to that of the democratic West just to name a few.

In both the former and latter, the intelligent American will quickly see that bothmajor parties are represented. No current American political party can claim historical purity in all-out supporting democracy in Eastern Europe. The current invasion and willful targeting of civilians by Putins autocratic Russia is another litmus test for American political parties. What side are their radicals really on? Actions speak louder than words.

The American media is beset with radical blowhards from both sides whose knowledge of Eastern European history and culture can fit on one side of a post it note. They are sadly attempting to use this event to score domestic points instead of unifying across the aisle to stand up to Putin. They portray themselves as experts but cannot even pronounce the names of people and places correctly.

Heck, these ignorant radical blowhards cannot even pronounce a simple Eastern European surname like mine correctly. As one whose family stood up to both Hitler and Stalin as well as other demagogues to the current day Tsar in Training, I am saddened by the negative influence that these American political radicals have upon a large faction of the American public.

Americas strength is its universal belief in freedom and democracy regardless of political affiliation. Americas great strength lies in its beliefs that every human being should have the opportunity to achieve their God-given potential regardless of political affiliation.

Historically many from Eastern Europe have admired the fundamental beliefs of the American republic since its inception. Examples include American Revolutionary figures such as Casimir Pulaski and Thaddeus Kosciuszko. Unfortunately, their names have been removed from too many U.S. history books.

I ardently hope that the vast majority of Americans will unify in their support of Ukrainians in defending their embattled democracy and not fall for the divisive dangerous drivel of radical political hacks from both parties who wish to do nothing but divide this country into paralysis.

Their promoted paralysis not only harms the United States but also freedom loving people everywhere who, as I write, are standing up to one the most powerful military forces in the world.

Their goal to have the freedom and opportunity that we have here but that too many in this country take for granted.

John Michalski is a resident of Gastonia.

Follow this link:
Stop the political grandstanding on Ukraine and support democracy - Gaston Gazette

Sometimes it is obvious when an attempt is being made to destroy a democracy. Tanks rolling across a border and missiles striking cities dont leave much room for doubt. But threats can be both more subtle and a slower burn.

Last week, the elections bill cleared its first hurdle in the House of Lords (UK elections watchdog warns bill threatens its independence, 21 February). During the debate, peers queued up to set out their concerns about the impact on the independence of the Electoral Commission the elections watchdog once Michael Gove is setting its strategy and policy. It is a dangerous power to put into political hands.

Lord Grocott deployed a footballing analogy to make his point and hit the spot: To allow the winning party to give instructions to the Electoral Commission is comparable to a game between Arsenal and Manchester United in which, prior to kick-off, the Arsenal manager gives instructions to the referee.

This move goes expressly against the recommendations of the committee on standards in public life. It was also criticised by the Conservative-led public administration and constitutional affairs committee, which concluded that it risks undermining public confidence in the effective and independent regulation of the electoral system, and by the chair of the Electoral Commission, John Pullinger, and the majority of electoral commissioners in an open letter to ministers.

Peers are the last line of defence against plans to take control of the body that manages elections and fines political parties for rule breaches. We urge them to be as forceful in defending democracy now as they were during discussions about the police bill, which saw the government defeated 14 times. Otherwise our democracy is on a slippery slope.Tom Brake Director, Unlock Democracy; Kyle Taylor Director, Fair Vote UK; Mark Kieran CEO, Open Britain; Jess Garland Director of research, Electoral Reform Society

Have an opinion on anything youve read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication.

More here:
The subtle but deadly threat to UK democracy - The Guardian

There is a great deal more at stake than national security in Scott Morrisons hyper-partisan and grossly dishonest accusation that Anthony Albanese and his deputy, Richard Marles, are carrying the hopes of the Chinese regime at the forthcoming election.

It undermines the stability of our democracy and shows we have reached a dangerous point in our political discourse.

Two factors are at work here: extremely divisive political rhetoric and the willingness of the countrys dominant newspaper company, Rupert Murdochs News Corporation, to lend it a megaphone.

Morrison and Murdoch are trying to do to Australias democracy what Murdoch and Donald Trump did to Americas between 2016 and 2021.

They are working together to create division where none exists in pursuit of their own political and ideological interests. No lie is too big to be used for this purpose.

The English philosopher A.C. Grayling and two American political scientists, Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt among many others have shown how these factors have combined to weaken democracy in the United States and the United Kingdom.

Broadly speaking, their arguments go like this:

Hyper-partisanship in which fierce disagreement is expressed in extreme language leads to a breakdown in the consensus on which democracy depends.

When the consensus breaks down, so does the acceptance by each side that the other side has political legitimacy.

When that acceptance breaks down, the peaceful transfer of power that democracies achieve by holding elections is severely threatened. We saw this on January 6 2021, when the Trumpian mob assailed the Capitol in Washington.

Propaganda, spin and outright falsehoods promoted in the professional mass media and on social media contribute powerfully to these consequences.

Levitsky and Ziblatt, in their book How Democracies Die, argue extreme polarisation leads political rivals to see each other as mutual threats. This in turn encourages a win-at-all-costs attitude and leads to a corrosive refusal to accept that the other side is entitled to govern.

If democracies were to be diverted from this destructive course, it was necessary for them to recapture the civility, sense of freedom and shared purpose that defined democracys essence in the mid-20th century.

It is here that the professional mass media have a crucial role to play. It lies within their power to promote civility of discourse, articulate a societys shared purpose and debunk lies.

Read more: Too much sugar, not enough spice: 60 Minutes' Morrison interview was not journalism, it was confected pap

However, after Morrisons crude and baseless accusations, Murdochs newspapers, including The Australian, The Daily Telegraph and the Herald Sun, and his Sky News channel all trumpeted the message that Albanese and Marles were Beijings preferred candidates for the election.

Morrison used as evidence an article in the Global Times, a propaganda mouthpiece for the Chinese government, written by former Australian diplomat Bruce Haigh, entitled Weak Australian leadership inhibits potential relationship reset with China.

Purely as a matter of logic, it is difficult to follow the Morrison argument.

The proposition seems to be that he can swallow material from a recognised Chinese government propaganda outfit and use it as credible evidence that someone else namely the Labor leadership is being manipulated by the Chinese government.

On top of that, the article quoted was far from flattering of Albanese. It characterised him as a cautious politician inclined to accept the US view of the world without giving it any independent thought.

At this point, it is only fair to point out there have been two remarkable exceptions to the Murdoch media chorus. Both Greg Sheridan, The Australians foreign editor, and Andrew Bolt, the Herald Sun and Sky News commentator, have spoken out, strongly disapproving of Morrisons accusations.

In doing so, they echoed what the more responsible elements of the Australian media have done, focusing on the warnings from the current head of ASIO, Mike Burgess, and a previous head, Dennis Richardson, that Morrisons conduct undermines national security.

Read more: Grattan on Friday: Faraway conflict feeds into Morrison's national security pitch

The election is still scheduled for three months time, and the pressure on these responsible elements of the media is only likely to become more intense. Who knows what new conspiracy theories and hobgoblins the politicians will drum up between now and then?

Much will depend on whether Australias political leaders can climb out of the gutter, not forgetting that Albanese slung the Manchurian candidate slur back at Morrison.

Another important factor will be what happens on social media.

Hyper-partisanship is fuelled by social media through the echo-chamber effect, a phenomenon American political analyst Cass Sunstein examines in his book #republic.

He argues people could join the political debate wholly within these echo chambers among like-minded people, isolated from alternative views. They are exposed only to information of questionable quality and arguments that become increasingly strident and extreme as participants stir themselves up into a frenzy of hostility towards the opposing viewpoint.

This hostility then provides further incendiary material for unscrupulous politicians to exploit. Not long after, the contents of echo chambers can seep out into the public discourse.

Read more: 'National security' once meant more than just conjuring up threats beyond our borders

Australias democracy is in some respects better designed than Americas, especially with its independent electoral commission, preferential ballot and compulsory voting. These all provide some protection against the electoral impact of extremism.

But it is not indestructible. It rests on consensus, and that is preserved by tolerance and restraint, what Levitsky and Ziblatt call the guardrails of democracy.

We have seen precious little of either in the past week from the Morrison-Murdoch machine, leaving it to the rest of the media to try to see that those guardrails hold up.

Read the original:
Scare-mongering on China is a threat to our democracy, and responsible media must guard against it - The Conversation AU

The close connections between democracy, creativity, and economic progress are subtle and long-term, but they are real. In the face of a growing authoritarian challenge worldwide, democratic governments must act together to protect them.

NEW YORK During my years as a policymaker in India and at the World Bank, one of the few leaders I met whom I came truly to respect was Madeleine Albright. The former US secretary of state was a master strategist, but behind the strategizing lay empathy and a moral compass. That is why we should take seriously her recent essay on the need for urgent global action to fight authoritarianism, which the all-out invasion of democratic Ukraine by Russias autocratic leader, Vladimir Putin, only serves to underscore.

Subscriber Exclusive

Subscriber Exclusive

History is replete with grotesque forms of human oppression, including slavery, racism, and oligarchies crushing peoples aspirations. Today, the continued rise of authoritarianism in countries such as Brazil, Turkey, and of course Russia highlights the need to shore up democracy. What is new is that this effort now must be global.

Even as the shadow of authoritarian misrule spreads, there is a growing aspiration for democracy among ordinary people seeking greater freedom and dignity. A Pew Research Center survey of 17 advanced economies in 2021 shows disaffection with the lack of individual freedom in authoritarian states at an all-time high. Additionally, according to the survey, a median of 74% of people in these countries had no confidence in Putin doing the right thing in world affairs.

There is also hope in Albrights interesting observation that leaders with totalitarian inclinations tend to rise and fall in waves. Force out one, and others may tumble, too, as happened when the end of authoritarian rule in the Philippines in 1986 was followed by similar developments in Chile, South Africa, Zaire, and Indonesia over the next decade or so. This should encourage responsible governments today to initiate the process of reviving global democracy.

Sadly, the record of the United States is far from clean in that regard. A recent study by the Roosevelt Institutes Kyle Strickland and Felicia Wong points to how Americas neoliberal economic policies fueled discrimination and inequity in many countries. Moreover, in Chile, Cuba, Central America, and elsewhere, America has intervened, often brutally, not to support democracy but to protect US corporate interests. Providing leadership to isolate authoritarian regimes and nurture democracy will thus require the US to break with significant aspects of its past and take on this responsibility as its moral obligation to chart a new course for the world.

But to rely wholly or substantially on the US would be folly. To be sure, some US presidents notably, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Jimmy Carter, and Barack Obama have possessed a strong sense of global responsibility. Fortunately, many prominent Americans, including current political leaders, take a similar stance. Yet, as Donald Trump demonstrated, a US leader can be elected by promising to make America great again, and, once in office, define America as his friends, family, and cronies.

Our newest magazine, The Year Ahead 2022: Reckonings, is here. To receive your print copy, delivered wherever you are in the world, subscribe to PS for less than $9 a month.

As a PS subscriber, youll also enjoy unlimited access to our On Point suite of premium long-form content, Say More contributor interviews, The Big Picture topical collections, and the full PS archive.

Subscribe Now

While many justify the need for democracy as a means to other desirable ends, I believe that democracy is necessary in itself. If it were the case that democracy slowed economic growth, we should be prepared to grow a little less in order to let equality and freedom flourish. This is because the commitment to treat all human beings as equals, as democracy requires, is an ethical axiom. As Abraham Lincoln put it in a handwritten note in 1858, As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master. This expresses my idea of democracy.

That said, the evidence suggests that democracy is a key ingredient of economic advancement. By creating the space for dissent, criticism, and change, democracy nurtures creativity and innovation, and, through that, economic flourishing. Economic progress in countries that succumb to religious fundamentalism or authoritarianism almost invariably stalls. China seems to be an exception, but it is worth noting that democratic Taiwans GDP per capita is nearly three times that of China.

One of the best examples of what democracy can do is post-independence India, one of the worlds most audacious experiments in creating and nurturing an open society. The country undoubtedly made some economic-policy mistakes over the last 75 years, and its annual growth rate in the early decades after independence remained low, at around 3%. But the democratic investment meant that, despite being a poor country, India did well in higher education, research, the arts, and other creative fields.

The pickup in Indias economic growth from the early 1990s onward had many causes, but it also reflected the democratic dividend. Because of the countrys political openness and freedom of speech and criticism, the services sector, which relies on creative human capital, began to bloom, fostering the growth of firms like Infosys, Wipro, and Tata Consultancy Services. By 2005, India was among the worlds four or five fastest-growing economies. Its sophisticated polity had made the country a global success story, poised for a remarkable run.

This success has come under a cloud in recent years with an increase in restrictions on free speech and the media. Not surprisingly, Indias GDP growth decelerated each year from 2017 to 2020. The close connections between democracy, creativity, and economic progress are subtle and long-term, but they are real. And they demonstrate clearly the need to encourage democratization worldwide.

View original post here:
Protecting the Democratic Dividend by Kaushik Basu - Project Syndicate