Mediaboss Marketing

by Debora Hyemin Han | 3/3/17 2:05am

Last week, government professors John Carey and Brendan Nyhan, University of Rochester political science professor Gretchen Helmke, Yale University political science professor Susan Stokes and market research company partner Mitch Sanders released data from the first survey conducted by Bright Line Watch a project that seeks to use scholarly expertise to monitor democratic practices and call attention to threats to American democracy, according to its website. BLW gave The New York Times early access to the results, which were reported in the Upshot section on Feb. 23.

For its first survey, BLW aimed to understand what qualities were most essential to democracy and use those characteristics to assess the current state of democracy in the U.S. Of the approximately 10,000 political scientists who were invited to participate in the survey, over 1,500 responded, according to Sanders, who is BLWs director of survey research. He said that the survey connects the perspective of political scientists to the questions that people are asking about democracy and political institutions. The survey was based on 19 statements related to characteristics of democracy, from fraud-free elections to limits on executive power to equal-impact voting. Respondents were asked to evaluate the statements on their relevancy and how well the U.S government meets those standards.

The survey found that an overwhelming majority of the experts believe the U.S. meets democratic standards of fraud-free elections, freedom of speech and judicial limits of executive power. Fewer than two-thirds of respondents said the U.S. meets standards of the majority showing restraint and reciprocity and noncriticism of opponents patriotism.

According to Carey, the idea for BLW originated from emails and Facebook messages between himself, Helmke and Stokes prior to the November election. They shared new polls and articles about the election with one another and had conversations about the way American democracy was being spoken about in the media. Most take stability and performance of U.S. democracy for granted, according to Carey, and despite how much people complain about democracy, they usually do not talk about it in existential terms. After the election, the group began to speak about the project in more concrete terms, and by November, the name Bright Line Watch had been established and the method of surveying was beginning to be discussed, Carey added.

The name is a metaphor for the bright line between liberal democracy and other forms of government, according to Nyhan. Because it is often unclear when political regimes cross this line, BLW aims to bring scholarly expertise to the conversation, Nyhan added.

Political scientists have a more nuanced view of what constitutes democracy, and thats what we wanted to capture, Nyhan said.

Sanders said that a survey does well aggregating many opinions based on a robust sample, calling it a good snapshot of what political scientists are thinking.

According to Nyhan, BLW hopes to catalyze a conversation among political scientists about current issues as they occur, adding that it is important for scholars to show their expertise as events unfold.

Ultimately, were counting on expert judgment to ... re-aggregate that information and give you some kind of summary judgment on how the U.S. is performing in those areas, he said.

Both Carey and Nyhan, while emphasizing the non-partisan nature of the project, agreed that the political climate leading up to the election and during the election was a big factor in creating the project. However, Nyhan said that BLW also has elements that originated before President Donald Trumps era.

Its very much inspired [by] current events, but it draws on a vast scholarly literature that long predates Donald Trump or anything having to do with his political relevance, he said.

Furthermore, Nyhan said that it does not seem that the political scientists who participated in the study used the survey as a Trump-bashing vehicle, noting that some responses had very favorable views on certain aspects of the current state of democracy and that the political scientists are answering the question as scholars more so than as individual citizens.

Going forward, Carey said that the project aims to not only aid the American public in understanding the current state of democracy, but also contribute to research and scholarship. Because anyone is able to download the data, do their own analysis and publish their findings, he said he looks forward to seeing how the data can be utilized and incorporated. He added that the resource will become more and more valuable as the group continues to survey and add more waves of data.

In addition, Carey said he sees potential for the group to inform local governments about the current state of democracy. The survey sample could expand to include local officials, rather than just focusing on government at the national level, he said.

We designed the survey in a way that we hope will be interesting to people, to newspaper readers, but actually also to civic leaders, to people working in government at all levels or people who are working in advocacy, Carey said.

Carey and Nyhan say there is also a possibility for BLW to explore a comparative aspect, asking scholars to evaluate the state of American democracy in comparison to democracies of other nations around the world. Carey, Helmke and Stokes all focus on comparative government in their research. Carey said the team has already noticed parallels between the current state of American democracy and the democracies of other nations that they have studied.

[The survey results] were echoing the same themes that weve been debating throughout our whole professional careers you know, how democracy erodes, declines, in some cases, or is extinguished all together, he said.

Carey said that as the project is still new, a year from now, [the group will] have a much better idea of the data the survey is generating.

See original here:
Bright Line Watch examines US democracy - The Dartmouth

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

AMY GOODMAN: We end todays show by remembering renown Honduran environmental activist Berta Cceres, who was assassinated a year ago in her home in La Esperanza, Honduras, just before midnight, March 2, 2016. Berta Cceres was the co-founder of COPINH, the Civic Council of Popular and Indigenous Organizations of Honduras. In 2015, she won the prestigious Goldman Environmental Prize for her decade-long fight against the Agua Zarca Dam, a project planned along a river sacred to the indigenous Lenca people. On Thursday, hundreds rallied outside the Honduran Supreme Court building to demand justice for Berta Cceres and for the license of the company behind the Agua Zarca Dam to be revoked. Eight men have been arrested as suspects in Bertas killing, including one active army major and two retired military members. Two of the suspects reportedly received military training in the United States. Also Thursday here in Washington, D.C., Georgia Congressman Hank Johnson reintroduced the "Berta Cceres Human Rights in Honduras Act," which seeks to withhold U.S. military aid to Honduras until the Honduran government addresses human rights violations by its police and security forces. Were turning now to a new investigation that reveals further ties between Berta Cceress killing, Honduran military intelligence, and the United States. Joining us from London is Nina Lakhani, a freelance journalist who has been based in Mexico and Central America for the last four years. Her piece in The Guardian is headlined, "Berta Cceress Court Papers Show Murder Suspects Links to U.S.-trained Elite Troops." Nina, welcome to Democracy Now! What are those links?

NINA LAKHANI: The U.S., over the last decade or so, has really focused a lot of its military training in Central America on special forces. We know that over a period, I think, of five years, 2008-2014, the U.S. went 21 times to Honduras to train their special forces. Two of the military men who have been charged with her murder and the attempted murder of Gustavo Castro was special forces. So Major Mariano Diaz who was a veteran special forces officer, at least seven years according to his military records. And also Henry Hernandez, Sergeant Henry Hernandez, who had left the military in 2013, but he was special forces for three years and worked under the direct command of Major Diaz.

AMY GOODMAN: And what about Douglas Giovanni Bustillo?

NINA LAKHANI: Bustillo, he did receive some training as a cadet, I believe, just before he finished his initial military training. Both him and Diaz, who went into the military together, both went to the U.S. to receive training courses. Bustillo did some early training in the School of Americas I think back in 1997.

AMY GOODMAN: So talk about the evidence that youve seen, from text messages to phone calls. And if you can re-create for us what you think took place.

NINA LAKHANI: The evidence really points to I think a very well-planned military operation that took place that night. What we know from witnesses is that there is a police and military checkpoint as you come into Esperanza. And that night, many witnesses have told me and other investigators that there was no one there that night. There was none at the base that night. We know from phone records and from testimony that Hernandez and Bustillo, who knew each other from working a private security, in the months leading up to Bertas assassination, have working together in private security. We know that they were in La Esperanza at least three times in the weeks leading up to her murder. And so at least four people were there that night. Hernandez admits to being there. And at least three other civilians who have been accused of murder were placed at her house because of telephone analysis. They went in. They knew what they were doing. They knew where they were going. All of the evidence points to the house. Inside and out had been under surveillance. Theyd been there several times. And her house was set back from the main gate. It was a guarded community. There was a guard there that night whoits very likely they had communication with him. I met with him before because they came in. It was very dark. Its an isolated place. They knew were the door was. They knew where she would be sleeping. So the evidence points to her house and the area surrounding it had been surveyed, had been studied beforehand. All of that points to really like a military-type operation. Hernandez is the one military person that was placed there that night. Like I say, he was special forces. He worked under Diaz. He was a highlyhed been a decorated sniper. Its not clear whether he pulled the trigger that night, but it would appear that he was in charge of the operation on the night.

AMY GOODMAN: And why would they want

NINA LAKHANI: He was a low-level military officer and rose to the rank of sergeant.

AMY GOODMAN: Nina, why would they want Berta Cceres dead, in this last minuet we have?

NINA LAKHANI: I dont think the people under arrest probably did. The context of her Bertas death: she was the most well-known activist, not only in Honduras, but probably in America, at the time of her murder. None of the individuals who were under arrest, none of the eight, had anything personal to gain from her being killed. And the idea that someone as celebrated as her could be murdered without at least the implicit knowledge of people higher up in the Armed Forces or even the government and the company, I think is highly improbable. None of the eight who were under arrest had anything personal to gain.

AMY GOODMAN: But the government? And has the U.S. been held accountable?

NINA LAKHANI: I think the U.S.I dont think the U.S. governmentthey would not admit to bearing any responsibility to Bertas assassination. I think its important to remember I interviewed her around 2013 just around the elections and she was publicly denouncing the fact she had been told and had been made aware that her name appeared at the top of a military hit-list in which I think there were 16. She was one of 16 activists. She was telling people, you know

AMY GOODMAN: Were going to continue this conversation after the broadcast and post it online. Nina Lakhani, thanks so much for joining us.

Continue reading here:
Revealed: Environmental Activist Berta Cceres' Suspected Killers Received US Military Training - Democracy Now!

Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Thursday he will recuse himself from any investigation into last years presidential campaign, following reports he met twice with Russias ambassador to the U.S. while serving as a campaign surrogate for Donald Trump. The revelation directly contradicts Sessions sworn testimony to Congress in January that he did not meet with any Russian officials in the run-up to Novembers election. In a hastily assembled news conference Thursday, Sessions called charges he lied under oath "totally false" and said he failed to mention the meetings with Ambassador Sergey Kislyak because the two did not discuss the campaign.

Jeff Sessions: I was taken aback a little bit about this brand new information, this allegation that surrogates and I have been, I had been called a surrogate for Donald Trump, had been meeting continuously with Russian officials. And thats what struck me very hard and thats what I focused my answer on. In retrospect, I should have slowed down and said, 'But I did meet one Russian official a couple of times, that would be the ambassador.' Thank you all, take care." Sessionss decision to recuse himself came just hours after President Trump said calls for Sessions to resign amounted to a total witch hunt." Trump was questioned by reporters while touring a naval warship Thursday.

Reporter: Mr. President, do you still have confidence in the Attorney General, sir?

President Donald Trump: Total."

Reporter: Should Sessions recuse himself from investigations into your campaign and Russia?"

President Donald Trump: "I dont think so at all. I dont think so" [crosstalk]

Reporter: When did you first learn Sessions spoke to the Russian ambassador? Did you know during the campaign?"

President Donald Trump: "I dont think he should do that at all."

Reporter: When were you aware that he spoke to the Russian ambassador?"

President Donald Trump: "I wasnt aware at all."

Meanwhile, ABC News reported Thursday that Sessions used political funds from his senatorial re-election account to meet with Ambassador Kislyak on the sidelines of the Republican National Convention in July. There were growing calls Thursday for Sessions to resign and even to face prosecution. The ACLU demanded an investigation into whether Sessions committed perjury. And President George W. Bushs former ethics lawyer, Richard Painter, said, Misleading the Senate in sworn testimony about [ones] own contacts with the Russians is a good way to go to jail. On Capitol Hill, a chorus of Democratic lawmakers called for Sessions to step down, while demands grew for a special prosecutor to investigate allegations that Russia interfered in the 2016 election on behalf of Donald Trump.

Read the original post:
Leaked DHS Memo Shows Most Foreign-Born Terrorists Radicalized in US - Democracy Now!

New York Times

Democracy, Disrupted New York Times Such a regime, in his view, would keep the trappings of democracy, including seemingly free elections, while leaders would control the election process, the media and the scope of permissible debate. What you get is a country that is de facto less free.. The Real Threat to Democracy Is When Americans Can't Be Open about Their Political BeliefsIndependent Journal Review all 7 news articles »

Read this article:
Democracy, Disrupted - New York Times

Digital innovations may change the quality of participation and the nature of democracy. How? Espaol

Photo: LATTINO

The advancement of tools of information and communications technology (ICT) has the potential to impact democracy nearly as much as any other area, such as science or education. The effects of the digital world on politics and society are still difficult to measure, and the speed with which these new technological tools evolve is often faster than a scholars ability to assess them, or a policymakers capacity to make them fit into existing institutional designs.

Since their early inception, digital tools and widespread access to the internet have been changing the traditional means of participation in politics, making them more effective. Electoral processes have become more transparent and effective in several countries where the paper ballot has been substituted for electronic voting machines. Petition-signing became a widespread and powerful tool as individual citizens no longer needed to be bothered out in the streets to sign a sheet of paper, but could instead be simultaneously reached by the millions via e-mail and have their names added to virtual petition lists in seconds. Protests and demonstrations have also been immensely revitalized in the internet era. In the last few years, social networks like Facebook and WhatsApp have proved to be a driving-force behind democratic uprisings, by mobilizing the masses, invoking large gatherings, and raising awareness, as was the case of the Arab Spring.

While traditional means of political participation can become more effective by reducing the costs of participation with the use of ICT tools, one cannot yet assure that it would become less subject to distortion and manipulation. In the most recent United States elections, computer scientists claimed that electronic voting machines may have been hacked, altering the results in the counties that relied on them. E-petitions can also be easily manipulated, if safe identification procedures are not put in place. And in these times of post-facts and post-truths, protests and demonstrations can result from strategic partisan manipulation of social media, leading to democratic instability as has recently occurred in Brazil. Nevertheless, the distortion and manipulation of these traditional forms of participation were also present before the rise of ICT tools, and regardless, even if the latter do not solve these preceding problems, they may manage to make political processes more effective anyway.

The game-changer for democracy, however, is not the revitalization of the traditional means of political participation like elections, petition-signing and protests through digital tools. Rather, the real change on how democracy works, governments rule, and representation is delivered comes from entirely new means of e-participation, or the so-called digital democratic innovations. While the internet may boost traditional forms of political participation by increasing the quantity of citizens engaged, democratic innovations that rely on ICT tools may change the very quality of participation, thus in the long-run changing the nature of democracy and its institutions.

First, digital innovations may change how democracy works by making it more inclusive and more deliberative. Real democratic inclusion takes place when the latter is understood not in terms of the number of citizens and volume of participation, but in terms of the groups targeted and the policy issues addressed by the new means of e-participation. Several digital democratic innovations have been created that specifically address women, youth and other vulnerable groups that usually have not only a lower participation in electoral politics, but also have their interests left aside by elected politicians. Mechanisms for digital oversight have evolved to specifically allow women to raise their voices against the multiple forms of gender violence, and in many cases help law-enforcement officials to identify offenders and increase surveillance. Several new policies addressing the youth have been drafted in interactive policymaking platforms, making use of inputs directly provided by young citizens, who tend to prefer their computers keyboard to the ballot box. Such new spaces of participation have been teaching the new generations to not simply understand their political preferences as static manifestations of choice that are aggregated by voting mechanisms every two to four years, but instead to collectively express their demands and construct their political opinions through continuous deliberation. Historically excluded groups can now participate in new institutional spaces designed to address issues that specifically concern them, making their own (digital) voices count in the drafting and implementation of policies.

Second, digital democratic innovations may change how governments rule by making them more accountable and effective. In a short time, E-government and open data have become so widespread as tools for enhancing transparency that one can barely still call them innovations. The most innovative and democratic institutional designs are today found among those who rely on ICT tools to allow citizens to collaborate with their government by interacting with the public administration. Forms of interactive administration have evolved as both internet sites and mobile applications (apps), where citizens can identify problems in their cities and propose solutions to fix them. Mechanisms of collaborative mapping have quickly increased, allowing citizens to use geo-localization tools to do things as varied as crime reporting, spotting foci of diseases, singling out areas of deforestation or denouncing corruption. Both types of digital innovations have been designed to include citizens in the policy process, allowing them to play a role in the implementation and evaluation of policies while improving public service delivery, enforcing the rule of law, and rendering governments more accountable.

Third, digital innovations may change how representation is performed by turning it more responsive. Whereas sometimes millions of votes are not enough to ensure that elected politicians take the preferences of their constituencies into consideration; in certain cases the e-participation of a few thousand citizens have proved to be more effective to make those preferences heard. Processes of crowdsourcing legislation are perhaps the most innovative change that has taken place in parliaments over the last centuries, enabling citizens to collaboratively draft new legislation, and thus take part in lawmaking. In some cases, this form of online citizen participation is not only restricted to agenda-setting, but also to the formulation stage of the policy cycle by adding, changing or removing parts of new laws to be enacted by representatives. A growing number of political parties have also been using open sourced platforms to allow citizens to contribute suggestions to their political agendas, oppose their adopted polices, and vote online on the issues they must vote on in parliaments. The use of such tools enables parties and their incumbents to strengthen liaisons with their members and possibly win new supporters. Interestingly enough, digital innovations have been making representation less virtual by virtual means.

These new digital institutional designs mentioned above not only enhance participation, they also improve democracy by increasing political inclusion, generating accountability, enforcing the rule of law and augmenting responsiveness. They may also foster social equality, as they include traditionally disadvantaged groups and provide channels to voice their underrepresented demands. Just a few years ago one could argue that the digital divide rules out low-income citizens, but today the widespread use of smartphones is almost making computers as a device necessary to access the internet obsolete. It is not by chance that higher numbers of active smartphones per capita are found in some of the poorest countries, and that such mobile internet devices have proved an efficient tool to include citizens in highly unequal societies. By correcting some of the deficits of representative governments and providing new ways to deal with social inequality, new forms of e-participation may not change democracy as quickly as they evolve and spread, but they have certainly already made it more diverse and inclusive through institutional digital innovation.

More here:
Does digital democracy improve democracy? - Open Democracy