Mediaboss Marketing

One of the years greatest and most important films is Selma, the story of Rev. Martin Luther Kings historic role in leading the march in Selma, Alabama, which helped lead to the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The film enjoys universal acclaim from movie critics, and high ratings from audiences who have so far had the pleasure of viewing the production. But this is Oscar season, and so it goes that films come under attack to undermine their chances of securing nominations or winning awards, and this year Selma has seen a particularly harsh degree of award season backlash.

The backlash might have also impacted its box office performance a bit, as the film presently stands at $14 million domestically after its limited release expanded this past weekend and took in just over $11 million. How it performs internationally will make a big difference, but so far the numbers are below what one might expect for such a high-profile production about so significant a figure and event.

This backlash is coming primarily from a segment of white liberals loyal to the legacy of President Lyndon Johnson. And to be perfectly clear, let me say upfront that when I speak about white liberals in this article, I am specifically talking about this precise segment of white liberals, and Im not saying all of this particular criticism is originating only from white liberals. This is not an indictment of white liberalism overall, nor of white people or liberalism in general. But its also true that I will make a few general observations about white liberals and the ways media plays to their perceptions and preferences, and how that has largely driven much of the negative media reporting about Selma. So, keep these things in mind as you read

The films director Ava DuVernay said of the controversy, For the film to be, I think, reduced reduced is really what all this is to one talking point of a small contingent of people who dont like one thing, I think is unfortunate. DuVernay has crafted a masterful, amazing film, and she is absolutely right that the arguments against the film are reductive in the extreme.

Selma is targeted by a campaign to tarnish its reputation because it supposedly doesnt treat the white liberal president nicely enough based on those peoples interpretation of history, a notion that nobody should take seriously if theyve ever seen any historical-figures movies ever. Most viewers are perfectly willing to excuse shorthand history or presenting events in a more dynamic, dramatic fashion, if and when they like the film or like the changes its made to history.

Films are not documentaries, and no amount of false pretense that they claim to be is going to change that if some people cannot understand that feature films are not documentaries and that they cannot assume everything they see and hear is literally exactly what happened, then its probably dangerous to let that person watch any movies in the first place. Audiences arent so dumb as such presumptions suggest, and even young people who see this film and take it as a mostly-true account of the events of Selma are plenty smart enough to know that movies are not real life and that film takes liberties in telling stories.

Films about historical events have been made since the beginning of cinema. If after nearly 100 years of movies some folks still want to have this absurd debate over whether films even the best historical films should make changes in order to fit an entire historical event into two hours of screen time, then lets at least admit at the outset that its a dumb debate and that nobody is going to be consistent about their expectations of accuracy. Some things will matter more to some people sometimes, and its just a question of being honest enough to acknowledge that any historical film is going to change some things and how we react to those changes often/usually says as much about us as it does about the film.

See the original post here:
White Liberals Are Wrong About 'Selma' And LBJ

Let it be a lesson to ultra liberals, says Abdullah Zaik.

KUALA LUMPUR: ISMA President Abdullah Zaik has welcomed the arrest of Lawyers for Liberty founder Eric Paulsen, saying ultra liberals should take a lesson from it.

In a statement published in ISMAweb.com today, Abdullah defined ultra liberals as those who accuse Muslims of being extremists. He made no reference to Muslims who use extremist rhetoric or commit extremist acts.

Paulsen is under police investigation for a Twitter message that allegedly accuses the Department of Islamic Development Malaysia (Jakim) of promoting extremism through Friday sermons. He is suspected to have violated the Sedition Act.

Abdullah described the ultra liberals accusations as a crime of incitement that can cause division in society and threaten harmony.

He said ISMA too had been a victim of the ultra liberals slander.

In the past two weeks, the liberal media have been vigorously slandering ISMA, labelling it as extremist, fanatical and so on without basis, he said.

They should realise that they are breaking the law and can be charged under the Sedition Act.

Islam is not an extremist religion, as portrayed by Eric Paulsen.

It is dangerous slander to say that it is extremist to defend Islam, the position of the Malays and bumiputeras and Malaysian unity.

The rest is here:
ISMA welcomes Paulsens arrest

Free Speech for Dummies or y #39;know Muslims and Liberals #JeSuisCharlie
You don #39;t have a right to be protected from being offended, you have a right to speech. This is a black and white issue with only one good side, join it or b...

By: FREEDO

More:
Free Speech for Dummies or y'know Muslims and Liberals #JeSuisCharlie - Video

My attempt to piss off liberals

By: REDNECK SHIT

Follow this link:
My attempt to piss off liberals - Video

The 2015 federal election will require political parties to work harder than ever to capture the attention of the electorate. This story is part of Adam Radwanskis new assignment looking at how the party machines across the country are preparing.

Federal Liberals and New Democrats are bracing to be heavily outspent on the ground by the governing Conservatives in this years election.

All three leading parties can be expected to spend their national limit of more than $20-million during the official campaign period scheduled for next fall, and the Liberals recent fundraising success should allow them to join though not match the Conservatives in national prewrit advertising. But officials with both opposition parties are privately worrying that many of their riding associations will suffer a cash disadvantage both leading up to the campaign and during it.

Its a huge issue, a Liberal official said, speaking on a background basis. We spent a fair amount of last year internally sounding the alarm bells on this.

Although the 2011 election demonstrated that riding resources do not always have a strong impact on results as the NDP virtually swept Quebec despite minimal organization there all parties expect closer on-the-ground battles this time. Members of their campaign teams commonly express the view that candidates ability to spend close to their limit which ranges from about $90,000 to $120,000, depending on the number of voters could provide decisive advantages where there are margins of victory under 10 per cent.

Among those potential advantages are the ability to pay for voter contact, including through phone banks or paid canvassers, and communications. While the in and out controversy following the last election will require parties to step carefully, rules around regional advertising are likely ambiguous enough to allow several local campaigns to pool together funds for city-wide ads; candidates who arent in close races, but have ample cash reserves, could also help allies by purchasing ads that will be seen both by their own voters and by those in neighbouring ridings.

The scale of the Conservatives current advantage is difficult to gauge, because riding associations 2014 financial returns will not be available until later this year. But a Globe and Mail review of the previous years returns found that, as of the end of 2013, Conservative riding associations cumulatively had more than $15-million in net assets, while the Liberals had under $8-million and the NDP less than $4-million.

As of the last filings, the Conservatives were continuing to widen the gap, topping the Liberals by nearly $1-million and the New Democrats by more than $2-million in local fundraising in 2013. And there appears a good chance they continued to pad their advantage in 2014, with a senior Conservative source expressing confidence the governing partys riding assets now top $20-million.

That could give the Conservatives an equal or greater advantage to the one they had in the 2011 election, when their candidates cumulatively spent just under $20-million, Liberals spent less than $15-million and New Democrats about $7-million.

At the end of 2013, the Conservatives had 54 riding associations with more than $100,000 in net assets, next to eight for the Liberals and just one for the NDP. The Conservatives have some associations with much more money than they could spend during the campaign, which they are permitted to transfer to other ridings. (Among the richest is Employment Minister Jason Kenneys in Calgary, which at the end of 2013 had over $360,000.)

Go here to read the rest:
Tories set to take early fundraising lead for federal election