Mediaboss Marketing

NEW YORK DAILY NEWS

Wednesday, January 25, 2017, 5:00 AM

P resident Trump appears to be taking steps to move the U.S. Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem; the White House confirmed this past weekend that it is in the early stages of preparing for relocation. Jerusalem Mayor Nir Barkat seemed confident enough to announce assurances that the embassy move is done seamlessly and efficiently.

I applaud the President and believe those who share my progressive credentials should as well.

Moving the embassy to Israels capital is not some right-wing apocalyptic scheme designed to sink the possibility of Middle East peace, as suggested by some. In fact, not only has the move to Jerusalem enjoyed broad bipartisan support for decades, but it began as a liberal initiative. I should know, as I am honored to have played a small but meaningful role in its development.

The year was 1972, and George McGovern was the 500-to-1 long-shot liberal candidate campaigning for the Democratic presidential nomination. As early supporters of his candidacy, my friend Hilly Gross and I were asked at a meeting of key advisers to help hammer out elements for a McGovern Middle East program.

White House may not move U.S. embassy in Israel to Jerusalem

We drafted an outline of principles, one of which was that the United States should recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and move its embassy there. Soon thereafter, McGovern enunciated this policy as his own.

That summer, Democrats nominated McGovern and adopted the following statement in the partys platform: The next Democratic administration should: recognize and support the established status of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, with free access to all its holy places provided to all faiths. As a symbol of this stand, the United States Embassy should be moved from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

It was the first time an American political party adopted such a proposal. Soon thereafter, Republicans adopted it as well.

In 1995, during Bill Clintons presidency, the Jerusalem Embassy Act was passed to fund the relocation of the American Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem and called for Jerusalem to remain an undivided city and for it to be recognized as the capital of Israel.

Israel approves 2,500 West Bank settler homes

The legislation included the ability of the President to waive the requirement of moving the embassy a waiver that has been exercised by Presidents Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama. That, however, was envisioned as a safeguard available to the President in the event negotiations were at a particularly sensitive moment; it was never intended to be the default policy of the U.S., certainly not during a time when negotiations were not even taking place.

When Congress reconvened this past Jan. 3, a bill was introduced by Nevada Sen. Dean Heller along with Floridas Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz of Texas. The Jerusalem Embassy and Recognition Act would require the U.S. to act on the 1995 law and eliminate the waiver option.

19 photos view gallery

It should pass both houses of Congress and be signed into law.

Critics of relocating the embassy will argue that it will drive the Palestinians from the peace negotiations. Nothing could be further from the truth. The embassy would be placed in West Jerusalem, a part of the city that under any peace plan will remain part of Israel, as it has since the countrys birth in 1948.

Obama administration paid $221M to Palestinian Authority

Placing the embassy in West Jerusalem in no way prejudices final status negotiations over East Jerusalem, where both Israel and the Palestinians have made claims.

The real reason Palestinians object to an embassy move to any part of Jerusalem is that they still do not accept Israels existence as a Jewish state, which is what truly hinders prospects for peace.

How else to explain the consistent unwillingness by Palestinian leadership to negotiate with Israel even when Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu agreed to freeze settlement construction for a year and release Palestinian prisoners? Or the continued refusal by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to recognize Israel? Or the rejected offers by Israeli prime ministers in both 2000 and 2007 to relinquish up to 97% of the West Bank to the Palestinian Authority?

If moving the embassy to an undisputed section of Jerusalem is sufficient provocation to derail any chance for peace, we must be honest with ourselves and concede that such a chance was an illusion to begin with. Real peace requires reality to be recognized. Israels sovereignty over Jerusalem is part of that reality, and moving our embassy there confirms that fact.

Israeli Prime Minister accepts invitation to visit White House

As the 50th anniversary of Jerusalem becoming a united city draws near, now is the time that the United States should take this long overdue step of placing its embassy there.

Abrams is former attorney general of New York and a partner at Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP. The opinions expressed here are his own.

See the article here:
A Jerusalem embassy? Fear not, liberals - New York Daily News

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

Pool took to Reddit after he was arrested in Washington,D.C. while covering anti-Trump protests. He was subsequentlyreleased without charges.

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

Have you ever had word come down to report with a bias or to omit facts in order to push an agenda? one user asked him. Had an article edited or denied due to the information not swaying a certain way? Or have you heard of other who have?

Pool responded:

Yes I have.

Fusion told me and many other staff to side with the audience. Which they clarified as young people being liberal or left leaning so thats the angle we take regardless of the facts. It was not a fun time.

Most companies dont force journalists to be biased they just hire biased journalists in the first place.

He also added that money and politics, but usually money drive business decisions for media outlets, explaining that an article about violent trump supporters will get waaay more shares than a balanced piece about violence on both sides.

Pool joined Fusion in 2014 and is described on their website as director of media innovation at Fusion, and a mobile and technology specialist covering conflict, crisis, and internet culture on the ground and online. Pools reporting while working at VICE was covered by The Guardian, Reuters, The New York Times, NBC, FastCompany, and Al Jazeera English, according to his personal website.

See the article here:
Journalist Tim Pool: Fusion Told Me to Side with Young Liberals 'Regardless of the Facts' - Breitbart News

Defending a series of false statements by the official White House spokesman, a senior Trump administration adviser on Sunday suggested the official had been invoking alternative facts rather than untruths.

Meanwhile, Chris Wallace did his duty on Fox News Sunday. You talk about honesty, and say that this was about honesty, he told White House chief of staff Reince Priebus. Well, theres another issue, though, Reince, and thats the presidents honesty, because two things that he said yesterday were just flat wrong. Wallace showed photos comparing Trumps inaugural crowd to Barack Obamas in 2009, clearly proving that the latter was bigger.

That both the Journal and Fox News were willing to call out the administrations disinformation campaign is not only heartening, but vital. (Theyve done it before, but this weekend suggested the scrutiny will continue.) Trump, like conservatives more broadly, has convinced many Americans that mainstream outlets like The New York Times and CNN are effectively extensions of the Democratic Party. Yet, the Journal and Fox News, longtime conservative outlets overseen by Murdoch, are immune to such criticism, making them uniquely positioned to upholding truth under Trump. Thats why they deserve the support, not only of the media establishment, but liberals too.

Fox News was rightly criticized under President George W. Bush for being anything but fair and balanced. This criticism became a cottage industry on the left, producing Robert Greenwalds documentary Outfoxed, Keith Olbermanns scathing special comments on MSNBC, and Al Frankens brilliant book Lies (and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them): A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right. (The Minnesota senators takedowns of Bill OReilly and Ann Coulter in his days as a satirist make his grilling of President Donald Trumps education secretary nominee Betsy DeVos look positively tame.)

Fox News hasnt gotten better since the Bush years. They otherized President Barack Obama, lionized the Tea Party, and largely promoted Donald Trumps candidacy (notwithstanding the occasional challenge from Megyn Kelly, Shepard Smith, and Chris Wallace). But these journalistic sins, and those of the Journal (mostly in its opinion section), pale in comparison to the daily output of Breitbart and the fringe pro-Trump, post-truth media outlets that have sprouted over the past year. As the biggest power players in conservative media, Fox News and the Journal can respond to this market challenge in one of two ways: Move away from reality to appeal to Breitbarts audience, or defend broadly accepted facts and evidencethat is, to defend journalism itself against an administration thats hostile to it.

At a time when only about 40 percent of Americans have a positive opinion of Trumpand most have an actively negative view, according to Fox Newss own pollingmany right-of-center news consumers will be receptive to fact-checks of the president, especially from these two outlets theyve long trusted. Viewers and readers might believe critical reporting of Trump from these sources that theyd otherwise reject from the Times or CNN. Plus, Fox News was the most-watched basic cable channel last year, averaging 2.4 million primetime viewers, and Fox Newss digital audience was 74,000 unique visitors in December, according to ComScore. The Journal reported 948,000 digital-only subscribers as of last August, and a print circulation of 1.3 million.

Theres a mountain of instances, collected over two decades, where Fox News has distorted truth or evaded it. Many of its pundits, like OReilly and Sean Hannity (one of Trumps leading non-Breitbart boosters), continue to do so. But Foxs news operation, like the Journals, is fundamentally committed to the truth. Both outlets reporters deal in facts. They issue corrections. They challenge misinformation. (And for the record, the Journal is far superior to Fox News in this regard.)

But adherence to facts only goes so far; these outlets opinion-makers matter, too. Hannity is a lost cause, but we can hope that OReilly and perhaps even Tucker Carlson are willing to take on the White House when the moment calls for it. The same is true for the Journals editorial board, which has already done so with a Sunday editorial criticizing Trumps CIA speech. This was not a presidential performance, they wrote. Such defensiveness about his victory and media coverage makes Mr. Trump look small and insecure.

Business pressures incentivize deference to Trump, but responsible journalism demands the opposite. This is the moment for Murdochs outlets to challenge every liberal stereotype about them. Fox News and the Journal are mainstream media, whether they like it or not, and they should stand up for the values that all mainstream outlets share. Theres no better moment to be truly fair and balanced.

Originally posted here:
Why Liberals Should Root for Fox News - New Republic

The Liberal government is developing a strategy totackle sexual and domestic violence, but some front-line workers are calling thegovernment's progress todate a"massive disappointment."

Status of Women Minister Maryam Monsef, picking up on the work done by her predecessor Patty Hajdu, is expected to present a plan to address"gender-based violence" this spring or summer. But experts are already raising concerns.

Louisa Russell, a spokeswoman for the Vancouver Rape Relief and Women's Shelter, said long-standing groups were not meaningfully consulted inthe process. She also questions why the Liberal platform earmarkedfunding for emergency shelters, butno new money for prevention, outreach, public education or followup services.

"It's been a massive disappointment for women's groups in Canada," she said. "We think the Liberals got elected partly on our backs, saying they would do things to advance women's equality and in fact they have not delivered."

The key 2015 Liberal platform promises to reduce sex assault and domestic violence were:

Russell has seen little concrete action to date.

"We're really disappointed. We've never held a lot of hope in any of the governments. None of them have seriously advanced the conditions for women escaping violence," she said. "But in this particular platform, they launched themselves on our backs. They used us to get elected. To deliver nothing is really deplorable."

Last week, Trudeau was asked by a female university student in Fredericton what the government was doing to protect women from sexual assault, citing a recent case where a perpetrator was handed an 18-month sentence for an attack on campus. Trudeau said there must be changes to the criminal justice system, but there must also be an fundamental shift in mindset and approach.

Trudeau discusses light sentences for those convicted of sexual assault5:42

"We need to make sure we are showing every step of the way that bullying, that harassment, that intimidation, that abuse of power is absolutely unacceptable, full stop," he said.

He said while there has been some progress in the last 25 years, it has not been enough to reduce systemic violence against women and girls.

Diane Matte, coordinator of the Montreal-basedConcertation des luttes contre l'exploitation sexuelle, objects to the government's use of the phrase"gender-based violence" in strategy discussions instead of "violence against women," a contentious change she believes removes men's accountability with more neutral wording.

"Talking about gender obscures the reality that we are addressing a type of violence that is specific to a specific type of oppression, which is the oppression of women by men," she said.

Monsef's spokesman MattPascuzzo said the consultation process included academics, experts and survivors, and established an advisory council. That process concluded thefederal strategy must be "anti-oppressive, survivor-oriented, address various regional differences,prioritizeprevention, engage men and boys and create a cultural change."

The 13roundtables across the country included representatives from over 175 organizations, including 80 that were front-line service providers, who discussed themes such asyouth, reforming the justice system, preventing violence against Indigenous women and supporting survivors. Anonline survey received 7,500 responses.

The Liberal government is expected to present a strategy and action plan for addressing sexual and domestic violence this spring or summer. (CBC)

"Gender-based violence remains an insidious barrier to achieving gender equality and our government is committed to ensuring that women and girls can live free from all forms of violence," Pascuzzosaid in an email.

The criminal justice promises are to be addressed aspart of a comprehensive reform of the system, he said.

Last year's federal budget earmarked $90 million over two years to expand shelters and transition houses, which will help build or renovate 3,000 spaces. Thegovernment is also spending $1 million to develop a national profile of shelters withup-to-date data on shelter capacity, scope of services, funding, infrastructure and human resources.

DanielleAubry, executive director of theCalgary Communities Against Sexual Abuse, is frustratedthat the issue of sexual abuse is often overlookedin funding and policy development in favour of domestic assault programs. She called on the federal government to show specific leadership on sexual violence.

"Why transition houses and not sexual assault services? We're not the same service. Far from it," she said."We can't get buried in other kinds of violence."

AnuradhaDugal, director of violence prevention programs at the Canadian Women's Foundation who is a member of the federal advisory council, applauded the funding, consultation and progress made to date.

She believesthe government is taking steps in the right direction, though noted there's room for more attention to prevention and education, especially foryouth.

"The importance of talking to youth about boundary setting, gender stereotypes, how to prevent dating violence, and how to communicate assertively as a means to ending gender-based violence cannot be overstated," she said.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau says there must be a zero-tolerance policy for bullying, harassment and abuse. (CBC)

Visit link:
'Massive disappointment': Liberals urged to step up efforts to tackle sexual, domestic violence - CBC.ca

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

In the Commons, the minister for exiting the EU, David Davis, earlier told the House the government was determined to deliver Brexit, and will move swiftly to introduce as straightforward Bill, allowing the process to be completed by March, in line with the governments current timetable.

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

He reiterated the decision to leave the EU will not be waylaid, underscoring the point of no return was passed on 23rd of June last year.

The statement acts as a shot across the bows of Labour, the Liberal Democrats, and the Scottish National Party, all of which are threatening to derail the Brexit process.

Mindful of the strong Leave vote in its northern constituencies, in particular, Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has said that his party respects the result of the referendum and will not frustrate Article 50.

But he added: However, Labour will seek to amend the Article 50 Bill to prevent the Conservatives using Brexit to turn Britain into a bargain basement tax haven off the coast of Europe.

The party is also demanding a detailed plan from the Government throughout the two-year-long Brexit negotiations following the invoking of Article 50, and a vote on the final deal before it goes through.

However, his stance may provoke further infighting within his beleaguered party, not least as the Shadow Brexit Secretary Keir Starmer has hinted that Labour MPs who vote against triggering Article 50 may escape punishment from the party. Starmer told Sky News that a decision on how to handle the rebels would be taken collegiately. Four shadow ministers are said to be considering a revolt.

But with two by-elections looming, leave supporting Labour members are calling for more robust support for Brexit, fearful that without it the partys support base will erode significantly.

Labour must urgently adopt a Pro-Brexit policy or risk losing dozens of seats in the Midlands and the North to either the Tories or UKIP, said Brendan Chilton of Labour Leave in a press release.

He added: Labours confusing position on Brexit and other issues such as immigration is contributing to our continuing downward turn in the opinion polls. The country voted to leave the EU, Labour should champion the wishes of working class people in the UK and support Brexit.

The Liberal Democrats, meanwhile, have gone a step further in their demands, insisting that they will only vote for Article 50 if the government promises to give the British people a say on the final deal following negotiations in a second referendum.

This Tory Brexit government are keen to laud the democratic process when it suits them, but will not give the people a voice over the final deal. They seem happy to start with democracy and end in a stitch-up, Liberal leader Tim Farron said.

While in Scotland, First Minister Nicola Sturgeon has insisted that the Scottish government must be given a say on Article 50, despite the Supreme Courts ruling that the regional parliaments do not need to be consulted.

Sturgeon said: We are obviously disappointed with the Supreme Courts ruling in respect of the devolved administrations.

Although the court has concluded that the UK government is not legally obliged to consult the devolved administrations, there remains a clear political obligation to do so.

The Scottish government will bring forward a Legislative Consent Motion and ensure that the Scottish Parliament has the opportunity to vote on whether or not it consents to the triggering of Article 50.

The party has vowed that its 56 elected representatives in Westminster will table some 50 serious and substantive amendments to the Bill on Article 50.

The government will, therefore, have to negotiate a minefield to get the legislation through quickly and efficiently and must do so effectively if it is not to provoke the ire of Leave supporters.

As Leave.EU chairman Arron Banks warned in a press release: This Tory government wants to be a champion for ordinary people, now May must prove it by driving Brexit through Parliament post-haste 17.4 million voters will be watching her every move.

View post:
Labour, Liberals, SNP Jump On Article 50 Ruling to Derail Brexit - Breitbart News