Mediaboss Marketing

For the fourth consecutive year, at least 250 journalists are being held in prisons around the world with authoritarian governments continuing to clamp down on critical media coverage. The Committee to Protect Journalists, an advocacy group, has released its annual census, finding that Turkey is no longer the worst jailer for the first time in four years. In 2019, China is the country jailing the most journalists and 48 are currently being held behind bars.

Over the years, Turkey and China have consistently vied for the unenviable title as the world's worst jailer of journalists and the latter has experienced an increase in line with President Xi Jinping consolidating his control over the country and implementing tighter controls on the media. Arrests have been particularly notable in Xinjiang province where there has been a crackdown on the ethnic Muslim community. That has led to the arrest of dozens of journalists, some of whom were incarcerated for media activity carried out years earlier.

Turkey comes a close second for imprisonments, with its total falling from 68 last year to 47 this year. That decline does not represent an improvement in the Turkish media's situation, however. Rather, it reflects successful efforts by President Erdoan to clamp down on independent reporting and criticism by closing down over 100 news outlets. The CPJ stated that dozens of journalists not currently jailed in Turkey are still facing trial or appeal and could yet be sentenced to prison while others have been sentenced in absentia and could face arrest upon their return to the country.

After the brutal murder of Jamal Khashoggi, Saudi Arabia's attitude towards critical journalism needs no introduction. As of December 2019, the kingdom has at least 26 journalists imprisoned and no charges have been disclosed in 18 of those cases. Alongside Egypt, Saudi Arabia has the third-highest total on the CPJ's ranking. Eritrea follows with at least 16 jailed journalists, most of whom have not been heard from in nearly two decades. 98% of all imprisoned journalists in 2019 are locals covering their own country - three of the four journalists with foreign citizenship are behind bars in Saudi Arabia while the fourth is being held in China. The majority of jailed journalists are facing anti-state charges while the number charged with "false news" has increased to 30 compared to 28 last year.

*Click below to enlarge (charted byStatista)

Countries with the highest number of jailed journalists in 2019

Read more:
The Countries Imprisoning The Most Journalists In 2019 [Infographic] - Forbes

The national media is absorbed by impeachment proceedings while most of the nation has tuned out. Regardless of which side of the aisle you reside, most Americans recognize the extreme partisan agenda of the process. There is no thoughtful discussion of events, only hardline talking points crafted to influence the proceedings.

Im not a political columnist. My mission is to awaken the optimism of my readers and encourage a more positive approach to life. As I have pointed out numerous times, optimistic people live happier, healthier and more successful lives. This claim isnt just my opinion but proven through a plethora of clinical and university studies. Now there is evidence that optimistic people may live as much as seven years longer than those with a pessimistic outlook on life.

We become what we focus upon.

What we allow to occupy space in our heads, influences our every action and deeply impacts our overall attitude. Because of civic duty, I am keeping up with the impeachment proceedings, but I also recognize it is largely based upon political agenda and less on actionable facts which I believe is shameful.

If you watch the proceedings and make your own decision, good for you. However, most people are busy making a living and navigating their lives. Few can sit and take it all in as it happens. Instead, they tune into their favorite television opinion journalist (and I use that title loosely) to get their info. The problem is that none of the talking heads want to give you facts. Instead, their goal is to win you over to their way of thinking. They want to seize your mind and, in the process, influence your vote. Period.

Sean Hannity is a partisan opinion influencer on Fox News, while Rachel Maddow is the same for MSNBC. Philosophically they could not be more different. They are polar-opposites, yet one-and-the-same when it comes to their agenda of winning you over to their side. They are both shamelessly partisan, mouthing political talking points from their side of the aisle and are nothing more than political commercials for their party and agenda. And its not just Hannity and Maddow, it is most hosts on our primetime cable channels. There is not a network in America today that isnt openly displaying their bias. Take for example, Bloomberg Business News, a formerly reliable source. They have openly declared that they will only cover Donald Trump and his campaign and not a single Democratic challenger. What happened to Bloomberg News? They are no longer a news network but an activist machine for their founder who is now running for president. Did real news ever exist? Or are we only finally waking up to the fact that television and radio pundits have been trying to manipulate us all along?

So, what is optimistic and positive about all this?

Hannity, Maddow and other pundits only have the power we give them by watching and believing they are in the news business. They are not. Becoming aware of the reality of their manipulation allows you the option to decide not to be manipulated. When we are aware of what their agenda really is, we become more discerning. We weigh their claims for reality rather than accepting whatever comes out of their mouths. Once we begin doing so, the talking heads lose their power over us and we instead take the power back. That is positive.

I encourage all of us to be discerning this election cycle and beyond. Ask questions. Listen to and read sources from all channels and stations. Do not allow a familiar face on a television screen that you have never met to control your beliefs. Become a smart and savvy citizen, not a clone of your favorite talking head. They are not your friend. They do not have your best interests at heart. We are smarter than that. We deserve better than what they are dishing.

I believe the American people are smart and want the best for our nation and world. We have been hijacked by infotainment masquerading as news, but once we realize what they are trying to do, we take back control.

Be positive. Be discerning. Always remain aware of the agenda. Get your information from a variety of sources and make decisions based upon your educated opinion.

GARY W. MOORE is a freelance columnist, speaker and author of three books including the award-winning, critically acclaimed, Playing with the Enemy. Follow Gary on Twitter @GaryWMoore721 and at http://www.garywmoore.com

Excerpt from:
POSITIVELY SPEAKING: Be mindful of others trying to control you - MyWebTimes.com

December 11, 2019

Multifamily rent control is at the top of the commercial real estate news, leading many to make dire predictions about how legislative caps will impact development or investment. Russell Flynn, founder and head of Flynn Investments, owns 4,000 multifamily units in and around the San Francisco Bay Area, and has been a multifamily investor in Northern California for decades. In 1979, former San Francisco mayor (and current U.S. senator) Dianne Feinstein appointed him to the citys Rent Board. That same year, Flynn launched the Coalition for Better Housing, an industry group of large apartment owners advocating for property rights. Coldwell Banker Commercials Managing Director Dan Spiegel recently spoke with Flynn about recent rent control legislation, and how it might impact multifamily investment, development and growth.

Q. California recently signed Assembly Bill 1482 in early October 2019, putting rent increase caps on multifamily properties. Oregon also signed rent-control legislation earlier this year, and other municipalities and states are considering it. Should we be concerned?A. I think efforts to control rents and maintain affordability are cyclical. We saw waves of rent control legislation during the 1980s and 1990s, then those were repealed. The theory is that, if rents on sitting tenants are capped, it means they wont be gouged with sudden increases, thereby making housing more affordable. The recent legislation is leading to concerns that, if property owners and landlords cant raise rents, it will scare off investors and developers. Investors and developers have worked within rent-control guidelines, and they are doing just fine. They know the rules. The actual issue that landlords, investors and property owners need to worry about is vacancy control legislation.

Q. What is vacancy control legislation, and why is it a potential challenge?A. Under rent control legislation, rent increases are capped for sitting tenants. It means that, while owners and landlords CAN raise rents, they are capped as to how much. Vacancy control legislation kicks in when the tenant vacates the property. In a typical unit turnover situation, the landlord invests money to improve the empty unit, then charges a higher rent to the next tenant. But, when you introduce vacancy control into the mix, the landlord is capped as to how much he or she can charge that next tenant. This means that the landlord doesnt have much incentive to improve the units between tenants; there is no profit motivation to do so. As a result, units fall apart and are more uncomfortable to live in. Berkeley and Santa Monica had vacancy control legislation until the state passed the Costa Hawkins Act in 1995, which prohibited vacancy control ordinances.

Q. What do you think is the takeaway from the legislation?A. Many investors and owners operate under rent-control legislation, and are doing just fine. And in reality, you cant buy a building and suddenly increase your rents to market rate anyway. Landlords prefer to keep rents from 5%-10% below market. Also, there is an inherent, safety factor built into rent control buildings, which saves us from our worst instincts to raise rents, refinance, then keep on buying; this leads to overleveraging, which is what got investors in trouble during the 2007-2009 downturn. Also, the California rent control act is pretty lenient, compared to laws in Oakland or Los Angeles, which are stricter. Rent control doesnt mean you absolutely cant raise rents with existing tenants, it just means the increase is capped. Investors need to be patient in rent-control environments, with the understanding that returns increase upon unit turnover and improvement.

Connect With Coldwell Banker Commercial

Get CRE News in 150 words

For comments, questions or concerns, please contact Amy Sorter

Tags: Apartments & Multifamily, Opportunity Zones

apartments opportunity-zones

connect-apartments connect-classroom united-states

Vacancy Control, Not Rent Caps, is the Worry: Coldwell Banker Commercials Q&A with Flynn Investments Russell Flynn

Amy Wolff Sorter

See more here:
Vacancy Control, Not Rent Caps, is the Worry: Coldwell Banker Commercial's Q&A with Flynn Investments' Russell Flynn - ConnectCRE

During the 2017-2018 election cycle, Republican U.S. Congressman Rodney Daviss campaign spent $4,085,715.

That was a increase of $1,651,389, in comparison to his $2,394,440 expenditures during the 2015-2016 election cycle.

Kent Redfield, retired political science professor at the University of Illinois Springfield who specialized in campaign finance, said Davis increased his campaign spending because he was feeling pressure in his campaign.

Four million dollars indicates a very competitive election, and if you look at the numbers for Daviss opponent in 2018 Betsy Dirksen Londrigan, she actually spent a little bit more than he did, about 4.2 million, said Redfield. When you get to the 2018 midterm, the party opposite the president usually picks up some seats because normally theres a surge in the presidents party during the presidential election.

Redfield said Londrigan was able to attract a lot of money and the Democrats essentially were trying to flip three seats in Illinois.

They were successful with two and came very close with Londrigan, he said.

Daviss top disbursements during the 2017-2018 cycle were to Strategic Media Services, Gula Graham Group, Illinois Republican Party, Palomar Marketing and Productions and PNC Bank.

Daviss top disbursements during the 2015-2016 cycle were almost identical to 17-18, they were to Strategic Media Services, FP1 Digital LLC, Gula Graham Group, Illinois Republican Party and something labeled Other Committee.

His top expenditure for 2017-2018 was $1,946,888 and for 2015-2016 it was $475,482.

Most of Daviss top expenditures are to agencies that help campaigns with advertising. Redfield said that advertising is what politicians spend their money on the most because getting the loyal voters to the poll is arguably the most important step to getting elected.

It is about getting the message to the faithful and getting the faithful to the polls The basics havent changed, said Redfield. You want to identify the base, turn them out and energize them, but you also want to be able to identify swing voters.

His campaign also mislabeled some of the expenditures from that cycle. There is $214,276 worth of fundraising consulting payment and $102,253 worth of payment for fundraising consultanting.

Some expenditures from 2017-2018 campaign expenditures included $5,000 on baseball tickets to McCarthy Advanced Consulting, a primary 2016 contribution refund of $1,000, $563 on Green Bay Packers football tickets for a fundraising event, and $250 on event baseball tickets.

There are rules that control what kinds of disbursements campaigns can make and they have to submit a yearly report on how theyve spent their money. The reports are overseen by the Federal Election Commission.

The FEC website says, Campaign funds to be used for purposes in connection with the campaign to influence the federal election of the candidate. Disbursements related to the campaign include payments for day-to-day expenses, such as staff salaries, rent, travel, advertising, telephones, office supplies and equipment, fundraising, etc.

Among non-campaign expenses, ones for personal use are prohibited. Some others like fundraising for other candidates, committees and organizations are allowed but controlled by the FECs contribution limit.

Of the top 10 expenditures during the 2015-2016 election cycle, half of them carried over to the top 10 for 2017-2018: Communication, digital, fundraising consulting, media placement (Advertising broadcasting, cable, and radio) and salary.

Communication consulting dropped by $29,874 to $81,692 between the two cycles.

The other four categories of spending increased. Salary expenditures rose by $94,202 to $174,889 and digital consulting went up by $74,187 to $193,006.

Fundraising consulting went up by $360,354 to $574,631. Media placement went up by $1,468,277 from to $1,946,888.

Of the five campaign expenditures from 2015-2016 that did not carry over to the top 10 for 2017-2018, three of them remain. TV and Radio ads are labeled under media placement, although there is a radio ad that is ranked 86th on the list with $600.

Daviss campaign did not respond to comment.

View original post here:
Rodney Davis campaign spending increased from 'feeling pressure', analyst says - CU-CitizenAccess.org

Infowars, the right-wing conspiracy theory site founded by Alex Jones, does not regret publishing false claims that the 2012 Sandy Hook elementary school shooting was a hoax, according to a new deposition with news director Rob Dew exclusively obtained by BuzzFeed News.

I think our reporting stopped what was going to be a lot of anti-gun legislation that was coming down, Dew said, adding, I am proud of that.

The nearly two-hour deposition with Dew provided a glimpse into the inner workings of the shadowy media operation, detailing how its founder and employees created news stories and sold them as the real truth to millions of viewers. It comes amid the ongoing and catastrophic fall of Jones, who has been largely banned from Apple, Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube. In the past year, Jones has lost a number of appeals in defamation cases brought by the families of Sandy Hook victims and has been ordered to pay thousands in fines for not taking the suits seriously and destroying evidence. Meanwhile, two of his former employees have accused him of discrimination and harassment. (Jones has denied the claims.) Earlier this month, an ex-producer wrote a damning account in the New York Times describing how Jones fed his audiences prejudices and fears.

In the newly released deposition, Dew acting as the representative of Infowars parent company, Free Speech Systems repeatedly said he did not know, did not remember, or was not prepared to answer almost every question about how he, Jones, and other employees found and verified their information about the Sandy Hook shooting before claiming it as fact and blasting it across their sprawling network of platforms.

Dew claimed he did not remember how he and Jones obtained evidence used to support narratives in videos like Sandy Hook was a DHS Illusion and Sandy Hook Vampires Exposed, and said he was proud of Infowars coverage and never meant to hurt families.

Dew also argued that the site's Sandy Hook coverage helped thwart Democrats attempts at pushing gun control legislation, calling Infowars the stewards of the Second Amendment.

We never told anybody to go after peoples families, he said. We see events like theseeven today when these events happen and the next thing that comes out of a politicians mouth is 'Were going to grab peoples guns.'

Speaking on behalf of Jones company, he rejected any responsibility for the emotional distress and harassment that Jones fans have inflicted on victims' family members after watching and reading Infowars.

I am not responsible for what someone else does, Dew told Bill Ogden and Mark Bankston, Texas attorneys with Farrar & Ball, who are representing four Sandy Hook families.

Throughout the deposition, Dew seemed unprepared to answer even basic questions, stating that his only preparation was speaking with his attorney.

He did not know when Infowars stopped reporting on Sandy Hook. He didnt have any information about the 10 or so employees who contributed to the dozen-plus videos cited in multiple lawsuits as being fake and harmful, nor could he tell the attorneys anything about the sourcing for those videos. In one instance, Ogden asked Dew which employee had researched and reported a video from March 2014 titled Sandy Hook: False Narrative vs. Reality. The news director said he didnt remember and was unable to find the video to refresh his memory, though he had provided that very video to the court.

In this case are you aware that you produced this video to me, Ogden cut in.

The problem is...the titles that you are referring tothe YouTube titles, those arent always the titles of the videos when theyre uploaded, he replied.

Mr. Dew, you gave me this video, the attorney said.

In another exchange, Bankston and Ogden asked Dew about a conversation he had had with his uncle, a former FBI agent whom Jones used as a source to claim that the mass shooting was a cover-up.

So when Alex Jones went on the air and said that a retired FBI agent said, All of this is fake' thats not your uncle being involved in sourcing information for these videos? the attorney asked.

No, that might have been Alexs interpretation of what I told him, Dew said. What my uncle specifically said was that Ive never been to a meeting with government people where nobody knows nothing thats what he said.

Throughout his deposition, Dew argued that the bulk of Infowars content is indeed journalism and that the sites mission is to get the truth as best you can.

On some instances we were wrong, he said. I am not sorry for being wrong. People get things wrong all the time.

Continue reading here:
The Infowars News Director Said Hes Proud The Site Called The Sandy Hook Shooting A Hoax - BuzzFeed News