Mediaboss Marketing

And just like that, it was done. Britain put itself through years of political crisis, economic stagnation and social division, all to end the free movement of people within the European Union. Like a nation selling the family silver to fund a search for a lost tenner, we could finally brandish our successfully retrieved banknote while the neighbours looked on in bemusement.

But already most people will have forgotten the announcement. No mention of it remains in the dailies. New threats and worries emerge. The news cycle moves on. Anyone could be forgiven for thinking it never even mattered.

Priti Patels points-based immigration system is, as it stands, liable to cause havoc in sectors such as social care and hospitality. It also ends the free movement of the British ourselves: by cancelling the automatic right of EU citizens to live and work here, it means that our right to do likewise in the EU also ends. It is nevertheless likely to enjoy strong public support, particularly from leave voters. Vote Leave promised to take back control, and in this sense and, chances are, this sense alone the government is delivering. The public wanted direct controls on EU immigration, and now theyre getting them. Consequences are for losers.

The debate now veers between those who feel reducing numbers is key, and those who argue that 'control' is enough

Will this finally extinguish immigration as a public sore point? Is it even a sore point any more, given recent shifts in public opinion? And if not, why are we doing this at such cost to ourselves?

The trend line of British attitudes to immigration is not a simple one. Concerns over immigration were almost nonexistent in the 1990s but shot up in the early 2000s around hysterical coverage of the Sangatte refugee camp in France, and then rose further after the rise in migration that followed the expansion of the EU in 2004.

While the issue subsided as a voter priority in the years following the financial crisis, it never truly went away, and shot up again amid frenzied coverage of Romanian and Bulgarian immigration in 2014 and then the Syrian refugee crisis in 2014 and 2015.

The 2016 leave campaign was built on racist scaremongering over immigration Syrian refugees, Turkish membership of the EU. Nigel Farage and Dominic Cummings both shamelessly exploited the Cologne sexual assaults to claim Britains EU membership meant it could happen here.

Plainly, this is not just about what political types call lived experience. While New Labour housed asylum-seekers in deprived areas, where they became a lightning rod for local hostility, the overall public opposition to immigration in the early 2000s cannot be divorced from the blanket media coverage of the Sangatte camp at the time.

Similarly, 2013 saw widespread coverage of the imminent lifting of restrictions on immigration from Bulgaria and Romania, with a predicted surge in migration that never came to pass. The number of people concerned about Syrian refugees was infinitely larger than the number of people who were ever likely to meet one. This not to say that direct experience of immigration justifies negative attitudes it is simply to show that media coverage has a significant influence on public opinion.

Only since the referendum has public opposition to immigration softened although even then, large numbers still support cuts to immigration. In 2011, nearly two-thirds of Britons thought immigration had been bad for the country according to one polling firm by 2019 that had fallen to barely a quarter.

There are various reasons for this shift. Brexit may have satisfied leave voters that immigration will fall or at least be under control though that doesnt explain why more people think immigration has been good, and fewer think its been bad.

Instead there is evidence that media coverage of the forecast impact of post-Brexit immigration controls, including health and care staff shortages, and fruit going rotten on farms has increased public understanding and acceptance of the role of immigration. A year ago, Ipsos Mori found most of those who had become more positive about immigration had done so because discussions about Brexit presumably in the media rather than at the watercooler had highlighted how much immigrants contribute to the UK.

Given that many remain voters actually wanted controls on immigration in 2016 55% of them in a NatCen poll that November this shows both the impact of media coverage and the failings of the remain campaign itself in the runup to the referendum. How many column inches, we may ask, were devoted to the prospect of Turkish membership four years ago? And did pro-EU politicians really make the case for free movement, not just during the campaign itself but in the years before it?

But it also reflects that economic arguments are central to the softening of attitudes to immigration. Like most countries white-majority or otherwise Britain is not automatically welcoming of outsiders. It is too soon to extrapolate from this that there is a fundamental acceptance of immigration as a good in and of itself. Antipathy towards immigrants claiming benefits or using the NHS remains high. Future waves of migration may be met with the same wall of hostility as previous ones.

The government may find it politically easy to loosen its points-based criteria to address staff shortages in the care sector, for example Boris Johnson has the trust of leave voters, and adult care is a frontline service facing widely documented challenges.

Should the new criteria fail to bring down immigration levels, will voters be riled, resigned or find it wholly irrelevant? The debate that followed the announcement of the new rules veered between those who feel reducing actual numbers is key, and those who argue that the concept of control is enough to assuage public concerns.

But what really counts will be media coverage. Say, for example, that after three years of the points-based system, immigration levels are still rising. Imagine two different scenarios. In the first, rising immigration is being blared out on the front pages of national newspapers, breathlessly debated on the BBC and going viral via the internets outrage-industrial complex. In the second, it isnt instead its just treated as a normal and fairly unexciting statistic. Is public opinion the same in both scenarios? Of course not.

But all this may seem quaint in years to come. Should the governments handling of Brexit end up gutting the economy, the surge across the border may be from people heading out, not coming in.

Chaminda Jayanetti is a journalist who covers politics and public services

Read this article:
Will the new immigration system detoxify the issue? It depends on the media - The Guardian

In China, people from the city of Wuhan are jokingly referred to as nine-headed birds because of their habit of inveterate squabbling. In recent weeks, though, an eerie silence has descended on their world. Empty streets, empty malls. Everyone kept indoors. The government says 80,000 are infected by coronavirus, and more than 3,000 have died in China.

This pandemic has now spread to more than 100 countries and territories. Is the city just one big prison-hospital? News and rumour arrive round the clock online, but that dismal barrage in a sense only makes things worse. A few people cant take the pressure, climb to a top floor and jump into black silence below.

In China, the problem is not even lack of knowledge so much as lack of a system in which knowledge is possible

Viewed from the outside, the city might seem like a giant aquarium. Visible fish swim silently while not a drop of water leaks out. Police have welded doors shut in order to monitor who enters and leaves buildings. Roads out of the city are cut with deep trenches or blocked by walls. Even little paths that lead towards farmland have been destroyed. Swim down a river? There are nets to catch you.

The famous bustle of Wuhan people takes some macabre forms. Crematoriums advertise online. Face-masks command high prices, and the market in body bags grows. In an absurdist gesture, people in some neighbourhoods open their windows to join their neighbours in choral renditions of pro-government songs.

In a city of 13 million, how many poignant stories must there be? We will never hear most of them, but here is one: a young man comes home to visit his ageing parents to see in the new year. The parents have long been wishing that he would marry, but he has not been able to attract a girlfriend. Not wanting to disappoint, he hires a young lady to come home with him as his fiancee, sleeping in a separate bedroom. The two have agreed that after leaving Wuhan they will revert to being casual acquaintances. But the virus strikes and they are trapped in the parents apartment. The young woman endures slicing tofu and making small talk with her future mother-in-law. Nothing can be done about that.

In normal times, the nine-headed birds of Wuhan are full of opinions on all sorts of political and cultural topics, but the searing question of the virus has thrust everything else into the background. Life and death are at stake, and it is terrifying that something that so monopolises attention is also unknowable. Where did the virus come from? How far has it spread? How long will the epidemic last? Such questions, shrouded in opacity and lacking any solid ground on which even to invite answers, can make it seem that civilisation itself is in question.

The communist system, with its tight control of information and its accountability of officials only to their bureaucratic superiors, not to the people below, has been undermining social trust for decades. Citizens do not expect a volte-face in trust just because a deadly virus appears. But without trust, peoples immune system against lies breaks down.In the public sphere, all belief becomes ungrounded belief.

Statements float like clouds, beyond truth or falsity. Questions about a virus what happened and why? should be empirical questions that have determinable answers. But not in China, where the problem is not even lack of knowledge so much as lack of a system in which knowledge is possible. Chinas officialdom does have a scale on which it measures the value of particular statements, but the criterion is not truth or falsity it is how well the statement does something that authorities want to see done.

It will not be easy to stop the rot of trust in China, because its spread is already deep. Moreover there is the very daunting problem that the Communist party does not want transparency and trust. The partys power rests crucially on two cornerstones: intimidation and control of information. This is because a populace both frightened and blind is pliable.

I have been living in exile for several years. I feel a constant pull to connect with life in Wuhan I mean with real life, not the cloud of opaque language. What are people actually feeling? Can that hired bride go home now, I wonder? Can the young mans parents come to terms with the truth? Will any of them get good information on the virus so that they can know where they stand?

Perhaps I have inherited something from my father, the poet Ai Qing. One of his most famous poems, I Love this Land, was written in 1938 as the city of Wuhan fell before the Japanese military:

If I were a bird I would sing myself hoarse About this land torn by storm This raging river that surges around our anger This furious wind that roars without end And about the ever-gentle dawn that rises through the trees Then die Even my feathers to rot in the earth Why are there always tears in my eyes?I love this land too deeply

China is ill, yes but from much more than a coronavirus. The world panics but only about the virus, not about the deeper illness. China interlocks with the world economically and, in recent years, in some political ways too. If its systemic illness continues to worsen, and to spread by contagion, the world may have to face the existential questions that the illness raises: can civilisation survive without trust? Can government that lacks legitimacy survive indefinitely?

Ai Weiwei is a contemporary artist, activist and advocate of political reform in China

Translation by Perry Link

Visit link:
China is ill, but it goes much deeper than the coronavirus - The Guardian

Experts are saying that the spread of the coronavirus can still be contained in the U.S. with aggressive measures designed to isolate, with affected communities and individuals taking responsibility to self-quarantine if they are exposed or infected.

The response of governments at all levels so far was planned for years ago. Few measures taken by Washington have had time to have an effect, however. Local communities have basically been on their own, which is exactly the way the CDC planned for such an outbreak. The best way to contain the coronavirus is one case at a time -- isolating those affected and those who have come in contact with an infected or potentially infected person. At this level, the healthcare system is not overwhelmed and those who are sickest can receive the care they need to survive.

Of course, this hasn't stopped the anti-Trump hysterics from trying to frighten the American people during an election year. But outbreaks of the virus have been mostly local and manageable -- so far. But we are near a point where the outbreak can tip either way and only vigilance and aggressive prevention measures can keep the coronavirus from becoming a pandemic.

Tom Bossert served as homeland security adviser to President Trump from 2017 to 2018.

This virus is such a threat because it is both highly infectious and lethal, and not enough people are being tested, despite significant recent effort by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. By the time cases are confirmed, significant community transmission has likely already occurred. This is a classic tip-of-the-iceberg phenomenon. Its also akin to looking at a star; the light we see today was emitted some time ago. But the most useful comparison now is to a fire that threatens to burn out of control. It is one we can still contain, even extinguish if we act.

The best way to put out the fire is a vaccine, but that is over a year away. In the meantime, we must focus on reducing the height of the outbreak curve. This requires coordination and implementation of non-pharmaceutical interventions. School closures, isolation of the sick, home quarantines of those who have come into contact with the sick, social distancing, telework and large-gathering cancellations must be implemented before the spread of the disease in any community reaches 1 percent. After that, science tells us, these interventions become far less effective.

China's draconian measures to get control of the virus are now being matched by Italy, which has closed down the entire northern part of the country. But the U.S. is still at a point where local efforts will make all the difference in the world. We discovered this the hard way during the 1918 flu pandemic that killed millions of Americans.

The U.S. is not seeing the rates of infection experienced in Italy because of these aggressive, local steps taken to contain the virus. Individual communities are taking the lead in the fight against the coronavirus, which is exactly what should be happening. As long as local health officials are successful in containing the disease within their individual jurisdictions, there's a pretty good chance we can avoid the worst of the outbreak.

Read this article:
It's Now or Never to Get Control of the Coronavirus | News and Politics - PJ Media

Told through the eyes of a woman named Jane, the campaign consists of a series of vignettes that depict Jane in various stereotypical scenes showcasing how women are often treated as if they are bad with money. The ending shows Jane trying to understand and manage her finances after her husbands death and feeling overwhelmed, reinforcing that when society tells girls they are bad with money, they grow up believing it.

While many banks talk about the gender disparities in the finance industry, they rarely address the bias that causes this inequality, said FCB Canada Co-Chief Creative Officer Nancy Crimi-Lamanna. Were proud to be creative partners with BMO to take a stand to promote financial confidence for women.

BMO is a longtime supporter of the advancement of women:In 2018, BMO announced its commitment to advancing $3 billion in capital to women-owned businesses across Canada. Since making this commitment, BMOs women-led small business clients have grown by almost 10 per cent.

In 2019, BMO became the first bank in Canada to sign the UN Womens Empowerment Principles which offer guidance on how to promote gender equality and womens empowerment in the workplace, marketplace and community. BMO Celebrating Women has recognized 170 women in communities across North America for their achievements in business growth and philanthropy and community involvement. Women make up over 41 per cent of BMOs senior leadership positions in North America.

Directed by Academy Award-nominated documentary film director Hubert Davis, the spot will run in Canada and the U.S. with paid digital media focused in Toronto and Chicago.

See the article here:
BMO and FCB champion women to take control of their financial lives - Shots

Fake news on the coronavirus has spread faster than the virus itself.

We are all aware that dealing with something you know nothing about is never easy. Especially if that something is a disease that is said to be transmitted through air, and especially if you live in Italy where the commentary on what is happening in the socio-political sphere gets pretty much always out of hand. However, the latest scenario has exceeded expectations.

The panic trigger was the appearance in mid-February of the first cases of Italians affected by the coronavirus. These people have had no contact with the two Chinese tourists already hospitalized in Rome. A 38-year-old man from Codogno, a town near Milan, felt sick and went to the local ER but was sent home; after a couple of days, he came back to the hospital and admitted he had lunch with a friend of his, a businessman who had recently came back from a work trip from China, and the medical staff tested him for the coronavirus. Almost simultaneously, in Vo Euganeo, a town near Padua, an elderly couple tested positive for the coronavirus and the 78-years-old husband died.

The morning after, major newspapers published headlines such as: Virus, the North of fear (La Repubblica), Infections and death, the disease is among us (Il Giorno), Vade retro virus (Libero), Italy infected (Il Giornale). After a 10-hour-long meeting, the government decided to completely isolate the areas in which the virus was spreading, sending military reinforcements to the local police. Next, people lost their self-control. In less than a day, pharmacies ran out of masks and hand-sanitizing gel and the prices of these items on Amazon skyrocketed.

My university in Venice closed, since we were in the same region of Vo Euganeo and my parents and the ones of most of my friends forced us to come home, fearing that the government would isolate our city too where the first two cases had occurred. In the meantime, people looted supermarkets even in regions where no cases of the illness had been found and social media was invaded with videos of people running through supermarket aisles with two shopping carts full of food and water.

It is debatable whether talk shows and the media as a whole were the major cause of this exaggerated and hysterical reaction to a possible pandemic. However, after the first case was officially linked to Covid-19, television media started inviting virologists on a daily basis, sometimes more than one at a time, to discuss the virus, often exploiting the differing explanations among them as in a political debate.

When the government and the press realized that the situation was getting completely out of control, not only among the citizens but also with regards to the economy with a 4 per cent decline in the Milan stock market by the second day, an increase in the spread between the Italian BTP and the German BUND and an increasingly dramatic situation for small business owners they changed their tune. Overnight, newspapers switched from a the end is nigh attitude to its little more than a flu, you just need to wash your hands and the government, which frantically ordered the closure of churches, museums and theatres, gave permission to reopen almost everything.

All the measures applied in order to pacify the population, backfired. People mistrusted the new calm and language of reassurance, relying instead on social media and talk shows as their primary sources of information.

Too much had been revealed to the population, and now the main goal was to keep people calm, even though the danger was increasing. Instead of creating panic and sensationalising news of the virus, the press, urged by the government, finally started giving actual numbers and data in place of spreading alarmism with catchy headlines. Fake news under the form of voice messages of people who pretended to be doctors started circulating on WhatsApp, spreading completely wrong and non-scientific information about the nature of the virus and how to protect yourself from it. Fake cases were reported daily and conspiracy posts on social media regarding the reason of the spreading of the disease were taken as legitimate press.

Peoples confusion was such a concern for the authorities that the Italian government activated the public utility number 1500 in order to answer citizens questions about the virus.

Social media was once again used as a quick and inexpensive propaganda machine by the League and Fratelli dItalia, two major far-right parties, to mobilize their voters against immigrants and demand for the closing of our ports in Southern Italy for health-related safety. This, despite the fact that three of the most affected regions (Lombardia, Veneto and Emilia Romagna) are all in the North and two of them are and have been governed by the League and centre-right for years. Matteo Salvini and Giorgia Meloni, the leaders of the aforesaid parties, called for the resignation of the government which, according to them, is not doing enough to stop the spread of the disease. Even Alessandra Mussolini, the niece of Benito Mussolini, was invited on TV to say what she thought about the coronavirus situation.

The latest official data shows 3,858 as infected, among which 1,155 are not even hospitalized but at home in self-isolation. So far, 148 are dead and 414 have recovered. The numbers should not have caused such fear in a nation composed of over 60 million citizens. However, in a nation where the current government is mistrusted and people have to relearn how to receive and give news properly, the most reliable information continues to be what one finds on their favourite Facebook group.

Image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay

Go here to read the rest:
Italys battle with coronavirus and misinformation - Shout Out UK