Mediaboss Marketing

This article first appeared on the History News Network.

On August 14, President Trump reluctantly read a statement intended to assure Americans that, contrary to an impression left by his earlier speech, he condemned the neo-Nazis and white supremacists who marched in Charlottesville.

The next day, he returned to Twitter to complain about the press:

Keep up with this story and more by subscribing now

Made additional remarks on Charlottesville and realize once again that the #Fake News Media will never be satisfied . truly bad people!

Trump has been picking fights with the media since he declared his candidacy. But these latest outbursts reveal more than ordinary presidential frustration with the press. And theyre no ordinary way of expressing that frustration.

Trump has long played on racism against African-Americans to attract white supremacists. He does the same when he demonizes the media.

The president is deploying, consciously or not, a classic trope from the Russian anti-Semitic fabrication, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, published in 1905.

When he says fake media, anti-Semites hear Jewish-controlled media, which exerts disproportionate power over other media outlets and public opinion.

Anti-Semites understand what Trump is doing. They blame the whining Jew media for forcing Trump to condemn the Nazis who marched in Virginia.

The Protocols are the Bible of the anti-Semitic movement. They purport to be the minutes of a meeting where Jewish elders detail their plan to conquer the world.

In the part of the Protocols titled Control of the Press, it is revealed that Jews control every aspect of the press to protect their new worldwide government from attack or criticism.

The unnamed narrators admit their real aim is a false-flag attack on the legitimate press: Among those making attacks on us will also be organs established by us, but they will attack exclusively points that we have pre-determined to alter.

Fake news, then, begins as Jewish infiltration of the legitimate press and transforms into complete domination: Not a single announcement will reach the public without our control.

Arthur Sulzberger, chairman and publisher of The New York Times, at the Digital Life Design (DLD) conference at HVB Forum on January 23, 2011 in Munich, Germany. Miguel Villagran/Getty

The first American to put the Protocols before a mass audience was Henry Ford. In the 1920s his newspaper, the Dearborn Independent, alleged that American Jews worked to advance the interests of an amorphous International Jew.

As the Protocols presaged, Ford lumped all Jews into an anonymous cabal who aimed to seize control of world banks, industry, and government.

Of all the distinguished Jewish Americans whom Ford libeled, it was a relatively obscure lawyer, Aaron Sapiro, who finally sued. When Sapiros case came to trial in 1927, Ford decided to issue an apology in order to avoid a damaging jury verdict.

He said,

I deem it to be my duty as an honorable man to make amends for the wrong done to the Jews as fellow-men and brothers, by asking their forgiveness for the harm I have unintentionally committed.

But many skeptics refused to believe Ford meant it. In Europe, anti-Semites contended that Jewish bankers forced the apology out of Ford. Publishers who wanted to reprint Fords anti-Semitic publications insisted that the statement had been faked to assuage the International Jew.

Having followed the Sapiro trial through a German reporter he planted in the courtroom, Adolf Hitler called the apology Fords subjugation to the All-Jewish High Finance.

In time, Ford eliminated all doubt. In 1938, he accepted the highest civilian honor Hitlers government could bestow. Photographs of a smiling Ford wearing the Grand Cross of the German Eagle splashed across the world.

The automaker could not have repudiated his own apology more effectively. Accepting the medal made it clear he had not capitulated to the core of the Jewish danger.

Thus the language and tactics that Trump uses today have already been validated by one of Americas foremost proponents of anti-Semitism. The president declares that the mainstream media filter must be eluded. Ford did this by buying his own newspaper, while Trump does it with Twitter. The result is the same.

In 2016, Trump signaled his neo-Nazi/radical right sympathies by initially refusing to reject David Dukes endorsement. Recently, Trump waffled when pressed to condemn those who declare Jews will not replace them.

What links Trump and Ford most strongly are their anti-Semitic methods. Both refract their beliefs through relentless attacks on the very media that they use to advance their businesses and polish their images.

Trumps collusions with white supremacists, his declaration that many sides are morally responsible for Charlottesville, and his defenses of the fine people carrying swastikas and torches are shocking.

But they are also eerily reminiscent of Fords genteel anti-Semitism, which flourished when most everyone knew who was behind the fake media and believed instead the businessman in charge.

Victoria Saker Woeste is a Research Professor at the American Bar Foundation and the author of Henry Fords War on Jews and the Legal Battle Against Hate Speech.

Read this article:
Are Trump's Attacks on the Press a Dog Whistle to Anti-Semites? - Newsweek

File picture shows Datuk Jailani Johari, Deputy Minister of Communication and Multimedia speaking at the Institute of Journalists Malaysias Journalism Now forum, May 12, 2015. Picture by Saw Siow FengKUALA BERANG, Sept 5 All media and online portals in Malaysia must be aware that their operations are subjected to the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 (Act 588).

Communications and Multimedia Deputy Minister Datuk Jailani Johari said the Act had long been introduced to control the reporting of news which were slanderous in nature, especially those disseminated by online portals.

The Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 (Act 588) has two main provisions which enable enforcement action to be taken on complaints related to offensive contents on the Internet under Section 211, (ban on the uploading of offensive contents) and Section 233 (on inappropriate use of the facility and network services).

Under Section 211, anyone who is guilty of flouting Subsection (1) can be fined not more than RM50,000 or jailed not exceeding two years, or both. They can also be fined a further RM1,000 daily or part of a day the offence is perpetuated after being found guilty.

He said this to reporters after the annual general meeting of the Terengganu branch of the Federation of Peninsular Malay Students (GPMS), here, today.

Jailani, who is also Hulu Terengganu Member of Parliament, was commenting on the issue raised by GPMS deputy president Ezaruddin Abd. Rahman on Sept 2 that the government should introduce an act to control slanderous media reports, especially those disseminated by news portals or social media.

Whatever offences committed online are offences in the real world. So, online media practitioners or netizens must be more responsible in managing the contents uploaded on their portals. Differentiate contents which criticise, insult, instigate, sow hatred or are slanderous and false in nature to avoid action being taken later, he said.

Meanwhile, from 2016 to Feb 1, 167 cases of Internet and social media abuses were investigated by the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC), including the dissemination of false contents and information via WhatsApp, Facebook and Twitter. In the same period, 1,375 websites were also blocked because of their false contents. Bernama

More:
All media in Malaysia subjected to Act 588, says deputy minister - Malay Mail Online

There are two kinds of politicians: those who value an evidentiary and principles-based approach to law-making; and those who spurn analysis in favour of short-termism.

Paul Keating was the consummate member of the first category.

The cleansing power of competition. The will to drive unprecedented economic and social transformation. The threshold test of believing in something before committing to it, and then sparing no effort in delivering it.

Australias media ownership rules are a case in point.

Mr Keatings oft-quoted queens of screen or princes of print was deeply rooted in theprinciple of media pluralism and its benefits in a modern liberal democracy.

Heunderstood the importance of constructing a regulatory framework to promote a diversity of voices in the face of concentrated media power. And the only way to achieve that, he said, was through competition.

Malcolm Turnbull falls into the second category.

Dismissing the relevance of a rule which prohibits a person from controlling all three regulated forms of media commercial radio, commercial TV and associated newspapers in the one licence area, his sole justification is: time.

The rule is old. It pre-dates the internet. Throw it out.

Mr Turnbull is only too eager to repeal the twoout of three cross-media control rule and hand unprecedented power to a privileged few, despite Australia having one of the most concentrated media markets in the world.

He views the two out of three rule as an anti-competitive fetter on industry. Paradoxically, this is the law which does the heavy lifting in fostering competition and diversity in Australian media.

The proposed CBS acquisition of Network Ten demonstrates as much.

After so opportunistically exploiting Tens voluntary administration to spruik his case for repeal, Mr Turnbull appeareddismayed when CBS entered the frame.

CBS eclipsedan Australian joint bid that seemed good to go, save for the small matter of it not being permitted under law.

Mr Turnbull even stoked the protectionist fire of CBS being a US entity, despite the fact that he was a minister in the Howard government which abolished foreign ownership media limits.

And Mr Turnbull peddles the furphy that existing competition law is adequate for the task performed by the two out of three rule. The ACCC decision on the Birketu/Illyria bid to acquire Ten confirms that it is not the job of the ACCC to consider pluralism or democracy and that competition laws are no safeguard for diversity.

Chairman Rod Sims was at pains to clarify that, while the transaction would not substantially lessen competition, it would reduce diversity across the Australian media landscape.

After almost four years, the Abbott-Turnbull government has failed to achieve media law reform. Their response blame Labor is as predictable as their ineptitude.

Instead of rolling up their sleeves and devising a long-term roadmap for transition in the face of relentless disruption,the Turnbull government rolls out the red carpet for big business, cherry-picking a few measures to benefit select vestedinterests.

They bemoan the two out of three rule as archaic, but propose no alternative in its place to adapt our laws and preserve pluralism in the new media environment.

All of this undertaken with complete disregard for consumers. An Essential Poll showed 61 per cent of Australians are opposed to repeal of the two out of three rule.

As for the argument that this is about saving jobs, show us the evidence that the synergies, efficiencies and scalability behind mergers creates rather than sheds them.

Mr Turnbull gifts a cool $30 million to Fox Sports but nothing for audio description for the blind. He waives $127 million in licence fees for commercial broadcasters, but cuts a deal with One Nation to undermine our public broadcasters.

The PM who once called for innovation now regards the internet as the reason for junking public interest safeguards as though the internet appeared overnight or as if traditional media doesnt already use it to run multi-platform businesses.

He complains Labor isnt co-operating, yet twice he has voted down Labors constructive amendment to save the two out of three rule while letting other measures pass the Parliament measures industry should already be enjoying.

As Mr Keating said, the idea that convergence is turning all forms of media into one is the most powerful reason for not making it easier to concentrate ownership.

The principles of pluralism and diversity are enduring.

Just as hes failed engineering and economics on the NBN and sold out his beliefs for power at every turn, Malcolm Turnbull has confirmed he is no Keating.

Michelle Rowland is Labors shadow communications spokeswoman.

Read more:
Media reform package hands 'unprecedented power to a privileged few' - The New Daily

Analysis

Parliament resumes this weekwhich means media ownership laws are back on the Senate's agenda, although with a little less urgency now Channel Ten's administrators have found a buyer in US broadcasting giant CBS.

Play Video Don't Play

Play Video Don't Play

Previous slide Next slide

Ten Network's receivers, managers and voluntary administrators have confirmed that CBS has entered into a binding agreement to buy the broadcasters business and assets.

Play Video Don't Play

The stand out listings traded on the ASX captured at key moments through the day, as indicated by the time stamp in the video.

Play Video Don't Play

With earnings behind us, and US politics and geo-politics still at the heart of the conversation, this week central banks also come into the mix with the RBA and ECB taking central focus. (This video was produced in commercial partnership between Fairfax Media and IG Markets.)

Play Video Don't Play

Finance Minister Mathias Cormann says he has a positive outlook for global economic growth, and comments on media law reforms.

Play Video Don't Play

For many, Friday is simply September 1, but for Star Wars fans it's officially Force Friday II - a chance to get the latest toys from the upcoming film.

Play Video Don't Play

Sweden's big banks have been pinoeering new AI technology, with SEB rolling out their latest chatbot, Aida, during their 2017 AGM.

Play Video Don't Play

In the 1970s Kisaku Suzuki invented the sushi robot which revolutionised the market. Today most of the sushi eaten in Japan is made by a robot.

Play Video Don't Play

Bitcoin and Ethereum are just some of the digital currencies that have been on a tear this year. But it hasn't been smooth-sailing in the cryptocurrency world.

Ten Network's receivers, managers and voluntary administrators have confirmed that CBS has entered into a binding agreement to buy the broadcasters business and assets.

Details of the CBS offer for Ten are likely to emerge on Monday.

The Senate did not get around to discussing media reformlast sitting week, despite the government brokering a deal with Pauline Hanson's One Nation party. And it is unlikely to get to the chamber unless the government can secure the support of Nick Xenophon's team, or somehow get the Greens on board.

But while the existing media laws remain in place, the question remains of what-on-earth-happened-at-Network-Ten.

It still isn't clear how twoshareholders holding a combined 22 per cent of equitymanaged to leave the board with "no choicebut to appoint administrators".

Both these shareholders, Lachlan Murdoch and Bruce Gordon, were guarantors for Ten's debt. However, both men cannot"control"Network Ten due to ownership restrictions inthe Broadcasting Services Act.

Get the latest news and updates emailed straight to your inbox.

The Australian Communications and Media Authority gets final say on what is considered controland one would think it should be analysing whether Murdoch and Gordonbreached these rules when they played their trump card overTen's debt facility.

Keen to see whether the ACMA is in fact keeping tabs on what happened at Network Ten, Fairfax Media submitted a Freedom of Information request for emails, internal investigations and file notes written the week Ten went into administration.

In return for a fee, the ACMA agreed to release Ten's stock market announcements (which are publicly available anyway) and 14 heavily redacted emails, including 14 totally blank pages. It founda further 24documents related to the search, but is keeping these secret because they contain 'deliberative matters', legal advice, and personal information.

The emails and schedule of documents provethere was a flurry of activity on Tuesday, June 13 when Ten went into a trading halt and again when it wentinto administration on Wednesday, June 14.

For example, at 11.46 am on June 14 acting chairman Richard Bean sent an email to the manager of the ACMA's Diversity branch, Jenny Brigg.

"Hi Jenny, you may have seen that Ten has announced the appointment of an administrator.". The rest of Mr Bean's email has been redacted, but Ms Brigg replies "I'll call him now".

By lunchtime Ms Brigg advises she has been in touch with the in-houselegal department and by 5pm she has emailed KordaMentha's Jennifer Nettleton to "make sure you are aware of your obligations as a controller of commercial television broadcasting service licences".

The ACMA reminds KordaMentha it has ten business days to lodge of any change in control for all five commercial television broadcasting licences controlled by Ten.

The regulator was also in touch with the Communications Minister's office and its four authority members. But it remains secret whether the regulator raised concerns about ownership breaches, or was simply sending a memo in case the Minister or authority members missed the biggest news story of the day.

While releasing this internal correspondence could "promote transparency...in relation to issues that are a matter of public debate", Ms Briggtold Fairfax Media it could also compromise future law enforcement.

"In my view, if material of this nature were released prematurely, it would prejudice the ACMA's ability to act in this matter by disclosing the ACMA's approach to certain issues," she wrote as justification for the opacity.

The regulator also refused to revealwhat information it received from outsiders because this "would demonstrate how the ACMA gathers intelligence and information for the purpose of actively monitoring potential breaches of media ownership rules," Ms Brigg said.

An email received from one outsider was withheld because it contained commercially sensitive information about several businesses that "may cause significant harm to the ongoing operations of Ten" if it were released.

In short, the ACMA may be working behind the scenes to uphold existing laws, or it might not be. It might have found a breach, or not.

"The ACMA has been actively monitoring, and continues to monitor, the activities and developments in relation to Network TEN," a spokeswoman said on Friday, adding it has been making "all of the inquiries necessary to satisfy itself" media rules are complied with.

The subtext being silence equals compliance.

"Where the ACMA is of the view that a regulatory breach has occurred, it will take regulatory action commensurate with the seriousness of the breach and the level of harm," the letter reads.

The ACMA uses "the minimum power or intervention necessary to achieve compliance", she added.

Seven yearsago Mr Murdoch did breach mediaownership rules when he became thedirector of too many radio stations in the Brisbane-Nambour area between October and November 2010. And his business advisor, Siobhan McKenna, made a similar breach from December 2009 to November 2010.

The ACMA revealed these breaches two months later in January 2011 and took no further action noting their "resignations and co-operation in the matters". Thebreach was easily fixed.

But given the irreversible nature of what is happening at Ten, shareholders and employees might wish theACMAhadeither stepped in earlier or announcedthe all-clear.

It is now 12 weeks since administrators were appointed at Tenand nearlythree years since Murdoch, Gordon, and fellow shareholder James Packer took personal responsibility for the company's debt.

Given the public interest in this matterand the potential damagedone to a struggling but functioning business, surely theACMAshould atleast explain itself.

Read more here:
In Ten takeover, the media regulator is refusing to prove itself useful - The Sydney Morning Herald

MPs return from their summer breaks next week and one of the first issues on the agenda will be 21st Century Foxs proposed takeover of Sky.

A quick recap: before recess in June, Karen Bradley, the culture secretary, revealed the findings of Ofcoms report into the deal and her initial view on whether it should go ahead.

There were effectively three parts to Ofcoms work a look at the deals impact on media plurality and broadcasting standards, and a separate report on whether the Murdochs, who control Fox, were fit and proper owners of Sky.

On the basis of Ofcoms findings, Bradley said she was minded to refer the deal for a full investigation to the Competition and Markets Authority on media plurality but not on broadcasting standards.

When Bradley made this statement on 29 June it was expected that she would confirm her decision before parliament broke up for summer. When that didnt happen she was expected to make an announcement during the summer, but that did not happen either.

The reason for this delay is that Ofcom and the government were overwhelmed with the volume of people expressing their views on the deal after Bradleys announcement with some of these new submissions raising issues that the culture secretary subsequently asked Ofcom to examine.

During this period there have also been significant developments regarding the deal. Fox News has been accused of colluding with the White House regarding a discredited story that a murdered Democrat aide was the source of leaked emails, and then last week it was announced that Fox News will no longer be broadcast in the UK, apparently for commercial reasons.

All this means that Bradleys statement on her final decision is eagerly anticipated. It could be made as early as this week.

The most likely outcome is still that she stands by her original view to refer the deal to the CMA on the grounds of media plurality but not broadcasting standards. However, campaign group Avaaz and a group of high-profile MPs led by Ed Miliband and Vince Cable have made a compelling and powerful argument that it should also be referred on broadcasting standards due to the scandals at Fox News and the potential for the Murdochs to Foxify Sky News by giving it a rightwing slant.

Avaaz and the MPs have threatened legal action if Bradley doesnt do this. They claim Ofcoms fit-and-proper test was flawed and that it did not use the correct legal threshold when considering the deal in regard to broadcasting standards, thereby making it less likely that the deal would be referred.

It is difficult to establish how much weight this argument has with Bradley. Her Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport has remained tightlipped during the process and insiders on both sides of the House of Commons say Bradley is determined to do things by the book when considering the deal. This means the fact she asked Ofcom to do more work on the deal does not necessarily mean she is leaning towards a referral on broadcasting standards. Instead, it could be that she justs wants to be seen as dealing with the submissions by Avaaz and the MPs seriously.

Nonetheless, the Murdochs appear to be increasingly concerned about the takeover, judging by the firm wording of their statements and the decision to pull Fox News from the UK.

One of their main complaints has been how long the process is taking and it must be said there are no winners apart from the government in dragging this out. The government is a potential winner because the delays may dampen anger about the deal or even force the Murdochs to walk away from the takeover which would make the issue disappear entirely but it is not ideal for Sky, a company with thousands of employees whose future is uncertain.

The Murdochs bid for Sky was revealed last December and a CMA investigation will last six months once Bradley gives the go-ahead. That means it will have taken well over a year for the deal to be resolved either way.

The main reason for it taking so longer is the governments insistence on a two-pronged inquiry featuring Ofcom first and then the CMA if called upon. But is the CMA really better qualified than Ofcom, the media regulator, to make a judgment on media plurality and broadcasting standards? How will the CMA, effectively a consumer body, make judgments about how people get their news and analyse a market that includes a dominant public sector organisation in the BBC?

The CMA is used to assessing whether takeovers will distort markets so that consumers are worse off either through a drop in quality or higher prices. But the concerns around the Fox/Sky deal are so sector-specific ie will it lead to one family having too much control of news coverage that the media regulator is surely better placed than the competition watchdog to offer recommendations to the government.

If the CMA is called upon, as seems likely, it will be fascinating to see the panel it puts in place to examine the deal and how it goes about it. It will be effectively starting from scratch and, as Bradley has already intimated, it could simply wave the deal through without demanding any concessions from the Murdochs.

After waiting all summer to discover whether it will be called upon, the CMA is close to discovering whether it will be invited to offer the decisive verdict on this long-running saga.

Hollywood has a problem with diversity but so does the British film and TV industry. Last week, British actor Ed Skrein pulled out of his role in a forthcoming film reboot of Hellboy because the character he was playing has an Asian heritage while actor Chloe Bennet revealed she changed her name from Chloe Wang because Hollywood is racist.

But while Hollywood has issues, so too British broadcasting. There is frustration that the much-hyped Project Diamond, which was supported by all the broadcasters and designed to monitor diversity in the industry, may have underplayed the problems in British broadcasting.

It found that 21.5% of on-screen workers have a black, Asian or minority ethnic (BAME) background and 10.1% of off-screen workers do. This compares with 13% of the UK population with a BAME background.

However, critics of the report claim that the reality is worse than this and that the survey was distorted by just 24% of the industry actually taking part.

Diamond was supposed to help improve diversity in broadcasting but at the moment it is just creating more divisions.

One of the least-vaunted policies in Labours manifesto for the 2017 general election was a plan to launch a national review into the demise of local media. However, the closure of the Oldham Evening Chronicle last week shows how important this could be.

The Chronicle has been published for more than 160 years but will disappear unless the administrators can find a buyer to rescue it.

The manifesto said Labour was concerned about the closure of local newspapers and broadcasters and that they are an important part of our democracy and culture. As the Grenfell Tower fire showed, the lack of a powerful local voice can have a devastating impact.

The government should follow Labours proposal and launch a review immediately.

Here is the original post:
Rupert Murdoch's proposed Sky takeover reaches endgame - The Guardian (blog)