Mediaboss Marketing

An apologist of the President and a public official who gets paid by taxpayers money, Andanar is embarking on a dangerous path of propaganda and media control

Published 5:36 PM, January 26, 2017

Updated 11:53 AM, January 27, 2017

MANCAVE. Communications Secretary Martin Andanar launches his Martin's Mancave Lifecast on January 7, 2017. Andanar's Facebook page

MANILA, Philippines Ever heard of Martins Mancave Lifecast? Its a podcast on Facebook that features no less than the Secretary of the Presidential Communications Office (PCO), Martin Andanar.

The former commentator of Aksyon TV and anchor of TV5s Aksyon sa Umaga, Andanar hosted his first podcast under the Duterte administration on a Saturday evening, January 7, and titled it, Leni Leaks: Truth or Lies?

The maiden podcast of the Cabinet secretary under the new government amplified a supposedly explosive discovery by bloggers about an alleged plan to oust President Rodrigo Duterte.

As of the afternoon of Thursday, January 26, the episode had garnered over 774,000 views and shared over 13,000 times. The numbers are quite impressive for a first episode that ran for over 50 minutes and featured interviews with two bloggers who are avid supporters of Duterte Sass Rogando Sasot and Rey Joseph (RJ) Nieto, who, until only a few weeks ago, was known as the anonymous Thinking Pinoy. Andanar ended that episode with a short interview with National Security Adviser Hermogenes Esperon Jr.

Early on, after Duterte won as president, the first thing that Andanar asked the Malacaang Press Corps (MPC) officers was if bloggers like "Thinking Pinoy" could be accredited as members of the press corps. Clear about the distinction between the role of the press and that of pro-Duterte bloggers, the officers said no.

An apologist of the President and a public official who gets paid by taxpayers money, Andanar is embarking on a dangerous path of propaganda and media control.

As articulated by media theorist Manuel Castells, propaganda and media control refers to the fabrication and diffusion of messages that distort facts and induce misinformation for the purpose of advancing government interests, and involves the censorship of any message deemed to undermine these interests, if necessary by criminalizing unhindered communication and prosecuting the messenger.

Palace insiders said that, starting September 2016, money was released to groups that had maintained an online presence in support of the President. The same insiders said some of these groups are identified with Andanar.

Platform of legitimacy

Through his resurrected Martins Mancave with Lifecast attached to the brand to give the podcast a new name on Facebook the Cabinet secretary provides the two bloggers with a platform and grants them legitimacy, both as attack dogs out to intimidate journalists and as sources of alarmist information.

This shrewd artificial online boost spread like wild fire the message about the supposed plot to oust Duterte. It rattled the social media sphere of Duterte followers and generated a lot of anger about the supposed grand conspiracy.

Andanar justified his decision to discuss #LeniLeaks in his podcast, saying that the administration does not welcome any destabilization attempts and is against methods to advance such destabilization interests kung totoo man (if they are true).

It was Sasot who first posted about #LeniLeaks on Twitter in the evening of January 5. She followed up with a Facebook post afternoon of January 6, detailing the message of United States-based Loida Nicolas Lewis in a Yahoogroup about how to defend the Vice President from criticism and defeated vice presidential candidate Bongbong Marcos: The only way to fight this evil plot to unseat Vice President Leni Robredo is to ask Duterte to Resign.

It was also Sasot who recently equated the punishment of fake news with the punishment of people who write fiction, generating a wave of criticism and negative reactions. Faraway in The Netherlands, she openly cursed Rapplers Palace reporter Pia Ranada for her story on #LeniLeaks. Sasots post has since been taken down.

SASOT. Blogger Sass Rogando Sasot curses Rappler's Pia Ranada. Screenshot of Sasot's Facebook Live video.

Nieto, on the other hand, also recently repeatedly cursed from Singapore the MPC for their statement calling out Andanar.

The MPC accredited journalists assigned to cover the Palace said in their statement that they were disturbed by the propensity of the officials of this administration to blame the media whenever the inflammatory statements of the President stir controversy or draw flak. Andanar had accused the MPC of misreporting Dutertes statements on martial law.

Not content with his curses, Nieto flashed the dirty finger repeatedly during his 13-minute rant. Nasaan ang Malacaang Press Corps? Nakatambay kayo sa hotel o nagsa-shopping kayo sa Orchard Road. Puro kayo inutil, mga putang ina nyo. Wag kayo umarte na kay-iinam. Wala naman kayong ginawa sa Singapore kundi mamasyal. O, yan ba loyal sa Filipino people?

(Wheres the Malacaang Press Corps? Standing by the hotel or shopping on Orchard Road. Youre all useless, sons of bitches. Dont act as if youre all good. You didnt do anything in Singapore but to shop. Is that what you call loyal to the Filipino people?)

REY JOSEPH NIETO. The face behind Thinking Pinoy. Screenshot of his Facebook Live video.

He reported that only he and a handful of others were at a hotel lobby in Singapore waiting to ambush-interview officials. However, this is not how the media works and gathers news. Journalists do not base their stories solely on officialdom but countless other sources, depending on issues they are pursuing and monitoring. Ambush-interviews likewise do not yield the best of stories because officials tend to give answers on the fly.

Nieto threatened the press corps that when he sees them in Russia during a presidential visit, he would be reporting on what they will be doing.

It is these types of disseminators of information whom Andanar, the Presidents communications secretary, has chosen to promote.

Boosts and failure

During his podcast, Andanar built up Sasot and Nieto, then known as the anonymous Thinking Pinoy, and referred to them as internet superstar bloggers.

Donning headphones and doing the interviews, Andanar made it easy for viewers on Facebook to forget he is an official of the Palace and no longer a broadcaster.

Instead of using government resources at his disposal to establish the veracity of #LeniLeaks through solid intelligence information from other agencies of government, Andanar chose the two partisan bloggers as his sources.

After Sasot and Nieto failed to create enough splash the first time around, Andanar got them as interviewees on January 7 to shed light on #LeniLeaks which, he said, had gone viral.

Yet our data analysis of posts related to #LeniLeaks from January 5-15, 2017, showed that before January 7, the issue had not created enough buzz. The podcast on January 7, a Saturday, however, boosted the message and prompted a lot of shares as seen by the spike on that day (see chart below).

Perhaps because it was a weekend or because not enough traction was created, the number of posts dropped not long after.

The next attempt to sustain interest came the following day on January 8, a Sunday, via a second episode of the podcast, leading up to the January 9 Cabinet meeting, where Andanar said the #LeniLeaks issue would be brought up.

The second episode, however, got much lesser viewership. As of afternoon of January 26, it had 98,000 views and over 1,100 shares. The numbers were much lower compared to the over 774,000 views and over 13,000 shares of the first episode.

Evidently, the posts got their first stimulus on January 7 and hit an apex close to the day of the Cabinet meeting itself. When the issue was ignored by the Cabinet because of more compelling issues they had to discuss, the number of posts dropped dramatically, more visibly by January 10.

Despite occasional spurts, interest in #LeniLeaks subsided not long after, more clearly by January 11 onwards. The posts, however, prompted a lot of comments that peaked on January 8, then started tapering by January 11 (see chart below).

In the comments section, some of those who posted were impatient about updates on the issue. Unfortunately, the revelations of Andanars sources were found to be inadequate to merit a probe by the justice department.

Propaganda

In his January 24 Facebook Live interview with Duterte supporter "Maharlika" in Los Angeles, Andanar said the possibility of bloggers being accredited to cover the Palace is "very bright." The unspoken rule is that they should support the Duterte presidency and dish out only "constructive information."

In that interview, Andanar said a certain Carlos Munda, who runs the pro-Duterte MindaVote page, has already been given access by the PCO to its newsfeed. He said it's really a matter of creating a "new system" to include bloggers in the news feed of the Palace.

For Andanar, whether in Malacaang or in his man cave, the distinction between journalists and bloggers, as well as news and propaganda, are all a blur. with Paige Occeola and Pia Ranada/Rappler.com

Read more here:
Inside Martin Andanar's man cave - Rappler

What is to be done when something negative from an employee shows up on Facebook about you or your business?

As the use of social media has grown in the past decade and emerged as a powerful means of communication, employers have struggled to keep up with the use of this communications tool by employees. Some issues, such as the ability of employers to restrict employees use of social media at work and on equipment provided by the employer, or restrictions on posts that divulge confidential information, are straightforward. However, questions about social media restrictions become murkier when employers act to restrict employees off-duty and off-site use of social media, or seek to punish employees for posts that the employer determines are disloyal or reflect adversely on the employer.

For public employers who are bound by the First Amendment, restricting their employees use of social media may violate free speech rights. This is particularly true if the content posted relates to matters of public concern and if the employer does not have an adequate justification for restricting the employees use of social media that outweighs the interest of the employees.

Private employers are not constrained by the First Amendment, but they are also not free to impose carte blanche restrictions on social media use. Federal law protects employees from discipline for engaging in concerted activities that are protected by the National Labor Relations Act, which includes discussing issues related to working conditions, terms of employment, compensation and other complaints or concerns about their employment.

Beginning in 2012, the National Labor Relations Board issued decisions regarding challenged discipline arising out of the use of social media. The NLRB has held employers liable for disciplining employees for using social media to communicate with others about the conditions of their employment or for criticizing their employer regarding management.

For instance, in a 2014 case, the NLRB held that two employees were improperly terminated for criticizing their employer regarding his mishandling of tax issues, even where the social media posts used derogatory language directed at specific supervisors.

It should be noted, however, that not all posts on social media are protected. Posts that do not involve other employees, which do not relate to protected issues such as terms of employment, working conditions or other aspects of employment, or that are malicious or reckless would not likely be protected. In addition, posts criticizing the product or service provided by the employeras opposed to the terms or conditions of employmentwould not likely be protected.

The NLRB has also issued guidance addressing the permissible scope of social media policies adopted by employers. The guidance, consisting of reports issued in 2011 and 2012, stressed that employer policies should not be so sweeping that they prohibit the kinds of activity protected by federal labor law, such as the discussion of wages or working conditions among employees.

In one case, the NLRB found a policy stating employee posts must be completely accurate and not misleading was vague and overly broad, as it imposed a stricter requirement for employee communications about protected activity than imposed by federal law. In another case, the NLRB found a policy provision stating that when in doubt, do not post to be improper, and further determined that directing employees to seek advice with the employer before posting was overly restrictive.

Undoubtedly, the use of social media has and will continue to create challenges for employers attempting to balance the interests of the employer-company with the rights of employees to engage in protected activities. Employers can take a step in the right direction to address these challenges by 1. creating social media policies that clearly describe the types of employment-related posts that protected by law and therefore are not prohibited; and 2. engaging counsel early and often when considering employee discipline related to social media use.

Aaron M. Glasgow is a partner at Isaac Wiles (Columbus, Ohio) who counsels businesses in day-to-day operations, including employment matters. He may be reached at (614) 221-2121 or by email at aglasgow@isaacwiles.com.

Original post:
Guest Blog: What Employers Can and Can't Control When It Comes to Employees' Social Media Accounts - Columbus CEO

Deutsche Welle

5 big corporations control the global grain trade | All media content ... Deutsche Welle 5 big corporations have a great deal of influence over global food systems and over the lives of farmers and consumers throughout the world. and more »

Follow this link:
5 big corporations control the global grain trade | All media content ... - Deutsche Welle

Jaxon Owens, 17, right, editor-in-chief of the Viking Vanguard student newspaper at Puyallup High School, speaks during a Senate hearing at the Capitol on Thursday in Olympia. (Ted S. Warren/The Associated Press)

By Alexis Myers

The Associated Press

OLYMPIA Amid a national push, Washington state lawmakers are reintroducing a bill that would protect student journalists free speech in school-sponsored media at public schools and colleges.

Washington could become one of about a dozen states that have passed similar legislation in response to a 1988 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that gave administrators control over what gets published in school media.

Senate Bill 5064, introduced by Republican Sen. Joe Fain, would designate school media as public forums for expression and make students responsible for determining content so long as it is not slanderous or libelous, unjustly invades privacy, violates federal or state law or encourages students to break school rules or commit crimes.

Its about expanding the culture of freedom of speech and freedom of the press so that more students have an appreciation of that early on, Fain said. Beyond that, we need watchdogs.

Under the measure, student media advisers also could not be terminated, transferred or otherwise disciplined for refusing to censor student journalists.

I want to bring more attention to why it is important to go into journalism, and why its important to do that job really well, Fain said. And the best way you can do that job well is when you are trained to do that job and to shoulder the responsibility of doing it well from the get-go.

Fain, alongside other state lawmakers, listened to public testimony for the bill last Thursday.

Jaxon Owens, a 17-year-old senior at Puyallup High School, testified in support in front of the Early Learning &K-12 Education Committee.

Owens, the editor-in-chief of the Viking Vanguard student newspaper, told The Associated Press his principal reviews almost every issue before it gets published.

He just kind of flips through it to make sure that everything is OK, he said. We do an intense vetting process in everything we do no matter if its print, web or social media.

Owens said if the bill passes, I really doubt we will abuse it. But we will continue to strive and grow as journalists and grow to our full potential as writers and as young, competent men and women.

Jerry Bender of the Association of Washington School Principals opposed the bill, but only for high school students. He said it is a student safety issue.

Bender, who served as a principal for 10 years at Centralia High School, said he believes college students have mastered the craft well enough that they dont need as much supervision, but a high school publication should be reviewed.

If I am going to be there when the plane crashes, Id like to be there when it takes off, he said.

In an interview with AP, Bender mentioned a case where the plane crashed hard.

He said students at Emerald Ridge High School in 2008 were crucified by their peers and school when the newspaper included the names and sexual histories of students in its edition about oral sex.

The affected students sued the Puyallup School District, but a Pierce County jury ruled the First Amendment protected the student newspaper.

The measure being considered by Washington lawmakers specifies that school officials would be protected from civil or criminal liability stemming from content in school-sponsored media.

Mike Hiestand, an attorney for the Student Press Law Center, said if schools are concerned about liability issues with this bill, they should get rid of their football teams and cheerleaders, which generally result in the most lawsuits filed against institutions.

Student-journalist free speech legislation has been expanding throughout the country. In 2007, following Washington states initial bill proposal, Oregon unanimously passed a similar student expression law prohibiting administrative censorship of journalism. Other bills have been filed in Vermont, Missouri and Indiana. Ten states in the U.S. currently have student speech protection laws.

State Sen. Joe Fain, R-Auburn, right, listens to testimony during a Senate hearing at the Capitol on Thursday in Olympia. (Ted S. Warren/The Associated Press)

High school student journalists and other supporters sit in the front row of a Senate hearing at the Capitol on Thursday in Olympia. (Ted S. Warren/The Associated Press)

Jaxon Owens, 17, left, editor-in-chief of the Viking Vanguard student newspaper at Puyallup High School, walks to speak during a Senate hearing at the Capitol on Thursday in Olympia. (Ted S. Warren/The Associated Press)

Mike Hiestand, a staff attorney with the Student Press Law Center, holds a copy of his book, Law of the Student Press, as he speaks during a Senate hearing at the Capitol on Thursday in Olympia. (Ted S. Warren/The Associated Press)

Jerry Bender, of the Association of Washington School Principals, speaks during a Senate hearing at the Capitol on Thursday in Olympia. (Ted S. Warren/The Associated Press)

Follow this link:
Bill would give students control of school-sponsored media - Peninsula Daily News

5440855

News outlets are reporting the Trump administration is preventing federal agencies from using social media or talking with the press.

Media stories have popped up warning of gag orders at the Environmental Protection Agency,Department of Agricultureand Department of Commerce. It sounds alarming, but this sort of thing is far from unprecedented.

Federal officials were ordered not to talk with the media due during the Obama administration increased scrutiny surrounding the implementation of the stimulus package.

The group Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) released an email from a top U.S. Forest Service public affairs staffer stating due to the increased scrutiny surrounding ARRA [the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act] work and partly due to a relatively new administration, we remain under strict instructions for talking with the media.

The gag order came after Congress passed the stimulus package, or ARRA, in 2009 with the hopes of boosting the economy. But right off the bat, reporters began questioning how the $840 billion stimulus package was being spent.

If you receive media calls that fall under the following categories you cannot talk to the reporter, but should instead get their contact info and get in touch with me:, Kate Goodrich-Arling, the public affairs officer at the Monongahela National Forest, wrote in a January 2020 email to staff.

PEER said the administrations message control mentality stood in stark contrast to President Barack Obamas promise to run the most transparent administration in history. In fact, Obama signed a 2009 executive order asserting his ability to supervise, control, and correct employees communications with the Congress.

PEER mentioned another instancewhere the Obama administration had federal officials under a gag order.

Recent action by EPA to censor what its own employees could say in a private YouTube video about weaknesses in cap-and-trade systems for controlling greenhouse gas emissions, PEER wrote.

Follow Michael on Facebook and Twitter

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [emailprotected].

More:
FLASHBACK: Obama Enforced 'Gag Order' After Passing The Stimulus Package - Daily Caller