Mediaboss Marketing

(Natasha Pszenicki)

Reach the tender age of 16 and a brown envelope arrives on the doorstep of your home assigning a National Insurance number our first encounter with taxes. Part of me itches to send it back to HMRC in the manner of the apocryphal recipient who wrote a note declaring: This is an interesting scheme, but I have no wish to join it.

The row currently roiling the Conservative Party on plans to fund long-overdue social care reform from a rise in National Insurance rests on the mysterious nature of NI and its position in the tax, welfare and pensions system. Its precise function is elusive, even to the majority of us who pay it and that is not incidental in the new controversy engulfing the Government, as it announced a hike in NI by about 1.25 per cent raising extra cash to fill a terrible gap in social-care provision for the elderly and adult social care.

This is intended to raise (potentially) a hefty 12 billion with a message that this will be ring-fenced for health and social care and pump 5.4 billion into an emergency NHS recovery fund to address waiting lists in cancer care and other postponed treatments in the Covid era. To address the obvious point that this is tough on younger earners who will pay a lot more NI over their lifetimes than their parents the Tories will need to take ownership of health and social territory which is historically Labours and where many advocates and staff are not natural allies.

It is a mighty gamble and it might just work. But it is also an obvious sleight of fiscal hand. NI is intended to build up an entitlement to claim benefits, state retirement pension and to support us when we are not able to work. It is all a bit mystical-maths though. National Insurance cannot even keep up with future demands of pensions and welfare, let alone fund anything else. The Commons Librarys last report says as much in conceding that the NI Fund is notionally used to finance contributory benefits, but in years when the Fund was not sufficient to finance benefits, it was topped up from general taxation revenues.

Story continues

Notionally is the word to watch. It means that any talk of hypothecating elderly care insurance is largely a political marketing trick to make the tax rise more palatable. It all relies on the same tax and revenues pot as everything else in public expenditure because NI does not raise enough to fund what it promises. In a job market in London where wages are higher than the UK average but living costs are a lot more demanding, it is also an extra burden on young workers scraping to get on the housing ladder.

In a Cabinet meeting today, the PM will remind doubting colleagues that NI was raided by Tony Blair deployed in the early 2000s to boost health spending without breaking tax pledges. And he will say that NI is that it is paid both by employers and employees which can be spun as a fair division of fiscal labour. Changes are coming to the triple-lockof pensioner benefits too. So the pain will be shared around.

Later he will hold a press conference with the holy trinity of Health Secretary Sajid Javid and Chancellor Rishi Sunak, who bore the brunt of concern about backlash last night at a reception for MPs, during which he was, as one put it, put in a headlock from the Right on those who think this will kill jobs and from the Left of the party worried about the generational inequality.

This three-line whip underlines the importance of todays announcement and also Johnsons determination to co-opt his Cabinet. It also signals a laudable determination to confront an issue which has been dodged and ducked by governments for a very long time. In a better political scenario, he wouldnt have made himself hostage to fortune with a pledge against tax rises. But the pandemic, he will claim, means resetting the clock on promises and a noisy upcoming debate with Labour will smoke out Keir Starmers equivocations.

On this calculation, the public, while grousing and reaching for the calculator and an aspirin, will grudgingly respect the Johnson-Sunak-Javid trio for taking the needs of the NHS and social-care system seriously.

It is a decisive moment for a flighty PM his first attempt at making a serious argument to voters about tax and spending, with winners and losers. A long way indeed for sloppy slogans on health spending on the side of a bus. Reality bites.

Anne McElvoy is senior editor at The Economist

What do you think about the National Insurance hike? Let us know in the comments below.

Read More

Social care reform: Boris Johnson in 36bn tax hike gamble

Boris Johnson wins Cabinet backing for social care reform plans

Johnson chairs Cabinet ahead of controversial social care funding shake-up

See the rest here:
Anne McElvoy: Were told NI will fund social care but this is a political marketing trick - Yahoo News UK

Two 2021 graphic novels, Red Lines by Cherian George and Sonny Liew (MIT Press) and Orwell by Pierre ... [+] Christin and Sebastien Verdier (Self Made Hero) both address issues of censorship and free speech.

Fake news, gag rules, NDAs. cancel culture, government crackdowns, algorithmic deceptions: Its as though we live in a world that took George Orwells 1948 classic 1984 as an instruction manual for controlling thought and expression. But because people on all sides feel that they, and only they, are the victims of this chill, its difficult to find a contemporary analysis of censorship and free speech that does not resort to partisanship and finger-pointing. Now two works of graphic nonfiction released in the last month take on this challenge from two different directions, each with great success.

Red Lines: Political Cartoons and the Struggle against Censorship by Cherian George and Sonny Liew, ... [+] published August, 2021 by MIT Press.

Red Lines: Political Cartoons and the Struggle Against Censorship by two Singaporeans, Cherian George and Sonny Liew (MIT Press, August, 2021), takes the direct approach. This is a scholarly and systematic look at efforts to suppress political speech in the form of cartoons, drawings and comic strips historically and globally.

As the book lays out in great detail, cartoons have a unique power to get under the skins of authorities, hypocrites and stuffed shirts in all times and all cultures. Because cartoons are so informal and approachable, efforts to censor them appear especially humorless and heavy-handed, which can redound to the benefit of satirists and provoke a public outcry against the oppressors.

Consequently, the efforts to stifle this kind of speech have grown both sophisticated (through invisible means of influence applied to publishers, distributors and consumers of the content) and coarse (violence, repression, and mass murder in the case of the French satirical publication Charlie Hebdo). Red Lines offers vivid examples from around the world indicating the many ways governments, religious authorities, economic interests and others conspire to stifle dissent and silence cartoonists.

The authors, accustomed to the chilly attitude of their home country of Singapore toward speech that violates the consensus promulgated by the government, view censorship as anything that impedes the free expression of the artists ideas, not just official action. They present examples of subtle intimidation by authorities, commercial censorship (cartoons whisked out of sight by media companies), censorship by technology (either through bloodless algorithms or opaque and unappealable platform policies), the well-meaning censorship of online mobs out to suppress problematic expression, and outright violence and intimidation, among others.

Red Lines s not exactly a graphic novel, although there are sections that are done in comics style. It is more of an extensively illustrated textbook, full of word balloons and narrative blocks, charts, clip art, Fumetti-style photo-collages and other graphic elements along with sequential art. Both authors seem comfortable working in this visual format; the two previously collaborated on the award-winning, best selling graphic novel The Art of Charlie Chan Hock Chye and Liew has worked at the highest levels of the American comics business.

All of visual design helps, at least partially, to decompress what is a very dense and academic work (it clocks in at 448 pages). It also carries the point across in ways that plain text could not. Red Lines might not be beach reading, but it surely belongs on the syllabus of any media studies class as it sets the standard for discussion of this topic.

Orwell, a graphic novel biography of the famed novelist, by Chrstin and Verdier, published by Self ... [+] Made Hero, July 2021

Orwell, a graphic biography of the famed British author by writer Pierre Christin and artist Sbastian Verdier (English edition from Self Made Hero, July, 2021, following a 2019 French release from Dargaud) arrives at largely the same place but takes a completely different path. Orwell famously predicted a world where censorship was so ingrained in the fabric of government and society that any form of critical thinking was viewed as a crime by the totalitarian regime. It is thanks to him that we have the colorful vocabulary for describing modern censorship and the manipulation of perception: Big Brother, thoughtcrime, Newspeak, Room 101, two-minutes hate, and many others.

If history has flattened Orwell into this collection of his greatest hits, Orwell seeks to reclaim the legacy of the man through a gripping narrative of his life story. Christin and Verdier explore how Orwell, born Eric Blair, synthesized a range of influences and experiences from his upbringing in the twilight years of the British empire, into the clear-eyed perspective on the dangers of totalitarianism that he exhibited in his masterworks Animal Farm and 1984.

Orwells unusual variety of life experiences, from being the clever poor boy in his elite British prep school to a low-level colonial authority in Burma to a destitute vagabond throughout the 20s, helped shape a worldview that was able to step outside the frames of class and ideology typical of the era. The final step in his education was his traumatic tenure as a foreign fighter in the Spanish Civil War in the mid-1930s, where he took up arms to defend the left wing Spanish state from a fascist rebellion led by Francisco Franco. Orwell himself survived the experience but his idealism perished on the battlefield; from then on, he recognized that ideologies that elevated abstract theory over ordinary human experience could only lead to oppression, no matter how lofty their stated goals.

For someone as disdainful of comics as Orwell apparently was (he wrote critically about Superman and the superhero genre in the 1930s), he is extremely well-served by the medium in this book. Verdiers black and white artwork is gorgeously detailed where it needs to be, while telling the story without much fuss and frill. It is especially good at evoking the atmosphere of pre-war Britain and the various physical environments.

Orwell avoids emphasizing its subjects most famous work; 1984 literally does not appear until the next-to-last page, with an extended quote to give the flavor of the book. However the final section, After Orwell, provides broader context and some incidental overlap with Red Lines in its description of how factions have appropriated some of his passion and critique in service of illiberal agendas stemming from various points on the political compass.

For Orwell, dystopia was a world in which words and meaning have parted company, whether through the explicit work of censors or through the insidious processes of self-censorship, euphemism and intimidation. As Orwell and Red Lines make clear, the courage to stand up to those forces is as necessary today as it was in 1948.

Read more from the original source:
Two New Works Tackle Censorship And The Power Of Speech - Forbes

"Woke Inc." author Vivek Ramaswamy called out Big Tech censorship on behalf of the federal government during an interview on "America's Newsroom" Tuesday, saying "George Orwell is rolling in his grave" over the coordination between the two. Ramaswamy continued by explaining the hybrid relationship is a real threat to individual liberty, just days after a Gold Star mom was temporarily kicked off of Instagram after blaming the Biden administration for her son's death in Afghanistan.

RIGHT TO PRIVACY IS INTACT, BUT AMERICANS MUST FIGHT FOR IT: LARA LOGAN

VIVEK RAMASWAMY: George Orwell is rolling in his grave. We live in a country where you're supposed to be able to criticize the people in power. That is what freedom means, and yet here is a woman whose son died on a humanitarian mission in Kabul and blames the President of the United States and is silenced by Instagram for doing it. Here is what George Orwell didn't imagine- he thought it would be government directly doing the censorship, and what neither our Founding Fathers nor George Orwell ever imagined was that they would be delegating their dirty work to private companies to do through the back door what the government cannot directly do.

It's mutual back-scratching. That's crony capitalism 2.0 where this is a new hybrid of big government and big business that I think is the real threat to individual liberty today. Back in 1980 it might have been big government alone. Today it's not just big government- it's this new hybrid of big government and big business that's far more powerful because each can do what the other cannot.

WATCH THE FULL INTERVIEW HERE:

More here:
'Woke Inc.' author: George Orwell never imagined this kind of censorship - Fox News

By Jim Slusher

When we think about freedom of speech, it sometimes becomes important to discuss the difference between editing and censorship.

The debate has special relevance for people who bristle at the actions of social media companies like Twitter and Facebook that set standards of conduct for people wanting access to their platforms and that may restrict or block access to users the companies believe violate them. We deal with such issues at times even at our own level as we try to moderate civil and responsible discussions in the comments sections of our stories online.

But the distinction can reach -- and frankly does to some degree almost daily -- to the level of letters to the editor the newspaper publishes. It was, indeed, the centerpiece of a rather unpleasant conversation I had recently with a letter writer who complained that we were "censoring" him by refusing to publish without any changes a letter he submitted. We questioned some matters of fact as he described them, and we were concerned about accusations and condemnations of specific individuals we could not easily confirm. Although he acknowledged that "it's your newspaper and you can print or not print anything you want," he repeatedly condemned us (me, to be specific) for our "censorship" of his views.

I contended, and contend here, that we were not "censoring" him. We were insisting that he edit his writing to conform to certain minimum levels of civility and precision. We were willing to publish the letter if edited reasonably, but not in its present form. This may seem much like arm wrestling over semantics, but it's an important distinction. Certainly, the writer could find another outlet for expressing his ideas if he did not like the editing we required. We just felt it would not be responsible for us to present the letter in our publication. Is that censorship or editing? Perhaps it depends on your frame of reference.

And here I must add that regular readers of our letters to the editor will note that our standards of civility and precision are decidedly lenient. We want to allow a generally free and open conversation about issues that energize people in our communities, so we are very generous in what we permit. We do, however, insist on some levels of decorum and verifiability.

I have hanging in my office a framed poster of an Ernest Hemingway quote I find fundamental to good writing of any kind. "Write drunk," it declares in large type enclosed in a prominent dark circle. Then, added pointedly below, it says simply "edit sober."

It is probably useful -- not to mention cathartic -- for us to let our ideas flow with intemperate fervor on topics about which we care passionately. But once we have poured all that sputum and bile onto the page, it behooves us all to return to our thoughts with a little sober reflection to spruce up or clear away the messy parts.

When it comes to writing, which is a very intimate activity, we may not always be able to recognize objectionable elements in our own work. This I know from personal experience. But we should not assume that those who come after us to do the cleaning are out to censor or repress our ideas. Often, they just want to edit them to make them clearer and, well, more palatable for others to read.

jslusher@dailyherald.com

Link:
On editing, censorship and sobriety in writing - Chicago Daily Herald

Independent cross-border journalism isnt a crime, it builds on core democratic rights for freedom of the media, says Thomas Nilsen.

Theeditor in February 2019 saw his independent online newspaperbeing blocked in Russia following a crack-down by Roskomnadzor, the Russian media regulating authority. It was a major blow to the small northernmedia that since its launch in 2002 haspublished in both English and Russian.

The blocking followed the publishing of an article about Dan Eriksson an indigenous Smi man who managed to accept his homosexual orientation and overcome psychological crisis. Roskomnazor argues that the story propagates suicide.

The repressive decision was in July 2019 appealed in court. After a loss, a new appeal was filed and subsequently rejected by the Moscow City Court in January 2020. In June 2021, the case was ultimately rejected by the Russian Supreme Court.

The case Barents Observer vs Roskomnadzor has been supported by Memorial, the Anti-Discrimination Center based in the Netherlands. It is lawyer Maksim Olenichev that isfollowingup the case.

The Barents Observer vs Roskomnadzor is now taken to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).

After all opportunities to achieve justice in Russia were exhausted, in August 2021, the complaint to the European Court of Human Rights was filed, ADC Memorial says in a statement.

The case is applied on the violation of Article 10 of the European Convention (freedom of the media, expression, dissemination of information) and Article 13 in conjunction with Article 10 (the right to an effective remedy).

According to ADC Memorial, the accusationsabout propaganda of suicide in the disputed article about Dan Eriksson are completely absurd.

Dan Eriksson is an activist of the organization Suicide zero, he helps other people to overcome suicidal tendencies of suicide and find the will to live.

The case against the Barents Observer directly relates to the current press freedom situation in Russia, the Center argues.

The case of the Barents Observer shows many aspects of the problem of discrimination including violations of the rights of indigenous peoples, persecution of LGBTI+, restriction of the right to freedom of speech. The opportunity to freely publish serious materials on socially sensitive issues is especially important today, when censorship de facto is applied in the Russian media sphere, and many independent journalists are expelled from their profession due to the repressive legislation on foreign agents. At the same time, the state bodiesdo not respondproperly to the open expression of xenophobia and racism in the media space and provoke hate crimes in real life, the ADC Memorial writes.

The Barents Observer is a journalist-owned newspaper that comprehensively covers development in Russian society, politics and economy. It is based in the Norwegian border town of Kirkenes, close to the Russian Kola Peninsula.

Russian readers constitute a key target audience, explainsEditor Thomas Nilsen.

Russia has been a major part of our news reporting for the last two decades. We have thousands of readers in the northern regions, as well as in Moscow and St. Petersburg. Free access to a news-online shouldnt be blocked by repressive authorities, he underlines.

The small media organization does not intend to give in to pressure from Russian regulators.

Reporting from the north, in English and Russian language, includes news articles critical to authorities. Stamping out critical voices like NGOs, opposition politicians or activists isnt an alternative for us in the Barents Observer. Instead we fight Russian authorities censorship in court, Nilsen says.

Those who seek to undermine the free press must never prevail.

Original post:
Barents Observer takes case against Russian censorship to European Court of Human Rights - The Independent Barents Observer