Mediaboss Marketing

With or without Donald J. Trump atop the party, the Republican strategy for the 2022 elections and beyond virtually assures race and racism will be central to political debate for years to come.

Why it matters: In an era when every topic seems to turn quickly to race, Republicans see this most divisive issue as either political necessity or an election-winner including as it relates to voting laws, critical race theory, big-city crime, immigration and political correctness.

Get market news worthy of your time with Axios Markets. Subscribe for free.

The big picture: These topics pit the mostly white GOP against the very diverse Democratic Party. It's unfolding in local school boards, national politics and on social media.

An Axios-Ipsos poll on race relations last month shows this starkly, Axios managing editor Margaret Talev writes:

There's a massive gulf between how Republicans and Democrats view race a 66-point gap on whether the U.S. must continue making changes to give Black Americans equal rights to white Americans.

There's a 48-point gap on whether the events of the past year led to a realization there's still a lot of racism in the U.S. and a 49-point gap on whether the protests were good for society.

Of all demographic groups, white people were the most resistant to structural reforms to address institutional racism a gap driven by Republican sentiment.

Chris Jackson of Ipsos Public Affairs says the GOP focus on race looks counterproductive at first, since a majority of Americans favor continued efforts to equalize the playing field for Black Americans.

But the pollster said a closer look reveals that the GOP's focus is more strategic around specific ideas that drive culture wars and could potentially move swing voters.

Here's where the GOP sees an opening: In our poll, just one in five white independents supports the "defund the police" movement.

Half of white independents say the media exaggerates stories of police brutality and racism.

Two in five white independents say social policies, including affirmative action, discriminate unfairly against white people.

Those issues prime this slice of the electorate for messaging that paints Democrats as extreme on issues around race.

Between the lines: Republicans have at times played on racial fears for decades. It became more explicit in the Trump era.

More from Axios: Sign up to get the latest market trends with Axios Markets. Subscribe for free

Continue reading here:
Race central to Republican strategy for 2022 and beyond - Yahoo News

(Al Drago/Reuters)

Americans have historically lacked strong national cohesion, Samuel Goldman argues in After Nationalism, so lets aim for comity among diverse communities living together.

After Nationalism: Being American in an Age of Division, by Samuel Goldman (University of Pennsylvania Press, 208 pages, $24.95)

During World War II, three captured Germans escaped a prison camp in Tennessee and fled into the Appalachian Mountains. They found a cabin with water, but the elderly lady who lived there warned them to leave. They ignored her, so she shot and killed all three. As David Hackett Fischer recounts in Albions Seed, an angry sheriff asked her why she killed them. She bawled and said she wouldnt have done so if she had known they were Nazis. She insisted, I thought they was Yankees!

Much as Albions Seed describes diversity and divisions in America that began long before the Civil War and continued long after, Samuel Goldman in his book After Nationalism makes the historical case that Americans normally have not had a single national identity. By the time of the Revolution, for example, divisions among various groups were just as deep as todays, or deeper. Since independence, citizens have bickered over who we are the essential question of nationalism, which focuses on a people with a strong common identity yet every attempt to maintain a cohesive identity has failed. Today in this concise book, Goldman responds to commentators who believe that citizens must return to some overarching identity and purpose. He argues that this task is difficult when the conditions that allowed previous unity no longer exist. Moreover, nationalists do not reasonably explain programs that could reignite a meaningful shared identity. In contrast, he favors the opposite course accepting increased localism with smaller communities for a diverse citizenry.

While demonstrating how a cohesive identity is difficult to establish, Goldman describes three nationalisms that tried but failed to unify Americans: covenantal, crucible, and creedal. First, covenantal nationalism drew upon Calvinist theology and insisted that the American nation descended from the Puritans and the Mayflower, not Jamestown or elsewhere. Most influential in New England and nearby areas, it compared America to biblical Israel and said that the new righteous republic had a providential purpose. Despite their relatively small numbers, proponents of this Anglo-Protestant nationalism wrote profusely and long influenced academia and the WASP establishment. But it asked non-Yankees to abandon too much of their history and culture to be considered truly American, and few beyond New Englands sphere of influence believed this national story. For instance, Southerners rejected its national holiday, Thanksgiving, until the mid 20th century, when it no longer conveyed a Yankee message. By 1815, immigration from non-Anglos and non-Protestants, combined with American expansion westward, ensured that covenantal nationalism could never become the countrys dominant vision. Some on the right today argue that Americans should return to this Anglo-Protestant outlook, but Goldman offers minimum hope for their ambitions.

As Americans settled the Western frontier, crucible nationalism suggested that the endeavor would turn diverse people into a cohesive group. Unlike covenantal nationalism, which looked to an idealized past, crucible nationalism looked hopefully toward Americas future. While it was open to a Christian interpretation, the likes of Ralph Waldo Emerson offered non-Christian variations. But Goldman explains how this nationalism, too, failed. The Civil War exposed Americans deep divisions, and the abandonment of Reconstruction allowed Southern whites to reestablish racist governance. Meanwhile, 12 million immigrants, many of whom retained their culture, joined the roughly 35 million already in the U.S. As diverse ethnic groups concentrated in cities and competed against one another, Americans realized that a melting pot would not turn the multitudes into a single nation.

Goldman then describes creedal nationalism, which Frederick Douglass and Abraham Lincoln embodied, though postbellum America rejected it. In this interpretation, a diverse citizenry united around an American creed that embraced the ideals of the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, and other documents. Though academics discussed the notion previously, Americans did not embrace it until they waged a world war against fascism and a Cold War against communism. Rallying around liberal democracy, Americans fought totalitarianism abroad and pursued racial equality at home, and they viewed various injustices as deviations from the American ideal that reform would eliminate. But maintaining this nationalism required coercion and sustained effort, as Goldman documents, and cracks appeared by the time of the Vietnam War and the resurgence of group identities. Observers may conclude that events of the 1960s and later caused the deterioration of American unity. But the decline appears to have occurred mostly because national cohesion, abnormally high in the 1940s and 1950s, has been reverting to its historical mean.

Despite his sympathy toward nationalists, Goldman offers them little hope. The brief peak of creedal nationalism required significant maintenance during two global ideological conflicts, and Goldman doubts that Americans have the will or ability to establish similar unity again. Given the realities of U.S. history and culture, he concludes that Americans are living after nationalism. In this environment, citizens argue over their shared identity and have contradictory ideas about the nation. They fight ferociously in an intractable culture war over their history, which, according to Goldman, cannot define a homogenized American identity. Many believe that unity would reemerge if only they, or others, better understood America. But the book says that this hope is unrealistic, and that the most likely outcome is the opposite of a coherent nationalism diverse communities living together.

While modern societies may think they can choose national cohesion, in practice most probably cannot in absence of coercion or without undesirable consequences. Events beyond their control often drive the plot. After all, creedal nationalism surged not because academics argued persuasively but because foreign actors forced America into ideological conflicts. So Goldmans recommendation of increased localism is worth considering. He admits that this vision is a gamble that could fail, but the other options have worse prospects.

Those who dislike Goldmans conclusion should nonetheless understand his skepticism and explain programs that might revive nationalism when all other attempts have failed. For instance, he says that the military draft helped to solidify creedal nationalism. Would nationalists consider a draft for the sake of national unity? Or would Americans vote out anyone who tried?

Creedal nationalism is a reasonable vision, and Goldman explains its historical context. But his skepticism about it reaffirms my preference for using patriotism instead of nationalism to describe my loyalty to America, as nation raises tricky questions about group identity. Unless referencing identity or purpose, I dont see convincing reasons to use the word nationalism when patriotism suffices. Goldman likewise calls himself a patriot, a term common in America long before nationalism, which wasnt widespread until after the Civil War. With a distinction between patriotism and nationalism today, patriots could seek their countrys peace and prosperity and care for fellow citizens without worrying much about identity. In contrast, a nationalist push to create a homogenized unity or understanding of America, whether from the left or from the right, could result in persecution, intolerance, or increased disunity. Or nationalist logic could justify dissolving the United States if Americans realize that, as Goldman argues, they cannot share a strong, meaningful identity.

In demonstrating how American national identities have morphed over generations, After Nationalism does offer the hope at least that the country can endure. Divisions have always existed whether culture wars in recent decades, differences among the colonies, or animosity between the North and the South or between the Eastern seaboard and the rural interior. Despite such difficulties, the United States and its democracy have survived, even when we have disagreed on who we were.

The rest is here:
Sympathy for Nationalists, but Little Hope - National Review

In his recent letter, Sen. Kevin Cramer, R-N.D., itemized many concerns I share about American culture today. But what impressed me most about Cramers piece was how eagerly he missed his own point: at the heart of cancel culture is coercion, an anti-American impulse to bend others to our will. And coercion comes in all shapes and sizes, sometimes wrapping itself in bills like the senators own Fair Access to Banking Act, a shortsighted attempt to force banks to invest in oil and gas.

RELATED

We call coercion cancel culture when its a Twitter mob trying to unseat a CEO. We call it authoritarianism when its the government forcing businesses to bake a wedding cake, shut their doors for nine months, ordare I say itlend to industries they don't want to lend to. Praising freedom of speech in one breath, the senator attacks freedom of association in the next, arguing that banks are too caught up in the culture wars to know a good investment when they see one.

Its fair to point out that banks are uniquely positioned in the American economy, relying heavily on the feds promise to catch them if they fall. If you squint your eyes, you can even imagine why someone would think financial institutions should be treated like public utilities. But if the senator falls into this camp, he should use a few asterisks the next time he gushes about the beauty of supply and demand. For all his talk of creditworthiness and lawfulness being the purest standards of lending, I don't imagine he'd object to a bank refusing to lend to a (lawful) adult entertainment company or a (creditworthy) abortion clinic. Banks should be allowed to discriminate as they see fit, whether because of moral objections or because their investment has become a political football. Its our industrys job, not the governments, to tell them why they shouldnt.

But perhaps oil and gas deserves special treatment. Is it because were so critical to America's standard of living? If were criticaland we arethe pendulum will swing back to us. That's how capitalism works. Its the iterative, messy process of businesses falling down and picking themselves back up again until the consumer figures out what it wants. Capitalism will bruise our knees, but we must resist the temptation to use a government-sponsored crutch. Those crutches always come with strings attached.

Americans love our abundant energy, but not the men who provide it, Russell Gold observed in his book "The Boom." Hes right; our industry is not well-liked. Can we force the public to like us? No, but we can work harder to tell our story and communicate our value to the American public. Thats how freedom works.

Alma Cook is an R&B singer and the owner of Cook Compliance Solutions in Williston, N.D.

This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of The Forum's editorial board nor Forum ownership.

Read more here:
Letter: Sen. Cramer's finance bill is its own form of cancel culture - INFORUM

All season long, the Toronto Maple Leafs young stars Auston Matthews (23-years-old) and Mitch Marner (24-years-old) led their team in scoring. They also placed well across the entire NHL. Matthews was the Rocket Richard Trophy winner with 41 goals scored and tied for fifth in NHL scoring. Marner was fourth in NHL scoring. Recently, Matthews was nominated for the Ted Lindsay Award as the NHLs best player.

In headline should read something like Matthews and Marner Have Magnificant Seasons. And that would have been the narrative had the team put together any kind of playoff success. But, the Maple Leafs as a team went down yet again, falling out of Stanley Cup contention by being dumped during the first round by the Montreal Canadiens.

It also didnt help that neither Matthews nor Marner were able to keep up their regular-season prowess. Both first-line partners scored a little basically one or two games, but they couldnt sustain the pace they had built during the regular season.

Related: Maple Leafs News: Grading Playoff Production, Whose Play Didnt Cut It?

The way their first line is built, Matthews and Marner are a partnership. They feed off each other. They have great chemistry. When one doesnt score its also likely the others offense also dries up. In contrast, when one line-mate flourishes the other usually does as well.

This time it worked the other way. Marner kept feeding Matthews pucks, and Carey Price kept shutting the door. The fact that Marner doesnt have the best shot didnt help. By the end of Game 7, Marner hadnt scored in 18th consecutive playoff games.

On June 2, Matthews was interviewed about a number of topics including his own and Marners lack of playoff production. I cant imagine that these are kind of interviews that any NHL player engages happily. Youve just failed to win; in fact, you blew a 3-1 game series lead. What youve worked for all season is now toast. You feel bad anyway, now you have to in and get to speak about it on a video that everyone can see.

The context of those interviews hurts if youre a player. You just got dumped; and, now you have to suffer public scolding from people who personally feel that youve let them down. Cant be fun for these players. I know Id dread that and it makes me glad I was a professor.

During that interview, Matthews answered appropriately and said appropriate things. He never once fell into returning fire. He kept his calm well, mostly. During the short video clip of the interview, you can see his responses.

Matthews was asked to comment about the redundant suggestions some people are making that the big four on offence may need to be split up. Then the media questioner named Matthews first-line partner Marner in two potential ways. First, might Marner be involved in a possible trade? Second, should he be moved away from Matthews so that the teams top six might achieve a better balance based on what happened again this year?

Related: Darryl Sittler Toronto Maple Leafs Legend

Matthews answer was revealing.

First, he quickly dismissed the validity of the entire idea by suggesting, I dont make much of that to be honest.

Second, he used the opportunity to stick up for his first-line partner by saying Mitch is an unbelievable player and an unbelievable teammate.

Third, he clearly demarcated who the questioner was and who he was talking with. In doing so, Matthews constructed the narrative of an in and an out. That is, he positioned the questioner (and others) as outside. And, he positioned Matthews, Marner, his teammates, and the organization as inside.

Matthews did it all thoughtfully, carefully, graciously, and without any sense of obvious irritability. But to me, his answer was immediately revealing. In it, Matthews shared a great deal of information about how the team was proceeding to delineate where they (re)sided in response to whats by reputation known to be a difficult and critical fanbase and media.

Matthews said, Thats just you know something I dont think anybody really thinks about here or focuses on. (my highlight of here)

Related: Maple Leafs Should Look to Address Killer Instinct in Free Agency

Matthews then added, I know in this room you know everybody loves Mitch and everybody loves everybody in this room. He went on to add that We really have a tight bond. (again, my highlight of in this room)

Then, Matthews put the writer in his place and I dont mean in any way rudely, but also matter-of-factly. Matthews added, So, I think all the stuff on the outside noise coming from the outside its you guys. (again, my highlights of noise, which is defined as sound that makes no recognizable sense, and outside and you guys.)

Finally, and perhaps the most telling was Matthews last response to the questioner Have fun with that. Could it be that Matthews and his teammates believe that outsiders are actually having fun as a result of his teams disappointment? He clearly said that these are men he loves. Thats tough stuff!

To me, this short video at least suggests theres a present and perhaps growing narrative among the Maple Leafs players that they are not supported by the fans or the media. In fact, are they alone?

Might there also a narrative being constructed that this 2020-21 disappointment has become a situation where the players feel that those on the outside might actually be enjoying as Matthews said having fun with the players disappointment and lack of success? Are outsiders abusing the people they love (love is Matthews word, not mine)?

To me, a discourse analysis of this one short video suggests that Matthews the Maple Leafs brightest young star is feeling theres an inside/outside split between the team (inside) and the media and the fans (outside). If thats true, where do the players, the team, the media, and the fans go from here?

Related:Maple Leafs Jack Campbell Is a Teammate You Want on the Roster

Furthermore, thinking well down the road, if this narrative takes hold and grows a life of its own, how might these little encounters and the narrative created by them impact the players desire to remain in Toronto?

But this is temporary right? Theyll get over it right? Well, if youve ever had relationships with other people, as Matthews says Have fun with that.

The Old Prof (Jim Parsons, Sr.) taught for more than 40 years in the Faculty of Education at the University of Alberta. Hes a Canadian boy, who has two degrees from the University of Kentucky and a doctorate from the University of Texas. He is now retired on Vancouver Island, where he lives with his family. His hobbies include playing with his hockey cards and simply being a sports fan hockey, the Toronto Raptors, and CFL football (thinks Ricky Ray personifies how a professional athlete should act).

If you wonder why he doesnt use his real name, its because his son whos also Jim Parsons wrote for The Hockey Writers first and asked Jim Sr. to use another name so readers wouldnt confuse their work.

Because Jim Sr. had worked in China, he adopted the Mandarin word for teacher (). The first character lo () means old, and the second character sh () means teacher. The literal translation of losh is old teacher. That became his pen name. Today, other than writing for The Hockey Writers, he teaches graduate students research design at several Canadian universities.

He looks forward to sharing his insights about the Toronto Maple Leafs and about how sports engages life more fully. His Twitter address is https://twitter.com/TheOldProf

Read the original:
Maple Leafs and the Media: Trying to Control the Narrative - The Hockey Writers

Not a great week for journalism at the ABC, News Corps Sharri Markson tweeted on Monday, when the week was barely a day old.

It is hard to remember the last time a News Corp columnist declared it was a great week for journalism at the ABC. Marksons tweet linked to a story in The Australian that quoted former Attorney-General Christian Porter saying his dropping of his defamation claim against the ABC was a humiliating backdown by the ABC.

Apart from reporting the settlement, the main basis for the article was that the ABC had warned its staff not to claim victory following Porters withdrawal, and to be careful in the way they talked about it.

At such a legally sensitive moment, one might have thought the ABC warning to staff was mere prudence, but it also points to more recurring issues about how media organisations view their journalists statements on social media. These issues are likely to become more common, not less.

Read more: View from The Hill: Porter decides it's time to 'fold em' in ABC defamation case

Last weekend, the Sydney Morning Herald published a story quoting Liberal Senator and former ABC journalist Sarah Henderson saying the national broadcasters social media policy was woefully inadequate.

There are genuine dilemmas here. Journalists as professionals and employees are subject to certain disciplines. What they tweet can and will affect the way others perceive their work.

Conversely, as citizens, they also have the right to free expression.

In April, The Australians economics editor, Adam Creighton, sent this tweet:

Does such a cri de coeur affect how readers regard his judgement and capacity to report? Or should he have the right to say how he feels?

The ABC is the Australian media organisation that has most earnestly sought to resolve these dilemmas. It has four eminently sensible guidelines:

do not mix the professional and the personal in ways likely to bring the ABC into disrepute

do not undermine your effectiveness at work

do not imply ABC endorsement of your personal views

do not disclose confidential information obtained through work.

Henderson pointed to two breaches of these guidelines. One was from an ABC lawyer who called the Coalition government fascist and Prime Minister Scott Morrison an awful human being on Twitter, and then resigned. Henderson said he should not have been allowed to resign, but should have been fired.

Her other example involved what she called Laura Tingles trolling of a prime minister last year. This is an inaccurate use of the word trolling, but increasingly politicians (and journalists) seem to equate any criticism of themselves on social media as trolling.

Tingles single offending tweet concluded we grieve the loss of so many of our fine colleagues to government ideological bastardry. Hope you are feeling smug Scott Morrison. The tweet was posted late at night after a farewell function for her friend and colleague Philippa McDonald, and it was deleted the next morning.

Read more: Latest $84 million cuts rip the heart out of the ABC, and our democracy

It is asking a lot of ABC journalists to feel detached and impartial about government cutbacks to their own organisation that adversely affect the careers of their colleagues. Nevertheless, the ABC has a large investment in Tingles public credibility, and the tweet was immediately addressed internally.

ABC Managing Director David Anderson injected an unusual note of common sense when he was asked whether Tingle was reprimanded during a Senate estimates hearing. He called Tingles tweet an error of judgement and said theres a proportionality that needs to be applied.

The larger danger is that journalists, especially those at the ABC, will get caught up in public controversies surrounding their own work. While at one level they clearly should have the right to defend themselves, the problem is the temptation to succumb to the cheap point-scoring in which critics often engage, to be dragged down from the professional standards of the original program.

Though recent public controversies have focused on apparent breaches on social media not being sufficiently punished, there are also dangers and potential injustices in an unduly restrictive approach.

The most obvious victim of a journalist being punished for social media activity was SBS football commentator Scott McIntyre, who posted a series of tweets on ANZAC Day in 2015 about the cultification of an imperialist invasion.

Read more: Conspiracy theories on the right, cancel culture on the left: how political legitimacy came under threat in 2020

Then-Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull thought they were despicable remarks which deserve to be condemned, and contacted the head of SBS, Michael Ebeid. Ebeid fired McIntyre the same day.

Human Rights Commissioner Tim Wilson was then quoted as saying McIntyres freedom of speech was not being curtailed, and that his historical claims will be judged very harshly.

Whatever the merits of his ANZAC tweets, they had no relationship to his role as a football commentator. Is his reporting on soccer compromised by his views on the ANZAC tradition?

This episode illustrates that political correctness and cancel culture are found across the political spectrum and media organisations will continue to grapple with these issues as the social media profiles of their journalists continue to grow.

Follow this link:
Journalists are not going to stop tweeting. But should media outlets exert more control over their posts? - The Conversation AU