Mediaboss Marketing

It shouldnt feel so hard to write about voting rights in a way that will not offend partisan sensibilities. It didnt used to be this way. In 2006, Congress reauthorized the 1965 Voting Rights Act with a unanimous vote in the Senate, 98-0. It was promptly signed into law by President George W. Bush, who did so in honor of Fanny Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks and Coretta Scott King, with Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton in attendance.

Sadly, much has changed in the last 15 years, and such bipartisan cooperation seems like another era.

While the task is difficult, I cannot let my desire to avoid accusations of partisanship overcome the need to speak truth and advocate for justice as I see it.

One person, one vote is the ideal that forms the bedrock of our democracy. It aligns with the fundamental Christian belief that all people are created in Gods image and are therefore equal. It is one of the reasons I am a Baptist.

One person, one vote is the ideal that forms the bedrock of our democracy.

Our congregational polity means each church member is empowered to vote on important matters of church life and governance. In our country, each citizen should be empowered to have their voice contribute equally to determine who represents us and how our government operates. A government by, for and of the people.

Of course, whether or not each voice is valued and given equal weight never has been a settled question. The vote has been the subject of conflict and debate throughout U.S. history. Originally, it was reserved for landowning white men, and Black slaves counted as only 3/5 of a person when considering Congressional representation. While the 15th Amendment gave Black males the right to vote, that right was rarely protected. Eventually, and after a sustained movement, women were given the vote in 1920. Less than 60 years ago, the Voting Rights Act finally put the weight of the federal government behind the promise of Black suffrage. Although in application, that fight continues.

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 set up a process of federal approval for changes to voting laws in states with a history of discrimination. Those pre-clearance provisions were undone by the Shelby v. Holder Supreme Court ruling in 2013. Proposed changes to voting laws have picked up pace since then.

According to experts at the Brennan Center for Justice, as of March 24, 361 bills with restrictive voting provisions have been filed in 47 state legislatures this session. Fortunately, 843 bills have been filed to make voting access more expansive.

These dueling proposals demonstrate the partisan nature of this fight. Whether it is non-citizens, dead voters or Russian hackers, both parties should be committed to free, fair and secure elections. Faith in democracy is heightened when people believe their voice is counted and valued.

Both parties should be committed to free, fair and secure elections.

We should make it as easy as possible for every eligible voter to register and vote. Free and fair elections should mean each person is able to exercise their right to vote with few barriers and in a manner that ensures security. Any bill that restricts access and makes it more difficult for some to participate should provide rock-solid evidence of a problem and explain how the bill addresses it. Unsubstantiated accusations and hypotheticals are not enough, especially in light of our history.

Despite our partisan reality, recent polling shows broad agreement among the public on several measures that would make voting easier. Seventy-eight percent of Americans think early in-person voting should be available for at least two weeks before an election; 68% believe Election Day should be a national holiday; and 61% believe everyone eligible should be automatically registered to vote.

In many states, the law is moving in the opposite direction. Georgia and Texas are two states garnering substantial attention.

The law recently passed in Georgia was not as extreme as some of the proposed provisions, but it is problematic. Under the new law, there will be less time to request absentee ballots, fewer drop boxes with less accessible hours, local officials can no longer mail absentee ballot applications to all voters, and voters have half as long to request absentee ballots. The law also bans mobile voting sites, (polling places on wheels.) Such sites have been used only by Fulton County, which has the largest Black population in the state.

The most notorious change is the criminalization of passing out food and water to those waiting in line to vote. Why would anyone want to make it harder to stand in line to vote unless there was substantial evidence that handing out free pizza and water bottles was buying votes?

A better question might be, why are people having to stand in line so long that they need sustenance?

A better question might be, why are people having to stand in line so long that they need sustenance? The provision is more nefarious when the same law contains a mechanism for the state to take over elections from local officials. Will lines intentionally be made longer in particular counties or precincts, which will deter or suppress certain voters?

In Texas, 49 bills have been filed to restrict voting access or make voting more difficult. The two making their way through the legislature right now are SB7 and HB6. These bills would restrict the freedom of local communities to expand early voting and would make voter intimidation much more likely and difficult to stop. They also make it more difficult for those with disabilities to receive help voting.

During the presidential election of 2020, Harris County, which includes the incredibly diverse city of Houston, utilized 24-hour early voting locations and drive-through voting, which helped increase turnout by 10%. Voters of color made up more than half those who took advantage of these polling places. Although there has been no credible evidence of increased fraud, both these options would be outlawed by SB7. One can reasonably wonder if high turnout and minority participation are the problems these bills seek to solve.

Proponents justify these provisions and others by a stated need to prevent voter fraud. At best, such provisions could limit hypothetical voter fraud schemes. They are not responses to proven instances of voter fraud and will certainly make it more difficult for some to vote.

Independent analysis shows voter fraud in Texas this century is extremely rare: only 174 people have been prosecuted out of 94 million votes cast since 2005. The Brennan Center has a comprehensive list of studies that show similar results, including studies from Arizona State University, which show 10 cases of voter impersonation fraud nationwide from 2000 to 2012. According to a Houston Chronicle investigation conducted just two weeks ago, there are 43 people with pending voter fraud charges with the Texas attorney generals office. Only one of those is from the 2020 election in which more than 11 million votes were cast.

While voter fraud itself is almost nonexistent, the term is frequently used in political debate.

While voter fraud itself is almost nonexistent, and thus does not affect election outcomes, the term is frequently used in political debate. A recent Houston Chronicle editorial outlined an extensive history of racially motivated voting restrictions. In each case all-white primaries, poll taxes, re-registration and voter purges the stated justification of these clearly discriminatory laws was the same, to prevent voter fraud.

Voter fraud is exceedingly rare, and rather than impacting the outcome of our elections, it most often is used as the pretext for racially discriminatory and restrictive voting laws. We are therefore facing a conflict between fictitious, hypothetical fraud, and an undeniable history of racial discrimination.

No doubt the increase in bills that limit voting access or institute new restrictions are based in part on the widespread and entirely unsubstantiated allegations of massive voter fraud following the last presidential election. Rather than rebut conspiracies, Ill only point out that those who so fervently claimed fraud and promoted the allegations are now in court defending themselves from civil defamation lawsuits. Their most common defense no reasonable person would believe such claims. It was nothing more than political hyperbole.

Unfortunately, their made-up lies have real-world consequences. These claims, debunked in more than 60 courts, have become the basis of public policy.

The authors of such bills claim they are necessary because public faith in our elections has been shaken. But the same politicians who sowed seeds of doubt cannot now use that doubt as an excuse for new voting restrictions. People believe lies about the election because they keep telling them. Public policy should not be based on lies.

It is not surprising that politicians and parties want to protect their power, but we also should expect them to uphold democratic ideals when attempting to do so.

The corporate reaction to the new law in Georgia and proposed bills in Texas has been swift. I commend the computer CEOs and airline executives who have spoken up for democracy and in defense of historically marginalized voters.

Do we now expect more moral leadership from corporations than church leaders just so we dont offend the diehard partisans in our pews?

Shouldnt pastors and other people of faith do the same? Do we now expect more moral leadership from corporations than church leaders just so we dont offend the diehard partisans in our pews? I know it is not easy. Ive been quiet for too long and done too little myself. Im grateful for the pastors and people of faith who have spoken out, and I encourage you to join them.

Christians concerned about the common good, those trying to follow Jesus in his mission to free the oppressed, those who want to do justice, must be willing to engage. When it comes to voting, we should give particular deference to and speak up alongside those who find it harder to vote neighbors who work overnight shifts or multiple jobs to support their families, those with disabilities, and those without reliable transportation or child care.

We should hold those promoting changes to voting laws to a high standard. Suspicion from minority communities is well-earned, based in historical fact and justified.

Police violence against Black Americans has caused an awakening among many white Christians to the reality of systemic racial injustice. Those looking to engage in racial justice and reconciliation work should take this opportunity to fight voter suppression alongside our Black and Latino brothers and sisters. Our commitment to justice must be stronger than our desire to avoid partisan fights.

Stephen Reeves serves as executive director of Fellowship Southwest. This column appears concurrently on BNG and on the Fellowship Southwest website.

Related articles:

Voting rights and the people who died for them: Jonathan Daniels et al. | Opinion by Bill Leonard

A vote is a kind of prayer, Warnock says in first Senate speech

What I learned about voter suppression while sitting in the Quiet Chair as a child | Opinion by Paula Mangum Sheridan

More:
Voting rights and the ninth commandment Baptist News Global - Baptist News Global

smartphone letter to the editor mail stock image

These are treacherous times. Our principal institutions have been overtaken by the Left. We are fast approaching French Revolutionary levels. However dysfunctional and disturbed they may be, the Left rules us, and they grow more authoritarian and imperious as we speak.

The latest example of their audacity and command of our dominant institutions is the response to Georgias modest election law (SB202 or The Election Integrity Act). It included ID requirements for mail-in ballots, banned the practice of giving food or water to voters in line at polling stations, limited the number of drop boxes, and shortened early voting, none of which was racial or restrictive in the least. But the carefully orchestrated mass rollout of hair on fire outrage was classic Leftist agitprop, perfected through the decades. So absurd were the accusations that, absent an utterly compliant press, a political movement or party could never get away with it.

Shortly after Gov. Brian Kemp signed the bill into law, President Joe Biden on ESPN referred to it as Jim Crow on steroids and supported Major League Baseball moving the All-Star game out of Atlanta where it was scheduled this year. MLB, indeed, rolled over instantly, moving the event to Denver. Not insignificantly, this years summer classic also planned to honor the memory of Hank Aaron, one of baseballs greatest players, who passed away recently and played with the Atlanta Braves. That Hank Aaron was a black man and that Atlanta is a black majority city that would be negatively impacted by the loss of hundreds of millions of dollars seemed not an afterthought. Biden later called the bill sick, un-American and an atrocity. Former President Barack Obama agreed with the sentiments as did the entire Democrat Party apparatus and its poodle media.

Voting Rights activists called for boycotting Georgia-based and other companies if they did not condemn the legislation. Prominent corporations and professional sports teams folded at breakneck speed. AFLAC, the Atlanta Falcons, Atlanta Hawks, Coca Cola, Delta, Home Depot, JP Morgan Chase, Facebook, Citigroup, Merck, Cisco, Apple, Wal-Mart, Under Armour, Google, Twitter, Este Lauder, HP, Microsoft and ViacomCBS all succumbed to a sudden attack of wokeness and vigorously denounced the bill. Thus far, nearly 200 major corporations joined in. A group of 72 prominent black corporate executives, in an open letter published in the New York Times, condemned it. Several black civil rights groups including the Georgia NAACP, Black Votes Matter and Stacey Abrams Fair Fight, condemned the law as well. Lawsuits have been filed. The National Black Justice Coalition called on the PGA Tour to pull the Masters Tournament from the Augusta National Golf Club in Georgia where it has been played since 1934.

LeBron James, NBA star, co-owner of the Boston Red Sox, and otherwise oppressed billionaire, too, voiced his support for MLBs decision to move the summer classic out of Atlanta, stating that he was now a proud part of the MLB family.

Lebron and many of the coalition of the irate have had no trouble doing business with the democratic Chinese Communist Party and their slave empire. Prominent liberal sports writers and figures, including the reliable Al Sharpton, also got on their soap boxes.

American Airlines and Southwest came out against a similar such election bill in Texas.

The various election laws passing through Republican states are a result of the election debacle that occurred on Nov. 3, 2020. Particularly in battleground states, election laws were unlawfully changed in the lead-up to the election, because of lawsuits by Democrat lawyers, generally bypassing the state legislatures who constitutionally have the final say on election law. Criticisms by leftist groups and the Democrat party invariably accuse the bills of being restrictive and causing voter suppression, by which they mean the suppression of blacks and other minorities.

The bills, of course, did nothing of the kind. They were intended to prevent election fraud, which Democrats depend on to win elections.

The over-the-top reaction to the Georgia legislation, however, is merely a prelude to the passage of the For The People Act (HR1 and S1), in which Democrats at the federal level, engaging in typical doublespeak, seek to nationalize election law and enshrine the changes they engineered in 2020 for perpetuity, thus ensuring a one party nation under Democrat rule forever.

How should conservatives respond?

It is up to the red states.

And the response should be vigorous and unapologetic. Each state dominated by Republicans, where Republicans hold both houses of the state legislature, of which there are 31, and then the trifecta, which would also include the governorship (24 such states), should pass election integrity laws. All should eliminate unsolicited mail in ballots, something done unnecessarily because of COVID, but allow for absentee ballots, as always, which must be verified well in advance with proper explanation (illness, disabled, out of state, in the Military).

Eliminate same day registration and motor-voter registration. Abolish computer systems. Return to paper ballots, hand counted with poll watchers from both parties present.

Require proof of citizenship. Limit early voting to two weeks or consider eliminating it all together. Mandate one election day, as was standard until relatively recently, not election season. Declare it a holiday. Clean up voter rolls regularly. And, of course, mandate photo ID, something that for Democrats, is akin to daylight for vampires.

The Democrats may never win a national election again.

But there is more.

No longer can conservatives allow companies and sports entities, professional or otherwise, to bully and abuse us.

It is time for red states to pass anti-bullying legislation against the Left and their corporate minions. Any company, sports entity and individual athletes or celebrities that disrespect our nation and flag or threaten to or implement a boycott of a red state for passing entirely legitimate legislation should be banned from all future and existing state contracts, tax breaks, set asides, anti-trust protections (where appropriate) and further business dealings with the state.

Legislation considered within the purview of the state, wholly reasonable, would contain laws and protections involving religious liberty, protecting children and students from the various and sundry depredations of Leftist theories and policies including such gems as transgenderism and critical race theory, bogus refugee and illegal alien resettlement, and, of course, ensuring the integrity of our elections.

Consider also forbidding companies, athletes, sports leagues and entities that have business ties with Chinas totalitarian regime from business relations or other benefits, tax breaks, and contracts with the state.

Attorney generals of red states should aggressively litigate against leftwing corporations and Big Tech that infringe on the rights of their states citizens including the enforcement of speech codes, censorship of conservatives, canceling (also known as crushing and destroying) individuals who espouse conservative or traditional beliefs, and otherwise prohibiting normal, free, and open expression. Similarly, they should file suits against corporations that engage in boycotts and threats against the state. Red states must coordinate their efforts.

Finally, Republican officials at all levels, state and federal, should demand that woke corporate hypocrites boycott the 2022 Olympics in Beijing.

The conservative, pro-founding, pro-American, nationalist movement has for decades been inattentive to our culture and commanding organs, including corporate America. As a result, it has largely ceded them to the Left who have been diligently infiltrating them. They have completed their long march through our institutions and now control them, as they do the nation. But we still have power at the state level. We must fight back as viciously as the Left using the tools that we have.

That means the red states.

It is time to save the country, if it is to be saved at all.

Richard Moss, M.D., a surgeon practicing in Jasper, was a candidate for Congress in 2016 and 2018. Contact him at richardmossmd.com or Richard Moss, M.D. on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram. Send comments to awoods@aim mediaindiana.com.

See the original post:
Red states: The last bastion - Seymour Tribune

Ah, the power of the web. Every day, more and more tools are being created or honed to make the web a place for more powerful tools that can increase productivity and release us from the dependency of bloated, locally installed software. While powerful tools such as online video editors like Clipchamp or streaming game services like Stadia are extremely impressive, it is often the little things that can have the biggest impact on our day-to-day workflow. One such feature that could be headed to the Chrome browser very soon is the ability to speed up or slow down media playback.

I discovered a commit this morning from none other than Franois Beaufort who was responsible for much of the work that brought Picture-in-Picture to the Chrome browser. Thats just a small fraction of Mr. Beauforts contribution to Chrome and Chrome OS but needless to say, hes one sharp cookie. In a bug report/feature request submitted by Franois Beaufort back on April 9, work began on bringing some simple playback controls to the Chrome browsers native HTML media player. Because Franois is also a rather savvy developer himself, he is also the owner of the project in the Chromium repository and work is underway to make the feature a reality.

Advertisements

Add playback speed native control to media player

This CL adds a new playback speed button to media player native controls so that users can adjust audio/video playback rate.

The feature may seem like a very minor update but it should be a big deal for many users. The use-cases are quite practical. If you are scrubbing through a large number of videos, this will help reduce the amount of time you spend auditing or looking for specific content. Slowing video down can be useful if youre trying to pinpoint a precise moment in a video for whatever reason. Digging into the features commit, it appears that the playback speed options could range from 0.25x to 2x with the ability to adjust by .25x increments as needed. Youll be able to access the playback speed from the three-dot menu that housed the PiP button and this should be available for Chrome Desktop, Android, and Chrome OS when it arrives. The commit attached to the feature request was opened just a couple of weeks ago so I dont expect to see this arrive immediately but we could see it pop up in the Canary build of Chrome in the coming weeks if were lucky.

Well keep a close watch on this one and let you know when it goes live. Is this a feature that you would use? Whats your use-case? Drop a comment below and let us know. Who knows? Maybe Franois will read it and theyll ramp up development. Stay tuned for updates.

Advertisements

Read the rest here:
Chrome is getting playback speed controls for its in-built media player - Chrome Unboxed

The New York Times

Mark Rasch hopped on his bike Tuesday in Bethesda, Maryland, pedaled off for an afternoon ride and realized he forgot his mask. As he turned back for it, news came on the radio over his earbuds: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said masks were no longer required outdoors for fully vaccinated people unless they were in a crowd. Rasch, a lawyer, rode on, naked from nose to chin for the first time in a year. He reached nearby Georgetown and found he was nearly alone, in that almost everyone else there remained masked. I wondered if there was a store I could go into without wearing a mask to buy a mask? he said. Instead, he went home and told his wife, Nothing is changing, but its happening quickly. Sign up for The Morning newsletter from the New York Times Its springtime of the pandemic. After the trauma of the past year, the quarantined are emerging into sunlight and beginning to navigate travel, classrooms and restaurants. And they are discovering that when it comes to returning to the old ways, many feel out of sorts. Do they shake hands? Hug? With or without a mask? Its a confusion exacerbated by changing rules, state and federal, that vary by congressional district or even neighborhood, all while the very real threat of infection remains, in some places more than others. Many states and cities are scrambling to incorporate the agencys new counsel into their own rules. New York has ended its curfew. In California, where masks remain recommended, authorities are looking to reconcile the clash of cues. We have reviewed and support the CDCs new masking recommendations and are working quickly to align Californias guidance with these common sense guidelines, Dr. Toms Aragn, director of the California Department of Public Health, said in a statement. Dr. Susan Huang, of the University of California, Irvine, Medical School, explained the conflicted psychology as a function of rapidly changing risk and the difference in tolerance that individuals have for risk. At present, she said, most places have a foundation of people vaccinated but are not near the 80% that marks herd immunity with no children inoculated. Were between the darkness and the light, Huang said. She likened the psychology around masks and other behavior to the different approaches people take to changing their wardrobes at the end of winter: People who are more risk-averse continue to wear winter clothes on 50 degree days, where bigger risk-takers opt for shorts. Eventually, she said, everyone will be wearing shorts. It seems that this psychology may come to define the way the pandemic ebbs, revolving less around public dictate than personal comfort after a stark trauma. For many, the jurisdictional battle is internal, with head and heart clashing over the right personal policy. I have hugged friends but in a very clumsy body posture, said Shirley Lin, who lives in Fremont, California, where she works on business development at a mobile game company. The bear hugs with the joyful scream will not be seen for a long, long time. Her partner lost his mother to COVID-19. She died in August in St. Petersburg, Russia, at age 68. Lin, scarred, is dubious that the risk has passed. I dont think we can slack off on the proper social distancing and masking, she said. But we are much more optimistic. Masks have also become so much more than mere barrier between germs and lungs. They can keep that too-chatty neighbor at bay or help the introvert hide in plain sight. And vanity? Goodbye to that. It saves me having to put on sunscreen and wear lipstick, said Sara Becker, an associate professor at the Brown University School of Public Health. She recently had an awkward transitional moment when she, her husband and two children went to an outdoor fire pit with vaccinated neighbors. Someone offered me their hand, and I gave my elbow, Becker said. She was not quite ready for handshakes or hugs, she explained, though pre-COVID, I was definitely a hugger. So was Dr. Shervin Assari, but hes abstaining at least for now, particularly after the past few weeks. His mother, who lives in Tehran, Iran, was just released from the hospital there after a dangerous bout with COVID-19, and Assari feels chastened anew. I had an abstract idea about the risk, and now I really see the risk, said Assari, who lives in Lakewood, California. Hes half-vaccinated, he said, and terribly scared of COVID-19. Assari, a public health expert, is trying to modulate his own behavior given the three different worlds hes trying to navigate: the working-class neighborhood where he lives in South Los Angeles; his daughters elementary school; and the historically Black medical school, Charles Drew University of Medicine and Science, where he teaches family medicine. Each differs in culture. Most residents of his neighborhood wear masks but also seem to him respectful of individual choice. The elementary school maintains rigid standards with daily checklists to make sure no one is sick or at risk. And at the medical school, people religiously wear masks, even as the school roils with mistrust of the vaccination, despite the fact it trains doctors, nurses and others in the field. Its shocking; its very deep mistrust, not just moderate, Assari said. The skepticism of the medical establishment was centuries in the making like the infamous Tuskegee experiments and he doubts it will end soon. But the mistrust at his school is different from that of conservatives: Vaccination may be slow among both groups, but white conservatives may be quicker to rip off their masks, if they wore them at all. Theres none of that Tucker Carlson stuff here, he said. Carlson, a talk-show host on Fox News, said on a recent show that having children wear a mask outside should be illegal and that your response should be no different than seeing someone beat a kid at Walmart and to call the police. (Dr. Anthony Fauci, the presidents chief medical adviser for COVID, promptly shot back on CNN, I think thats self-evident that thats bizarre.) In San Francisco, Huntley Barad, a retired entrepreneur, ventured out with his wife this week, and they took their first walk without masks in more than a year. We walked down the Great Highway, he said. Were ready to poke our heads out from underneath our rock and perhaps find a restaurant with a nice outdoor table setup on a warmish night, if possible. But he said that their plans for a date night werent firm, much like the conflicting guidance and behavior of a nation itself. Nothing definite yet, he said. This article originally appeared in The New York Times. 2021 The New York Times Company

Read more:
Media Statement: ONA Supports the Auditor-General's Recommendations on the Serious Staffing and Infection Control Issues in Long-Term Care - Yahoo...

In a high-profile attempt to expose the scourge of racism towards players at all levels of the game, English football will unite to undertake a three-day social media boycott this weekend "in response to the ongoing and sustained discriminatory abuse received online."

The initiative has the backing of all professional leagues, including the Premier League and Women's Super League, with the Football Supporters' Association and Kick It Out, English football equality and inclusion charitable organisations, also signed up to the shutdown, which is designed to cover the full weekend of fixtures, including Manchester United vs. Liverpool -- traditionally regarded as the biggest game in the English game. But while the social media boycott is designed to not only raise greater awareness of the targeting of players through online abuse but also pressure social media platforms Facebook, Instagram and Twitter to enforce stricter measures in combating the issue, those involved in the fight against racism and discrimination insist that the battle is not limited to social media.

Troy Townsend, the head of development at Kick It Out, has spent over 20 years with the organisation, attempting to offer support to the victims of racism at the same time as holding football's governing bodies to account. And in a wide-ranging interview, Townsend, the father of Crystal Palace midfielder Andros, has told ESPN that Kick it Out is fighting a constant battle that has no end in sight.

2 Related

ESPN: How significant is this weekend's boycott of social media? Will it work?

Townsend: It depends what you mean when you say "will it work?" It will work in terms of raising awareness; it will work in terms of football finally coming together on this topic and finally saying that what we are all going to do. But anything surrounding branding -- kit sponsors, or brands connected with those football clubs -- shouldn't be on the platforms either. I cannot stress this enough. Football is a minute drop in the ocean in terms of the global use of social media, so what makes football think it can create the global drop in the ocean it wants to create to stop hate crime being allowed on those platforms?

I would like to see sport come together. The biggest sports in the U.S, the biggest sports in this country, the biggest sports in the world, with those global figures... then we might be able to ripple. For now, all we are doing is still creating the conversation.

I don't want to be negative, as I want to applaud the clubs and the leagues who are doing it -- we have to take our part and take ownership of it. But actually what impact will it have, we'll have to see.

ESPN: So football alone can't drive the change and force social media companies into stronger action?

Townsend: This is what I want to get people to understand. Football in England is in a bubble, and it controls everything within its environment. This is why football is struggling, as it doesn't control the social media space. You can't just flick a switch or wave a wand and everything is great -- that is why we are struggling over here as it has little or no impact.

We are talking about our biggest stars being abused, like Raheem Sterling and Marcus Rashford, and it doesn't even register in the countries where these platforms are based. How are we going to influence that? Maybe if we start sharing responsibility across sports that have a global impact, but I'm still saying just maybe, because sport is just one element of this.

ESPN: Have you noticed an increase in abuse towards footballers in recent months and years?

Townsend: The hate being levelled at our sports stars in England isn't new. People are reacting like 'I can't believe they are doing that to our sports stars,' but I dug up an interview I did eight years ago with Jason Brown, the former Blackburn goalkeeper, and he got pretty horrendous abuse. In the interview, I am saying the same words now as I did eight years ago, which tells us we haven't moved on at all. We have not gotten better at changing the language and tone.

Dan Thomas is joined by Craig Burley, Shaka Hislop and others to bring you the latest highlights and debate the biggest storylines. Stream on ESPN+ (U.S. only).

I would say we haven't developed at all. It is being highlighted as there are no fans in stadiums and we are highlighting this because we have more time on our hands and the accessibility of phones. But has it increased? I would say no. I would just say that the conversations we would normally have on the way back from a game, or popping into the pub as we do here in England, are just not happening, so the platforms are fueling that instead.

ESPN: Social media abuse has become a major problem, though, hasn't it?

Townsend: I think what social media platforms have done is collectively given individuals the confidence to be able to speak freely and target anybody. I've seen Facebook messages when they are asked for statements from the media and they give generic responses on how many people they have deleted from the platforms or prosecuted in court, and there is never accountability on that.

For anybody who is aware and uses social media, they are always one step ahead anyway -- they have another account and have easy access. We are not dealing with the problem; we are not dealing with it collectively enough; and we aren't holding people accountable for what effectively is hate speech that evolves into hate crime.

ESPN: What can be done to stop social media abuse and ensure swifter, tougher action by social media platforms?

Townsend: We are pressing the government to get more involved, but they've been talking about it for a very long time. Again, we are no clearer on when it will go to Parliament.

People in the industry are fed up of hearing the same thing as on a matchday. Players are subjected to the most vile abuse anybody could ever wish to see. The whole conversation here in England on matchdays is to prepare your players for abuse, because one of them -- and let's be honest, it is predominantly Black players -- will get targeted.

When you play against a rival club, you get booed in the stadium and you'd get abuse anyway. I'm not saying that is OK, but it is almost part and parcel of what they do.

1:02

Leicester City's Wes Morgan is just one of three Black captains to ever lift the Premier League trophy.

ESPN: What, specifically, do social media companies need to do to help stem the tide of abuse?

Townsend: Black people are always going to be identified by their colour, or by certain emojis that have connotations on their colour and history. That is the area where I feel that social media companies really have to decide what they are going to do in this area.

A monkey emoji, gorilla emoji, an orangutan emoji, a banana emoji has certain significance when directed at Black people. But the message from social media companies is essentially "we aren't going to do anything about that; we don't deem them as discriminatory." That means that they will allow the abuse to continue on their platforms.

ESPN: Kick It Out was founded in 1993. How much impact has the organisation had in almost 30 years?

Townsend: I have to be honest, but I don't feel that we have the impact. We have been in this space for 28 years, and many will ask what have you achieved in that time? When you are fighting against racism and discrimination, it is an ongoing battle, and I don't sit there and tick boxes and a list of achievements.

We educate very well; we remind players of their responsibility; and while at times we have to call out the industry, we don't have the influence on the industry. Sometimes it is like banging your head against a brick wall.

We put together an end-of-season report each year, so fans and people connected with the game can write to us about incidents, and we log those and then challenge the football authorities on another case and another case and another case. We put out our stats at the end of the year, and last year was the seventh year on the spin that those stats went up and racism was the highest form of discrimination being recorded to us.

People may not see our significance, but it is a constant battle. We are a small charity who are battling against the wind, I would say, but it is important that we are relevant now as we were back in 1993. Anybody who has worked in this organisation knows that we aren't doing it for pats on the back and plaudits, but we are almost going into battle every single day.

ESPN: How much of an impact has the Black Lives Matter movement had on Kick It Out's role within the game?

Townsend: We gained traction the minute BLM was being spoken about in this country. The circle starts with George Floyd and Black Lives Matter, and how football embraced the Black Lives Matter slogan, taking the knee. And all of a sudden, there was a wave of traction towards Kick It Out and "why do we need Black Lives Matter when we have had Kick It Out in this country for so long?"

I saw that as people not really supporting everything that we do. People didn't want to hear it, or listen to it, until they saw that Black Lives Matter was in the title.

1:40

Shaka Hislop questions why UEFA hasn't renounced racism in the same way it has the European Super League.

ESPN: Do the football governing bodies do enough to combat racism within the game?

Townsend: They [the Premier League, English FA, EFL] do work with us, I can't deny that, but I don't think they really like the tough questions, the questions in regard to accountability, where they may have let down a club or a team or a player. I don't think they are open and receptive to the tough questions that need to be answered.

In England, we have "No Room for Racism," and UEFA have "Say No to Racism," but what are the details behind the slogan? Where are the solutions and what are we doing to change the mindset and attitudes of many?

We had a high-profile incident recently when Rangers played Slavia Prague and it was proved that Glen Kamara of Rangers was called a "f---ing monkey," but the player who said it was wearing a "Say No To Racism" logo on his sleeve.

When push comes to shove, whether you are starting the abuse, writing the abuse or watching the abuse on the pitch, you aren't saying "say no to racism" or "no room for racism," and you are not thinking about Kick It Out. Until we get that trend and constant abuse going downwards instead of upwards, as it seems to be, then we are fed up with T-shirts, we are fed up with hashtags and fed up of slogans. We all have to be accountable for that, and we have to be stronger in our messaging and eradicate it from our game.

My thing is always about protection of the victim, and this isn't something football does well at all. How do you protect the victim when they have been victimized? How do you protect their reactions, and protect them from the ongoing questions they have been asked, or the ongoing questions they ask themselves?

Why? That is a simple question they ask themselves. Why? Why has somebody decided that I am the person they are going to target because of the colour of my skin?

3:05

Shaka Hislop offers a passionate statement on the drive for change in his ESPN+ series, "Show Racism the Red Card."

ESPN: How challenging is your role when you learn that a player has been racially abused?

Townsend: Although we are an organisation, this is my dedicated work and I am somebody who will automatically reach out to individuals as much as I can. That process might be directly, but sometimes because of the nature of the abuse, you don't want to reach out directly because you want them to have the comfort of the people closest around them first. So I'll reach out to clubs, and if I have personal relationships, of course I reach out, but effectively, we are deemed as part of the issue as well.

Even from a player's standpoint, they may not be clear on what we do or can we do anything for them that takes away the pain. The job is hard enough as it is, the identification of so many players who actually say, "What can you do for me, I've been abused on social media, I have shared some with you, but there is more still waiting in my DMs."

Read all the latest news and reaction from ESPN FC senior writer Mark Ogden.

They ask, "Can you influence social media companies; is there a way I can be protected on this?" The worst part for me is that for the most part the answer is no.

ESPN: How can that change?

Townsend: One of the things I'm putting in place is an advisory board -- a players' advisory board -- that will have players from across the leagues from different backgrounds. Ex-players will be involved as well. So when people ask for my solution, I ask for players to be more into Kick It Out. They hold us to account, and they challenge us and provide us with advice -- maybe back in the changing rooms, the players are talking about this topic and they want the advice. So players help us move forward as an organisation and help us unlock this new understanding of what we do.

We always get criticised -- "You are only a T-shirt, aren't you?" -- and I get told by so many players that "oh, you know, we get told to put these T-shirts on," and I actually turn it back on them and ask well, what do you want to learn about the organisation? Well, what do you want to know; did you ever think to reach out to us?

But we have to take part of the blame along the way. Hopefully the advisory board, which will be announced very soon, will give us that wider reach in terms of discussing the things the players are talking about.

Let's start having this open and honest conversation. I have no fear about being criticized; I think that half the problem is that football doesn't like criticism. I have no fear about being criticized, as I have always been looking to do better and trying to do better.

People think this is an easy job and an easy ride and we are loaded with money, that we are funded by all the footballing bodies, but we're not. We are a small charity with a limited workforce that covers right across the game. We are punching above our weight on a daily basis.

I say to people, if you really want to understand our day-to-day, come and work with me. Come and look at the stuff that I see. What our reporting officers see on a daily basis, every form of discrimination. Come and see the impact that this small charity has on the big space that is football and you'll see how easy this job is for any of us.

View post:
Kick It Out's Townsend: 'We are fed up with hashtags and fed up of slogans' in fight against racist abuse - ESPN