Giving a voice to the voiceless

 This week, President Biden decided to do something that was very much in breaking with presidential tradition, but sets an important precedent moving forward.

Genocide

Previous US administrations have failed to recognize the Armenian genocide for fears of offending Turkey,  one of our greatest allies.

This is interesting in particular for two reasons.  One, it shows that the relationship between the US and Turkey is becoming more strained.  Turkey has been one of the States' greatest allies in the reigion for decades, helping to anchor US presence in the middle east.

Additionally, it sets the precedent that the home country doesn't get to set the narrative anymore, something I always personally found disconcerting.  Why does China get to say whether Taiwan is a state when it is clear to the majority of people looking in that it is?  This is a big step in that direction.

Finally, it is important for historical reasons.  The Armenian genocide is long something that has been accepted(as a strong theory in the scholarship) so it being recognized is important for the scholarship as well.

The Iraq War

 One thing I found particularly interesting in this week's reading was the focus on the Iraq War.

This is something I find particularly salient because I lived through it, I was old enough to remember the news stories about WMD's, and even though I was a little young, I still had opinions on it.

I found it interesting that public sentiment was so influenced by the mass media coverage of the "hunt" and subsequent "nothing burger" that resulted from the search for those WMDs.  

This, to me, was a perfect example of mass media done right.  Politician tells a lie.  Media reports that lie.  Media goes on to reserch the issue.  Media finds out it is false and informs the public.  The public reacts, which is in turn reported by the media.  Politician has to undo that policy that was fraudulent.

However.  
The Iraq war wasn't very long in comparison to the Afghanistan war, and scores of people died.  The country was thrown into instability for decades, and we achieved...not very much.  So even though the system "worked" the way it should(meaning the relationship between mass media and politics), the consequences in the meantime were disastrous.

So I guess it didn't really work at all then did it?  

No policy solutions from me this time.  Just train of thought.

Corporate Push Back

 One of the things I've always considered rather dystopic about the time that we live in is the ineffectual nature of boycotts in a global economy.

Boycotting and protesting is one of the oldest American institutions, being used and emphasized by the founding fathers even before the creation of the nation.

But it seems like when you are dealing with numbers as large as the consumer base of many of these corporations have(how do you effectively boycott Amazon?) 

But the power of these corporations has given rise to a different kind of boycott, that of politicians and political positions. 

This phenomenon isn't new, corporations tried to stymie Teddy Roosevelt's trust-busting agenda by relegating him to the Vice Presidency, which was seen as a position where one couldn't influence much.  However, it has gained a lot of steam in recent years.

The biggest example I can think of recently was when Governor Kemp in Georgia passed a controversial abortion law which caused many film studios to either consider or fully pull out of the state.

Well, our state is back in the news again with the same problems.  

Recently, Kemp passed a law that many consider draconian, and it has caused a lot of backlash.

As a result the MLB all star game has decided to move to Colorado.  

That is the result of negative media coverage, affecting politics.

Dislike

 The use of "likes" and "dislikes" was always a little foreign to me, but I thought it was a brilliant invention when Twitter rolled it out.

Since that time, it has become a standard feature on social media.  Heck, even the communication app common amongst college students, GroupMe, allows you to heart individual texts.  iPhone allows you "react" to texts.  The feature has become ubiquitous and loved.

That was why it was so strange to me when it was announced this week that YouTube was testing the removal of the dislike button.

YouTube removes Dislike count

Now, if one were cynically minded, they would probably think back, not so long ago, to the most disliked video ever, that just so happened to be from YouTube itself.  That might be why they are doing it.

But my mind went somewhere else.

As always, it went to media and politics.  

This seems to me a blow to, let's call it, internet democracy.  Likes and dislikes are a bellweather of public sentiment.  If we can't tell organizations and politicians(in a public way) that we dislike what they are saying, that's dangerous to public discourse.  Increasingly I view online platforms as the new town square.  People just don't go out and talk politics like they used to.  There is a place for that now, and it's called the internet.  I think this is a dangerous precedent and one that politicians and legacy media orgs will be 100% behind.

Faith in Government Relief

     One of the things that is a constant in both media and politics, is spin.  It is essential to both industries, and any story can be spun to make someone appear to be the savior, or the Anti-christ, with enough talent and prose.

That is why with any new government intiative, it is usually accompanied with a PR campaign.  In the case of this blog post, it is evident how that can also go bad.

Stimulus Fraud

Essentially, people are taking the stimulus funds intended for small businesses, and laundering them through online trading platforms.  Put simply, this is a catastrophe for PR.  

People had faith when the government said it was using tax money to bail out small businesses.  If that faith is seen as misplaced or abused, people won't want their money going to fund "fraudsters", as the article alleges.  So not only do the funds not get to their intended recipients because of theft but also more aid will likely not be coming because of distrust of the policies.  This is a major hit to the credibility of stimulus programs, and online brokerages who will now be seen by some as traffickers in illegal money laundering, who were already losing credibility.

In my view, the government needs to act quickly to strengthen public faith in these programs or we will face a major economic downturn.

Sarah Everard: Forcing the Government to fix it?

 Police Everywhere

I don't quite know why I gravitate towards news stories that I don't know how to feel about.  Maybe it is a subconscious desire to air the material out, and hope someone can help me work through it.  This is one of those cases especially considering my gender.

So, for those unaware of the circumstances, 33-year-old Sarah Everard was murdered on March 3rd(this is in the UK so you might not have heard about it).  Her body was found a week later and a London Metropolitan Police officer was charged with her murder.  While this prompted a nationwide conversation regarding the threats and violence women face, the British government responded with programs as well.

"Project Vigilant, the programme can involve officers attending areas around clubs and bars in plainclothes, along with increased police patrols as people leave at closing time"

"Other steps unveiled by Downing Street include a doubling to £45m of the Safer Streets fund, which provides neighbourhood measures such as better lighting and CCTV."

The highly charged and negative media coverage had caused the government to respond, but many saw these responses as "scattershot" or "tone-deaf".  I mean, a police officer allegedly murdered the girl, installing more police and calling it fixed certainly isn't the best response to feed to the public.  

I don't have any answers or opinions this time.  I'm not a woman.  So let me pass the question off to others who are more qualified to speak on it.

1.)  What should the response from the government have been?  If they should have responded at all.

2.)   Is there anything the government could even do?  Or is this something that should be outsourced to different agencies considering who the alleged murderer is?

3)    Are there situations where the government shouldn't respond to media pressure?  Or should there always be a response?

The Celebrity President

     We just finished with the presidency of Donald Trump two months ago, leaving many people with the impression that the cult of celebrity in the executive was done.  But this isn't the first time, or the last, that this phenomenon will happen.  In fact, I'd argue that Trump was just the beginning.

It's easy to forget that media darlings as president isn't a new thing.  Reagan is the big example, movie star and head of the Screen Actors Guild going all the way to president.  But he wasn't the first either.

There are many examples throughout American History.  Teddy Roosevelt, JFK and even Washington were all media darlings.    And now it seems to me it's accelerating.  We all remember calls for Oprah to be president, or the Rock.

Oprah for President

The Rock for President

But the story for this week is Will Smith has potentially thrown his hat in the ring.

“I will certainly do my part, whether it remains artistic or, at some point, ventures into the political arena,” he said.

I think our days of seeing media influence politics are really ramping up.  We are gonna see more celebrities as president.

Will Smith for President?