Portland Police on Twitter: "Police have received information that some of the milkshakes thrown today during the demonstration contained quick-drying cement. We are encouraging anyone hit with a substance today to report it to police."
Two new Democratic stars outshone Biden and Sanders on the debate stage.
June 28, 2019 Image Kamala Harris spoke to reporters after the second Democratic presidential debate in Miami on Thursday. Credit Credit Damon Winter/The New York Times The big question going into Thursday night's debate was whether Joe Biden, the clear front-runner in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, would stumble.
That turned out to be the wrong one. The right question was whether he had sufficient vigor in his stride.
And the answer came in watching Kamala Harris and Pete Buttigieg '-- two of the event's standout performers '-- run articulate and impassioned circles around him.
Biden was O.K. Not bad, not good: O.K. He didn't crumble under some tough interrogation from moderators '-- about his vote for the invasion of Iraq, for example '-- and occasional attacks from his rivals onstage.
[Get a more personal, less conventional take on political developments, newsmakers, cultural milestones and more with Frank Bruni's exclusive commentary every week. Sign up for his newsletter.]
But in his determination to prove how coolheaded he could be, he frequently turned his temperature down too low. In his insistence on not getting tangled in grand promises or lost in the weeds, he too often kept to the side of the field.
At one point, when candidates were asked to raise their hands if they believed that crossing the border without documentation should be a civil rather than criminal offense, his gesture was so tentative and ambiguous that one of the moderators, Jos(C) Daz-Balart, had to follow up: Was he indicating his assent or seeking permission to make a comment?
That was a metaphor for his whole night.
Other candidates demanded that America march forward. Biden kept looking backward. He repeatedly alluded to his decades of experience and even more pointedly reminded voters of his eight-year partnership with President Barack Obama, a towering and popular figure in the Democratic Party. While Bernie Sanders pledged a revolution, Biden promised a restoration.
Will that make voters feel tingly enough? It's possible, given the ongoing trauma of the Trump years.
But the debate brought into vivid relief the shortcomings of his candidacy and the risks of graduating him to the general election.
When you've been in politics and in Washington as long as he has '-- 36 years in the Senate, plus eight as vice president '-- there are votes from eras much different from the current one, controversial positions galore and mistakes aplenty. All of these were ammunition used against him on Thursday night, most electrically when Harris pressed him to defend his opposition to busing to integrate schools.
Harris made it personal, telling him that she got the education she did because of busing. Biden said that he hadn't been opposed to busing so much as in favor of local decision-making, and he thus left himself open to her righteous response: Did he not think that the federal government should swoop in to remedy obvious racial injustice?
''That's why we have the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act,'' she said. ''Because there are moments in history where states fail to preserve the civil rights of all people.''
One of these two candidates was in much better sync with Democratic voters right now, and that candidate was Harris, a black woman who, at 54, is more than two decades younger than Biden, who is 76. The only candidate on the stage older than he is: Bernie Sanders, 77.
And the sense of a generational divide was acute, partly because Buttigieg, 37, and Eric Swalwell, 38, made sure to highlight it. At the very start of the night, Swalwell noted mischievously that Biden had long ago stressed the importance of passing the torch, and Swalwell exhorted Democrats to do precisely that, saying ''pass the torch'' so many times that Daz-Balart asked Biden, ''Would you like to sing a torch song?'' Biden then rattled off a few canned remarks about the importance of education.
Biden and Sanders stood at the lecterns in the center of the stage, their prize for having significantly higher poll numbers than the others. They were supposed to be the pace setters.
But they receded more than they popped. Maybe that was a function of familiarity. I couldn't detect any difference between Sanders now and Sanders four years ago: The mad gleam, bad mood and hoarse-from-yelling voice were all the same. A screenwriter friend of mine emailed me midway through the event to say that Sanders resembled ''a very angry chess player in Washington Square Park in an undershirt and madras shorts in the summer heat.'' He did indeed look steamed.
Buttigieg didn't. He has this way '-- it's quite remarkable '-- of expressing outrage without being remotely disheveled by the emotion, of taking aim without seeming armed, of flagging grave danger without scaring the pants off you. He's from some perfect-candidate laboratory, no?
And nobody onstage spoke with more precision and shrewdness, though Michael Bennet came close a few times. Buttigieg said that the God-garbed Republican Party, in its treatment of migrants, ''has lost all claim to ever use religious language again.'' It wasn't just a dig; it was a deft reminder of his public fight with Mike Pence over Pence's vilification of L.G.B.T. people like Buttigieg.
On the subject of health insurance, Buttigieg said that sick people ''can't be relying on the tender mercies of the corporate system.'' He spoke of China ''using technology for the perfection of dictatorship.'' Phrases like these came like candies from a Pez dispenser '-- colorful, sweet and one after the other.
And when Buttigieg was confronted with questions about the recent police shooting of a black man in South Bend, Ind., where he is mayor, and asked why the police force wasn't better integrated, he admitted, bluntly: ''Because I couldn't get it done.'' He didn't make excuses, instead recognizing that between African-Americans and white police officers, ''There's a wall of mistrust, put up one racist act at a time.''
Harris had a fire that Buttigieg lacked, and it was mesmerizing. She challenged Biden not just on busing but on sloppy recent comments of his that seemed affectionate toward segregationists. She picked apart Trump's boasts of a spectacularly booming economy, telling the right number of right anecdotes at the right time.
And she mixed strength with warmth and even humor. As candidates shouted over one another in a lunge for microphone time, she found a cranny of oratorical space in which to land a good line. ''Hey, guys, you know what?'' she said. ''America does not want to witness a food fight. They want to know how we're going to put food on their table.'' It neatly pegged men as compulsive interrupters '-- a leitmotif of the previous night's debate '-- while flying a feminist flag less strenuously than Kirsten Gillibrand, at the lectern beside hers, did.
Imagine a Harris-Buttigieg ticket, and not only what a wealth of poise but what a double scoop of precedents that would be. Plenty of people on Twitter on Thursday night were doing precisely that.
Plenty more will do so in the coming days, and they should leaven that fantasy with a reality check about how far to the left Harris in particular has moved. She was one of just two candidates on Thursday night who said that she wanted to do away with private health insurance. Sanders was the other. And that could be a general-election problem for her, as it could for Elizabeth Warren, who took that same position the night before.
But I write now in praise of a commanding performance that easily overshadowed Biden's, with his herky-jerky delivery and his reflexive glances in the rearview mirror. Elections, according to all the political sages, are about the future. Biden didn't seem to be pointed in that direction, and he didn't demonstrate any sense of hurry to get there.
Frank Bruni has been with The Times since 1995 and held a variety of jobs '-- including White House reporter, Rome bureau chief and chief restaurant critic '-- before becoming a columnist in 2011. He is the author of three best-selling books. @ FrankBruni ' Facebook
Stacey Abrams on the state of our nation | Metro US
With the conclusion of the first two Democratic debates of the 2020 election behind us, we are now getting a clearer picture of a possible change of power in Washington. We spoke with Georgia leader, Stacey Abrams, who will be speaking at this year's OZY Festival along with newly announced speakers Kirsten Gillibrand and Beto O'Rourke, about the rights we need to protect as American citizens given the current state of our nation and whether or not she will throw her hat into the 2020 race for the presidency.
"My work is focused on making certain that every American has full access to our democracy," - Stacey Abrams Stacey Abrams. Photo: Getty Images
We are currently living in one of the most politically divided times in our country's history. You will be appearing at this year's OZY festival. Tell us about your involvement and what kinds of messages you hope this festival will convey.
Stacey Abrams: Well, I'm excited, this will be my first OZY Fest, but I have seen a bit about the previous ones and I'm excited to be a part of it. My work is focused on making certain that every American has full access to our democracy, because this is about power. It's about our power to shape our future, our power to participate and how our values are lived. And voter suppression in my mind is the strongest and most prevalent existential crisis that we face. Because our ability to make decisions about climate change, about reproductive choice, about criminal justice reform, about healthcare, all come back to the question of, do we have full participation in our democracy?
With today's Supreme Court decisions, we have seen a bit of a whipsaw where partisan gerrymandering will be allowed. But luckily the citizenship question of the census, won't be. And one of the conversations I hope we have is a conversation about the fact that, this means that every voice will count, and to an exceptional degree in 2020. That we must have every person's participation, because the decisions to be made for the next 20 years through redistricting, will happen based on the census, and based on our ability to elect leaders in 2020, who reflect our values and respect our choices.
It's an understatement to say that the Trump administration seems to be downplaying the threat of foreign influences in our elections. As someone who has suffered the consequences of election tampering, first hand, how important is it to make sure one of our most sacred rights as Americans remains intact?
Stacey Abrams: Exactly. And, what we have to understand is that foreign influence has its effect in part because of the distance that's been created, from citizens and their ownership of their right to vote, and their ability to execute it. When you have three streams of information in an election cycle, information, good information, bad information and disinformation. If there isn't an active supply of good information, then either bad information or disinformation will guide the decisions made by the most vulnerable of our voters. And so, one of the joys of our campaign in 2018, for me, was being able to go into communities that have been unseen and unheard, that had been ignored by politicians, and did not understand just how vital, and effective they could be. We can't stop foreign influence completely. We can certainly do more to mitigate it. And I wish we had leadership in DC, in the Republican party in particular that would be willing to take up the questions of election security. But, in lieu of their actions, our best defense is to have good information going to these editors. Making certain, as they know they have the right to vote, they understand what's at stake, but also that we have cleared a path within our power, which is to remove obstacles to voting, by eliminating voter suppression.
The support for impeachment seems to be growing by the day. Given what we have learned from the Mueller report, do you think now is the right time to begin impeachment proceedings?
Stacey Abrams: I actually do not see those as a common question. Impeachment should be based on the behavior of the president. Whether the president broke the law or not, whether he committed impeachable offenses. And that should be determined by the legislature. I support Speaker Pelosi's approach, which is to actually gather the information and the evidence necessary, to demonstrate the fullness of his ... that action such as they may be. And so, I don't think that timing is the question. I think the real issue is making certain that we have a record that is accurate and full and complete and can withstand what will come of an attempt at impeachment. Because the reality is you ... in the legal world, you do not prosecute until you have sufficient evidence. And while the Mueller report is damning, we need full information. So we understand not only what the questions are, but what the answers are.
Right. And do you think the conversation will change once Mueller testifies?
Stacey Abrams: I think it will continue to evolve, but I think it's just as important that we watch what's happening in Chairman Nadler's committee, with the information they are seeking to secure, what's happening with Chairman Cummings, and the information he's seeking to secure. The machinations of legislative bodies can sometimes seem boring and plotting, but you want the clearest pathway, and you want the deepest amount of information. And having served in a similar role for several years, I know it can sometimes feel very ... it can feel dithering to those on the outside, but I actually support the goals of our Democratic Caucus, which are to make certain in the democratic leadership, to make certain that we've asked the questions, and have the answers before we take this extraordinary step. We've only impeached two presidents in American history, and it is a critical question to me that we do this properly. But the point of a primary is to articulate ideas and to refine those ideas through the context. And I believe that for Democrats, given what we faced from the other side, with notions of rolling back rights, and denying access, and impeding progress, I welcome the opportunity to have such smart, thoughtful people, offering such clear visions for how we move our country forward.
We are currently in the beginnings of the 2020 election cycle. There are a lot of candidates to choose from, are there any that you have been blown away by? Who will be the best bet to lead the Democratic party into the future?
Stacey Abrams: I am a loyal Democrat who will do everything I can to support candidates who are willing to focus on the issues of voter suppression and expanding access to justice, and who will campaign in Georgia. And I will be foursquare behind whoever emerges as the nominee of the party.
Many people thought that you would be running. Is there still a possibility?
Stacey Abrams: It is. No, it's still something I'm considering. I have always said I want to. I think that certainly, the fall is the deadline for making a decision, and that is what I'm looking at. But you know, I will say that I will run if I believe that there is value that I can add to the debate, and add to the contest, and if I believe I can win. But I am incredibly pleased with the caliber and quality of the candidates we have now, which is why I haven't thrown my name into the ring yet.
Do you think having this many candidates hurts or strengthens the Democrats' platform?
Stacey Abrams: I think it's a perfectly appropriate number of candidates. We forget that in 1992 I think it was 18 candidates. In 2016 it was certainly 18 candidates. We have had larger fields, I think on the Democratic side because we have had smaller fields, both in 2008 and 2016. We have sort of a short term memory problem that this is not an unusual surfeit of candidate. What is different is that the debates have started earlier, and the winnowing process in different than it was, you know, a generation ago.
We are now witnessing a true atrocity at our border with more information coming in regarding inhumane conditions in holding centers for undocumented immigrants. Would you agree with Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez in saying that these conditions mirror concentration camps or is this something completely different?
Stacey Abrams: I think the semantics cloud the point. Which is that we are, as a nation, we are being led by someone who is engaging in inhuman behavior that weakens our democracy, demonizes the most vulnerable, and treats fellow humans and dehumanizes them in a way that is deeply, deeply offensive to who we are. And so, we have to recognize that, rather than debating, the language of the description, we should be appalled by the need for language, to define what we are doing. And regardless of who is in charge, this is being done in America's name, and we are all obligated to decry it, and to push for better, and to demand that we return to the moral core that should be guiding our nation.
Stacey Abrams will be speaking at this year's OZY Fest in Central Park July 20 through 21.
New York Times photographer Doug Mills was the big winner at NBC's Democratic Debate.
The Washington Post reports that NBC cameras picked up on the clickety-clackety sound of DSLR camera mirrors flapping at the debate. In order to drown out the din, a NBC producer laid down this directive to the photojournalists covering the debate, ''No shooting unless it coincided with audience applause.''
This didn't affect Mr. Mills who was shooting his Sony a9 mirrorless camera using its silent electronic shutter.
''When I got there, the woman who was from NBC said, 'Hey, you can't shoot.' I explained to her my camera was mirrorless and she was like, 'Why doesn't everybody have one of these?' So then I just kept shooting. I had a great advantage,'' says Mills.via: Washington Post
''If they give it to the poor, they call it a handout; if they give it to the rich, they call it a subsidy.'' '--Martin Luther King, Jr.Taking Back OUR Democracy from Corporate InfluenceBeneath every issue in American politics lies a deeper one, and nowhere is this truer than with our economy. At this time in our history, our economic system doesn't serve our democratic values. Instead, the government we founded to protect those values has become an instrument of service to an economic system.Beginning in the 1980s, an economic perspective which deems market forces our most appropriate organizing principle, began to infiltrate both American politics and American consciousness.
According to this view, the fiduciary responsibility of corporations to serve short-term profit maximization of their stockholders '' with no particular ethical responsibility to other stakeholders such as workers, community or environment - began to replace democracy as our primary organizing principle. Advocacy for the well-being of citizens and the planet was now to be brokered by market forces, which alone were deemed the appropriate arbiter of our social good.
This view represented a radical departure from a most basic value in our Declaration of Independence: that, ''God gave all men the inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,'' and that, ''governments were instituted among men to secure these rights.'' From now on, our government would function more to secure the rights of multi-national corporations to make more money for their stockholders, while We, the People, were to trust that so much money would trickle down to the rest of us that all would be okay.
All has not been okay.Quite to the contrary, a small minority of Americans - called in today's nomenclature ''the one percent'' '' has become the recipient of extraordinary government largess, while the American middle class has been decimated. From huge corporate subsidies, to tax breaks for the very wealthy, to deregulation of even the most fundamental protections, to greater and greater permission given to moneyed interests to flood our political system, to the proverbial ''revolving door'' practice between corporate and government leaders.
American social and economic policy has acted like a vacuum cleaner, taking the majority of our nation's economic resources and sucking them into the hands of a very few.
It was unreasonable to have expected an amoral economic system to practice ethical largess. Why would a huge multinational corporation - with no particular allegiance to the American worker - feel any remorse about closing an American factory and relocating it in another country? Or fighting an increase in the minimum wage? Or cutting the health benefits of its workers? Or fighting fair labor practices? Or fighting labor itself?
A person with no sense of ethical or moral responsibility is a sociopathic individual, and an economic system with no sense of ethical or moral responsibility is a sociopathic economic system. Once billions, even trillions, of dollars started flowing within a system that deems itself responsible to no one but its stockholders '' particularly when the Supreme Court of the United States has granted to that system the preposterous notion of ''corporate personhood'' '' then a complete disregard of that system for the welfare of the least advantaged and the least powerful among us, and the planet itself, becomes inevitable.For all intents and purposes, our government has become a handmaiden to a new corporate order '' surrendering to those whom President Franklin Roosevelt called ''economic royalists.'' This is not just an economic debate or even a political debate; it is a philosophical and moral debate, challenging this generation to decide in our time whether or not a ''government of the people, by the people and for the people" shall not perish from the Earth.
Just as an individual can dwell in denial, so can an entire group. Today, the American people are in denial if we think that the existence and perpetuation of our democracy is guaranteed. In order to override the tyrannous effects of an authoritarian corporatism that has now infiltrated the highest levels of our government, we must rise up en masse and elect a new wave of officials deeply dedicated to the democratic ideal.
The Williamson Administration's Approach to the EconomyA system that does not feel, which has no sense of ethical responsibility to people or planet, is a dangerous guide to America's future. Living for our principles will provide more economic security than living for short-term corporate interests can ever provide. Our government should not be run like a business; it should be run like a family, where taking care of each other, and taking care of our home, are the values that guide us.Short-term profit maximization, whether for corporations or for the government, is at odds with long-term economic planning. The $2 trillion 2017 tax bill - which gave 83 cents of every returned dollar to our richest corporations and wealthiest citizens - is not an economic stimulus, but rather an economic theft of resources that could have been directed toward genuine economic renewal in the form of a Green New Deal, universal healthcare, better education and free college tuition for those who cannot afford it, cancellation of college loan debt, and equal funding of all public schools.
Every dollar we invest in education, infrastructure, and healthcare helps unleash the spirit of the American people. Everything we do to make it easier for people to create, to work with dignity, to live safely and securely, helps unleash the spirit of the American people. Everything we do to decrease the chronic economic and personal trauma that an unjust economic system has created among millions of people helps unleash the spirit of the American people.
And that is sound policy. The American people have been mentally trained to expect too little from our government, to forget that it is there to work for us and not the other way around. The citizens of the United States have been reduced to saying, ''Pretty please?'' to forces that would withhold things from us that should be considered basic rights in an advanced society. To those forces, we should not say, ''Pretty please.''
To those forces, we should say, ''Hell no.''40% of all Americans are having a hard time earning enough to pay for rent, food, healthcare, and transportation costs, and 62% of Americans cannot be deemed members of the middle class. Such statistics did not come out of nowhere; rather, they were the inevitable result of the systematic movement of major resources over the last few decades into the hands of a very few. Only a few Americans can now easily afford health care, only a few Americans can now easily afford higher education, and so forth. For those of us who make it ''into the club'' in America, there truly is no better place to live. But not enough people can make it into the club today, and that is an unsustainable reality.
How do we close the wealth inequality gap in America today, by which the top 1 percent of households own more wealth than the bottom 90 percent combined?In the long term, we should massively realign our investments in the emotional, social, health and educational wellbeing of children eight years old and younger. The greatest source of America's future economic vibrancy lies in the entrepreneurial spirit alive in any American kindergarten. Our problem is not that we don't have enough creativity to fuel our economy for centuries; the problem is that we cap it through under-education and a lack of proactive care for our young. An Economic Council of Advisors should include as many experts in child psychology and education as it has economists.
These are policies I would champion that would begin to close the income gap immediately:Universal healthcare, preferably a Medicare-for-all type of plan.Increase minimum wage to a rate that provides a living wage in its given geographical area - and set the rate to adjust for inflation from now on.Make permanent the middle-class tax cuts, while repealing the corporate tax cuts from the 2017 Tax Bill.Radically reduce and, in some cases, outright forgive the debt of college loans. (Currently, 44 million people owe almost a trillion and a half dollars in student loan debt, a crushing burden that holds back the younger generation from starting businesses and buying homes.) We should treat student loans like other debt, enabling a refinance at lower interest rates, and allowing those who declare bankruptcy to be freed.Introduce government support for childcare services.Provide free higher education, including tuition at public colleges, community colleges and trade schools.Restore a modern Glass-Steagall, separating commercial banks (which take deposits and make loans) from investment banks, ensuring that banks cannot make risky investments. If they fail, they should not be bailed out by the government. Hold Wall Street accountable.No bank that is too big to fail should exist. There are benefits to capitalism. One is, things that don't work, shouldn't survive.Establish a Green New Deal, creating millions of jobs repairing America's infrastructure, building high-speed trains, and creating a renewable energy system.Protect the rights of working people to organize for better wages and working conditions.Enact paid family and medical leave to enable working parents to care for loved ones.Provide equal pay for equal work.Paid Vacation should be provided to all employees, even part-timers. Every industrialized nation but ours guarantees this right. Portable retirement plans must be offered to every worker in this nation. A retirement plan that one can take with them from job-to-job. No one should be afraid of their future. Close the loopholes that give big breaks to big business, and ensure they pay their fair share of taxes to level the playing field so small business can compete.Protect homeowners from predatory lending practices, and increase access to loan modifications that enable people to stay in their homes.Invest in our infrastructure, creating jobs by rebuilding roads, bridges, and rails, increasing renewable energy power, updating clean water systems, improving our rail system and massively investing in public transit.Enforce anti-trust laws so that new businesses have a chance to succeed.Eliminate the income cap on payroll taxes.Raise the estate tax (with special care given to help family businesses pay-off the estate tax bill over time so we don't shut down small businesses).Eliminate the carried interest and ETF tax loopholes enjoyed by Wall Street.With the US economy, it is the best of times, and it is the worst of times. Our country enjoys tremendous wealth, but the vast majority is owned by the few, while millions of people struggle financially. In too many areas there are pockets of prosperity in a sea of destitution. Fully 40% of adults could not pay an emergency bill of $400. Although the unemployment rate is low, millions of people who have given up finding work are not counted. Financial desperation is contributing to a rise in stress, bad health, opioid addiction, and suicide. For the first time, the next generation is likely to have a lower standard of living. For the first time, the average American lifespan is getting shorter. As financial disparity leads to financial desperation, people are dying.
These problems will intensify as automation, Artificial Intelligence and robots will replace millions of jobs in the next 5-10 years. Some job dislocation has occurred already in areas such as manufacturing. Millions more people will lose their jobs and be unable to find new jobs. Job loss will hit professionals as well as blue-collar workers. Any job that involves repetition is at risk; even lawyers and doctors, including some surgeons, will be displaced. More wealth will be created, but it will increasingly go to the top 1%.
We must address this crisis of wealth inequality and financial insecurity. We urgently need a plan to relieve financial distress, to create jobs, and to increase prosperity, thereby unleashing the incredible ingenuity and productivity of the American people.
Here is my 4-Step plan:
1. Provide immediate cash relief through a Universal Basic Income.
2. Create jobs through a Green New Deal.
3. Create jobs through a Caring Economy.
4. Increase wealth through a Universal Savings Plan.
1. IMMEDIATE CASH RELIEF WITH A UNIVERSAL BASIC INCOME: Under my plan, the federal government will pay $1,000/month Universal Basic Income to all American adults aged 18-65. This will provide immediate cash relief to those who need it. It will give people a small but reliable stream of income. It will create a floor so no American needs to be hungry. It will also provide a big stimulus to the economy as people spend this money on food, clothes and other essentials. This Universal Basic Income will cover all adults until they reach the age for Social Security.
See Andrew Yang's excellent book, The War on Normal People: The Truth About America's Disappearing Jobs and Why Universal Basic Income is Our Future (2018).
2. CREATE JOBS WITH A GREEN NEW DEAL: We must act now to remove carbon from the economy and slow global warming. This will create millions of new jobs in renewable energy (solar, wind and water power), architecture and building (green buildings), energy-efficient vehicles (electric cars), new public transit systems, and much more. The greening of the economy has already created millions of new jobs; there are twice as many people working in the solar industry than in coal.
The best way to decarbonize is to put a price on carbon; this incentivizes people to find ways to use less carbon.
Additionally, in my plan the federal government will invest billions of dollars to rebuild our roads and bridges, expand public transit, and transition to a renewable energy economy.
3. CREATE JOBS WITH A CARING ECONOMY: The real wealth of our nation is our people. Investing in care is both humane and good for our economy. Much of the care for children, the sick and the elderly is now unpaid, done mostly by women. If this labor were paid, it would strengthen the economic security of millions of workers, especially women, and ensure that people who need care get it.
Our Children: Promote early education and affordable quality child care. This will prepare the next generation for the knowledge jobs of the future, and decrease crime, poverty, and incarceration rates.
Our Families: Everybody needs care at some point, as a child, an adult with an illness or disability, or a senior. I support paid family leave (to welcome a new child by birth or adoption), paid sick leave (to care for yourself or a loved one), and paid caregiving for caregivers. This will strengthen our families and meet the rising demand for elder care as Baby Boomers age. Moreover, since most caregiving is done by women, it will boost women's income and economic security.
4. INCREASE WEALTH THROUGH A UNIVERSAL SAVINGS PROGRAM: Under my plan, each child will receive a gift from the federal government deposited in a fund created at birth. Family and friends can add to that fund as the child grows, with the government matching those contributions on a sliding scale. (Less wealthy families will get 100% match and more wealthy families a 10% match.) Eventually the child grows up and can use those funds for wealth-enhancing purposes such as education, training, house down payment, or to start a business.
See Robert Friedman's book about the Universal Savings Program, ''A Few Thousand Dollars: Sparking Prosperity for Everyone''(2018).
Here's how we can pay for this program:
1. Roll back tax cuts to the wealthy, including restore the estate tax to estates over $5 million.
2. Roll back tax breaks to big business. Why are taxpayers subsidizing Big Oil?
3. Add a fee to financial transactions like buying stocks. Charge a small fee each time someone buys stocks or exchanges currency. There would be no way for the wealthy to dodge the transaction fee which would be charged automatically for each such transaction. This could add trillions of dollars to pay for the above programs.
See The New Operating System for the American Economy by Scott Smith.
4. Cut waste in the military. Big business dominates our military as it does so many other sectors. Corporate lobbyists push for expensive weapons systems of dubious value to our defense. While I favor a strong defense, I oppose wasting taxpayers' money on boondoggles. Force projection to every corner of the globe is expensive and counterproductive.
Marianne Deborah Williamson (born July 8, 1952) is an American author, lecturer, and activist. She has written 13 books, including four New York Times number one bestsellers within the 'Advice, How To and Miscellaneous' category. She is the founder of Project Angel Food, a volunteer food delivery program that serves home-bound people with AIDS and other life-threatening illnesses. She is also the co-founder of the Peace Alliance, a nonprofit grassroots education and advocacy organization supporting peace-building projects.
In 2014, as an independent, Williamson ran unsuccessfully for the seat of California's 33rd congressional district in the United States House of Representatives elections in California. On January 29, 2019, she announced her campaign to seek the Democratic nomination for the 2020 United States presidential election.
Early life and education Williamson was born in Houston, Texas, in 1952. She is the youngest of three children of Samuel "Sam" Williamson, an immigration lawyer, and Sophie Ann (Kaplan), a homemaker. Her family is Jewish, and she was raised in Conservative Judaism. After graduating from Houston's Bellaire High School, Williamson spent two years studying theater and philosophy at Pomona College in Claremont, California.
Writing and speaking career Williamson dropped out of college her junior year in 1973 and moved to New York City, intending to pursue a career as a cabaret singer.
In 1979, after delving into A Course in Miracles, she returned to Houston, where she ran a combination metaphysical bookstore and coffeeshop.
In 1983 she moved to Los Angeles. She began regularly lecturing on A Course in Miracles in Los Angeles and New York City, and eventually in other cities in the U.S. and Europe as well.
She published her first book, A Return to Love: Reflections on the Principles of A Course in Miracles, in 1992.
Books Williamson's first book, A Return to Love, was featured on The Oprah Winfrey Show in 1992 and remained on The New York Times bestseller list for 39 weeks in the 'Advice, How To and Miscellaneous' category. She has published 12 other books, seven of which have been on the same New York Times bestseller list and four of which have been #1. She has sold more than 3 million copies of her books. In 2018, she published a 20th anniversary revised edition of Healing the Soul of America.
Healing the Soul of America In 1997 Williamson published her book Healing the Soul of America (hardcover originally titled The Healing of America) and began a more robust political engagement. In this book, she laid out plans to "transform the American political consciousness and encourage powerful citizen involvement to heal our society".
She wrote in the book,
It is a task of our generation to recreate the American politeia, to awaken from our culture of distraction and re-engage the process of democracy with soulfulness and hope. Yes, we see there are problems in the world. But we believe in a universal force that, when activated by the human heart, has the power to make all things right. Such is the divine authority of love: to renew the heart, renew the nations, and ultimately, renew the world.
Patricia Holt of the San Francisco Chronicle called it "A huge and wondrous surprise.... The Healing of America somehow makes us proud to be Americans, because every hope for democracy seems newly within our grasp."
Television and media appearances She has been a guest on television programs such as The Oprah Winfrey Show, Good Morning America, and Real Time with Bill Maher. In December 2006, a Newsweek magazine poll named her one of the 50 most influential baby boomers. She bases her teaching and writing on A Course in Miracles, a nonreligious self-study program of spiritual psychotherapy, based on universal spiritual themes.
HIV/AIDS advocacy Centers for Living In response to the HIV/AIDS crises in the 1980s, Williamson founded the Los Angeles and Manhattan Centers for Living, which served as a refuge and non-medical support for people with HIV/AIDS. There they could connect with a variety of psychological and emotional resources, as well as community of support. She has said of that time that "there was so much love, because there was nothing to hold onto but love."
Project Angel Food In 1989, she launched Project Angel Food to build off the work of the Centers for Living. Originally launched to support HIV/AIDS patients, Project Angel Food expanded its outreach and currently cooks and delivers more than 12,000 meals each week, free of charge, to the homes of men, women and children affected by various life-threatening illnesses. The organization's food and nutrition services, including medically tailored meals and nutritional counseling, help under-served people throughout Los Angeles County who are too sick to shop or cook for themselves. In 2017, Project Angel Food served its 11 millionth meal.
Women's advocacy She has worked on behalf of women's empowerment issues for decades. In 1993 she published her #1 NYT bestseller, A Woman's Worth.Publishers Weekly said of the book: "Williamson gives sound, empowering advice on relationships, work, love, sex and childrearing."
In 2010, she launched a series of Sister Giant conferences, trainings, and events to support individuals '' particularly women '' who want to increase their efficacy as activists and/or run for office. On the initiative she has said, ''I want to be a cheerleader for women who have never even considered running for office or being involved in a campaign, but who in the quietness of their hearts might think, 'Why not me?''' The events have focused on how to better address many social issues, including: child poverty, low levels of female representation in office, campaign finance reform, high levels of mass incarceration, among other issues.
Peace-building In 2004, she co-founded The Peace Alliance, a nonprofit grassroots education and advocacy organization focused on increasing U.S. governmental support of peace-building approaches to domestic and international conflicts. She has said of the need for this work: "You don't just wait until there is a violent eruption and then just try to throw people in jail or just wait until there is a violent eruption and then try to bomb an entire country, there's just a limit past which this is not workable. Rather, you proactively seek to cultivate the conditions of peace...so we can have a much more sophisticated analysis of what it will take to create a more peaceful world."
Poverty alleviation For years Williamson was a member of the Board of Directors and remains a public supporter of RESULTS, an organization aiming to create the political will to end hunger and poverty around the world. It lobbies public officials, does research, and works with the media and the public to addresses the causal issues of poverty. RESULTS has 100 U.S. local chapters and works in six other countries.
Love America Tour Starting in the winter of 2018, she began touring the United States as part of her Love America Tour, discussing how she believes "a revolution in consciousness paves the way to both personal and national renewal." Of the tour she said: "Our own disconnection from the political process, lack of knowledge of how our system operates, lack of understanding of our history, and confusion about many of the issues that confront us now, have led in too many cases to a dangerous emotional disconnection between our country and ourselves."
Political career 2014 U.S. House of Representatives campaign Williamson campaigning in 2014
In 2014 Williamson ran, as an Independent, for the seat of California's 33rd congressional district in the United States House of Representatives elections. Regarding her motivation for running, she has said, "America has gone off the democratic rails. A toxic brew of shrinking civil liberties and expanded corporate influence are poisoning our democracy." Her core message was that "humanitarian values should replace economic values as the ordering principle of our civilization."
Prominent elected and public officials endorsed her campaign, including former Governors Jennifer Granholm and Jesse Ventura; former Congressmembers Dennis Kucinich and Alan Grayson; and Van Jones, among others.Alanis Morissette wrote and performed Williamson's campaign song, "Today".
She campaigned on a broad array of progressive issues, including: greater access to high-quality education and free college; child poverty; economic justice; climate change & renewable energy; campaign finance reform; universal health care; criminal justice reform; ending perpetual war and increasing investments in peacebuilding; women's reproductive rights; and LGBTQ equality among others.
She finished fourth out of 16 candidates, with 14,335 votes for 13.2% of the vote. Williamson said of the process and its outcome: "This conversation of a politics of conscience, a politics of the heart, is much bigger than any one woman winning a congressional seat. And if that woman loses, the conversation goes on. My losing the congressional seat is small; what's big is the larger conversation ... you impact the ethers, and that energy goes somewhere."
2020 presidential campaign Williamson in New Hampshire in January 2019
On November 15, 2018, Williamson announced the formation of a presidential exploratory committee in a video in which she acclaimed that there was a "miracle in this country in 1776 and we need another one" which would require "a co-creative effort, an effort of love and a gift of love, to our country and hopefully to our world". Visiting New Hampshire in early January, she said that she "received enough positive energy to make me feel I should take the next step", and subsequently hired Brent Roske to lead her operation in Iowa. Roske, a film producer who also contested the same 2014 primary for the seat now represented by Ted Lieu, maintained a wide network of connections in Iowa due in part to his previous involvement in the state, working on a political television show about the 2016 caucuses. In response to the Iowa Democratic Party's proposed creation of "virtual caucuses" in the 2020 race, Williamson's campaign announced that it would appoint 99 "Virtual Iowa Caucus Captains" (each assigned to a single county) to turn out supporters in both the virtual and in-person caucuses.
Williamson officially launched her presidential campaign in Los Angeles on January 28, 2019, in front of an audience of 2,000 attendees, and appointed Maurice Daniel, who served alongside Donna Brazile in Dick Gephardt's campaign for the Democratic nomination in 1988, as her national campaign manager, with her campaign committee, "Marianne Williamson for President", officially filed on February 4. Following her Los Angeles announcement, she held her Iowa kickoff in Des Moines on January 31. On February 16, in addition to scheduling another trip to New Hampshire, Williamson's campaign announced the appointment of former Congressman Paul Hodes, who represented New Hampshire's 2nd congressional district from 2007 to 2011, as New Hampshire state director and senior campaign advisor. Former Georgia state assemblywoman Gloria Bromell Tinubu, who returned to South Carolina in 2011 to run for Congress in the state's 7th district and later joined Phil Noble's bid for governor in 2018 as his running mate, served as South Carolina state director and national senior advisor to the Williamson campaign, but later ceased working with the campaign.
On May 9, Williamson's campaign announced that she had received enough contributions from unique donors to enter the official primary debates, having raised $1.5 million in the first quarter of 2019, during which the campaign received donations from 46,663 unique individuals. She subsequently met the polling criteria, with three unique polls at 1% from qualifying pollsters, on May 23. In June, Williamson confirmed that she moved to Des Moines, Iowa in advance of the 2020 caucuses.
Political positions Williamson claims to be a "pretty straight-line progressive Democrat", supporting an increase of the federal minimum wage to $15 per hour, reducing income inequality, addressing climate change, and tackling student loan debt. She backs a "Medicare for All model", Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants without a "serious criminal background", and says that the U.S. needs to be an "honest broker" in the Israeli''Palestinian conflict.
She ranks climate change as "the greatest moral challenge of our generation" and backs the Green New Deal. She has called for the establishment of a Department of Peace to expand global diplomacy, mediation, and educational and economic development. She also voices support for stricter gun control, criminal justice reform, improving public education, free college tuition, raising the top marginal tax rate to a point where high earners pay "their fair share of taxes", describing her policies as a "renovation" of a "sociopathic economic system" focused on "short-term profit maximization". She appeared to oppose mandatory vaccinations when she described them as "Orwellian" and stating "To me, it's no different than the abortion debate." She later stated that she misspoke, and "I support vaccines. Public safety must be carefully balanced with the right of individuals to make their own decisions." According to the Los Angeles Times, she "has a history of skeptical comments about vaccinations."
Her signature campaign promise is a call for $100 billion in reparations for slavery to be distributed over 10 years by a group of black leaders for selected "economic and education projects", and later suggested distributing $200 to $500 billion on The Breakfast Club, a sum far greater than any other primary contenders support. In doing so, Williamson became the only candidate in the Democratic field to submit a detailed plan for reparations for black Americans, though fellow Democratic presidential candidates Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris later pledged support for reparations in late February 2019.
Personal life Williamson was briefly married. In 1990, she gave birth to a daughter, India Emma.
Bibliography A Return to Love, First Edition 1992 (ISBN 9780060927486)Imagine What America Could Be in the 21st Century: Visions of a Better Future from Leading American Thinkers (ISBN 0451204697)Emma & Mommy Talk to God (ISBN 9780060799267)Healing the Soul of America: Reclaiming Our Voices as Spiritual Citizens (ISBN 9780684846224)A Woman's Worth (ISBN 9780345386571)Enchanted Love: The Mystical Power of Intimate Relationships (ISBN 9780684870250)Everyday Grace: Having Hope, Finding Forgiveness, And Making Miracles (ISBN 9781573223515)Illuminata: A Return to Prayer (ISBN 9781573225205)The Gift of Change (ISBN 0060816112)The Law of Divine Compensation: On Work, Money and Miracles (ISBN 0062205412)A Course in Weight Loss: 21 Spiritual Lessons for Surrendering Your Weight Forever (ISBN 1401921531)Tears to Triumph: The Spiritual Journey from Suffering to Enlightenment (ISBN 9780062205445)A Politics of Love: A Handbook for a New American Revolution (ISBN 0062873938)References ^ Knapp, Gwenn (2006). "StarBios Report for Marianne Williamson". MOTTASIA Inc. Archived from the original on October 18, 2006 . Retrieved July 12, 2006 . ^ "Books by Marianne Williamson". Good Reads . Retrieved February 5, 2018 . ^ a b "BEST SELLERS". New York Times. September 6, 1992. ^ a b "Best Sellers". New York Times. July 11, 1993. ^ a b "Best Sellers". New York Times. January 1, 1995. ^ a b "Best Sellers". New York Times. December 15, 2002. ^ "Our History". Project Angel Food . Retrieved February 8, 2018 . ^ "History". The Peace Alliance . Retrieved February 8, 2018 . ^ Bowden, John (January 29, 2019). "Author Marianne Williamson running for 2020 Dem nomination". The Hill . Retrieved February 13, 2019 . ^ Munson, Zack. "God Help Us", The Weekly Standard, Vol. 19, No. 22. 2014 February 17 ^ Merl, Jean. "Marianne Williamson's spiritual path into political realm", Los Angeles Times, 2014 January 13 ^ a b Appelo, Tim. "Love Prophet", Entertainment Weekly, 1992 March 6 ^ a b c d Pristin, Terry. "COVER STORY : The Power, the Glory, the Glitz : Marianne Williamson, an ex-nightclub singer, has attracted many in Hollywood with her blend of new-time religion and self-help--and alienated more than a few.", "Los Angeles Times," 1992 February 16 ^ a b c d Schindehette, Susan. "The Divine Miss W" Archived October 22, 2015, at the Wayback Machine, People, 1992 March. 09 ^ "Jewish Herald-Voice". jhvonline.com. ^ https://www.jta.org/2018/11/28/politics/new-age-guru-marianne-williamson-talks-about-her-jewishness-and-2020-presidential-run ^ a b Harel, Monica Corcoran (May 27, 2014). "The New Age of Marianne Williamson". Los Angeles . Retrieved February 13, 2019 . ^ Weig, Nick (February 4, 2019). "PROFILE: Marianne Williamson". KGAN . Retrieved February 13, 2019 . Siegel, Zachary (March 9, 2015). "Marianne Williamson'--Because Love is not Passive". TheFix.com . Retrieved February 13, 2019 . Micucci, Dana (March 29, 1992). " ' Anytime you try to be a loving... ' ". Chicago Tribune . Retrieved February 13, 2019 . Tolson, Mike (April 18, 2014). "Houston-raised Marianne Williamson eyes a California congressional seat". Houston Chronicle . Retrieved February 13, 2019 . Lett, Alexsandra (January 19, 2018). "Marianne Williamson Spreads Message Of Unity". The Daily Record . Retrieved February 13, 2019 . ^ "Faith: Marianne Williamson is Full of It". Mother Jones (November/December 1997). ^ "Marianne Williamson, Hollywood self-help guru, wants to heal Washington". Washington Post. March 11, 2014. ^ "Healing the Soul Of America". Amazon.com. ^ "Healing the Soul of America - 20th Anniversary Edition". Simon and Schuster. ^ "How To Heal Yourself And The World Around You". Oprah.com. ^ "BOOKS -- The Spiritual Side Of U.S. Politics / Williamson urges rethinking of roles". San Francisco Chronicle. October 14, 1997. ^ "Marianne Williamson on What's Wrong'--and Right'--with the World". Oprah. December 29, 2012 . Retrieved February 8, 2018 . ^ "Marianne Williamson Aims to Defeat Henry Waxman, and Save Washington's Soul". January 1, 2014. ^ "Project Angel Food's Angel Awards benefit, featuring Charo and Cheyenne Jackson, raises $650,000". Los Angeles Times. August 20, 2018. ^ "Project Angel Food serves 11 millionth meal". Los Angeles Blade. November 28, 2018. ^ "BEST SELLERS: July 11, 1993". New York Times. July 11, 1993. ^ "A Woman's Worth". Publishers Weekly. ^ a b "Gabrielle Bernstein Interviews Marianne Williamson: Sister Giant". Huffington Post . Retrieved October 16, 2012 . ^ "The History of Sister Giant". ^ "Marianne Williamson Department of Peace Interview". ^ "Turning Compassion into a Political Force". Results.org. ^ "Marianne Williamson bringing her 'Love America' tour to Detroit". Detroit Free Press. May 15, 2018. ^ "Tour Dates". Sistergiant.com. ^ "Marianne Williamson for Congress". web.archive.org. February 25, 2014. ^ "Marianne Williamson". ^ "Alanis Morissette cuts campaign song for Calif. candidate". The Hill. May 6, 2014. ^ "Marianne Williamson, New-Age Guru, Seeks Congressional Seat". New York Times. November 13, 2013. ^ "Issues". Wayback Machine. Archived from the original on February 26, 2014 . Retrieved April 10, 2019 . ^ "Marianne Williamson Aims to Defeat Henry Waxman, and Save Washington's Soul". LA Weekly. January 16, 2014. ^ "Marianne Williamson, Hollywood's Favorite New Age Guru, Backs Bernie Sanders for President". The Hollywood Reporter. May 1, 2015. ^ "Oprah to Marianne Williamson: 'How Important Was the Win for You? ' ". Oprah.com . Retrieved November 2, 2014 . ^ Thompson, Alex (November 16, 2018). "Oprah pal and spirituality guru plans 2020 run". Politico . Retrieved March 1, 2019 . ^ Steinhauser, Paul (January 8, 2019). "Oprah advisor to visit N.H. as she considers White House bid". Concord Monitor . Retrieved March 1, 2019 . ^ Pfannenstiel, Brianne [@brianneDMR] (January 21, 2019). "Inbox: Marianne Williamson, who formed a presidential exploratory committee ('...) is making "a big announcement" Jan 28 and then will be in Des Moines for a kickoff event Jan 31. She's hired @brentroske as Iowa director for her exploratory committee. #iacaucus" (Tweet) . Retrieved March 1, 2019 '' via Twitter. ^ a b c d Peele, Anna (February 19, 2019). "Marianne Williamson Wants to Be Your Healer in Chief". The Washington Post Magazine . Retrieved March 1, 2019 . ^ a b Rynard, Pat (February 28, 2019). "How The 2020 Candidates Are Staffing Up In Iowa". Iowa Starting Line . Retrieved March 1, 2019 . ^ Rynard, Pat (February 28, 2019). "Marianne Williamson Recruits "Virtual Captains" For Virtual Caucus". Iowa Starting Line . Retrieved February 28, 2019 . ^ Kaji, Mina (February 20, 2019). "Marianne Williamson: Oprah confidant, author, spiritual teacher and presidential candidate". ABC News . Retrieved March 1, 2019 . ^ "FEC Form 2: Statement of Candidacy" (PDF) . Federal Election Commission. February 4, 2019 . Retrieved March 2, 2019 . ^ Opsahl, Robin (January 31, 2019). "Marianne Williamson tells Iowa crowd America needs a 'moral and spiritual awakening ' ". Des Moines Register . Retrieved March 1, 2019 . ^ DiStaso, John [@jdistaso] (February 16, 2019). "JUST IN to @WMUR9 '' Democratic presidential candidate @marwilliamson lands top NH campaign advisor '' Former US Rep. @PaulHodes signs on as Senior Campaign Advisor & NH State Director. They have a busy #fitn schedule on tap. #nhpolitics #WMUR" (Tweet) . Retrieved March 1, 2019 '' via Twitter. ^ Rivas, Briana (February 19, 2019). "SC native Dr. Gloria Bromell Tinubu joins Williamson 2020 campaign". WPDE . Retrieved March 2, 2019 . ^ Marchant, Bristow (April 28, 2019). "Lindsey Graham gets second Democratic challenger in Senate race". The State . Retrieved April 29, 2019 . ^ Stewart, Briana (May 9, 2019). "Marianne Williamson's campaign says she's qualified for the first 2020 Democratic debate". ABC News . Retrieved May 9, 2019 . ^ Schouten, Fredreka (April 15, 2019). "Author Marianne Williamson raised $1.5 million in presidential bid". CNN . Retrieved April 15, 2019 . ^ Shepard, Steven; Montellaro, Zach (May 23, 2019). "Spirituality guru Marianne Williamson locks in 2020 debate spot". Politico . Retrieved May 23, 2019 . ^ Judd, Donald (June 6, 2019). "Marianne Williamson moves to Des Moines in bid for the Iowa caucuses". CNN . Retrieved June 7, 2019 . ^ Rynard, Pat (February 3, 2019). "Love, Reparations, And Fighting Back: A Marianne Williamson Iowa Tour". Iowa Starting Line . Retrieved March 1, 2019 . ^ Yadidi, Noa (February 28, 2019). "Marianne Williamson: Everything you need to know about the 2020 candidate". Axios . Retrieved March 1, 2019 . ^ Woodruff, Judy (June 6, 2019). Why Marianne Williamson thinks she can defeat Trump. PBS NewsHour (Video). Event occurs at 3:30 '' via YouTube. ^ Woodruff interview. Event occurs at 6:15. ^ Kaplan, Anna (June 20, 2019). "2020 Candidate Marianne Williamson: Vaccine Mandates Are 'Orwellian ' ". The Daily Beast . Retrieved June 21, 2019 . ^ a b Pearce, Matt (June 20, 2019). "2020 candidate Marianne Williamson apologizes for calling vaccine mandates 'Orwellian ' ". Los Angeles Times. ^ Shen-Berro, Julian (June 20, 2019). "Marianne Williamson Apologizes For Calling Vaccine Mandates 'Draconian ' ". HuffPost. ^ Burns, Alexander; Flegenheimer, Matt; Lee, Jasmine C.; Lerer, Lisa; Martin, Jonathan (January 21, 2019). "Who's Running for President in 2020?". The New York Times . Retrieved March 1, 2019 . ^ Wang, Esther (March 29, 2019). "Marianne Williamson Wants Your Perception to Shift". Jezebel . Retrieved April 9, 2019 . ^ Herndon, Astead W. (February 21, 2019). "2020 Democrats Embrace Race-Conscious Policies, Including Reparations". The New York Times . Retrieved March 1, 2019 . ^ "The New Age of Marianne Williamson Los Angeles Magazine". Los Angeles Magazine. May 27, 2014. External links Official website Marianne Williamson for President websiteMarianne Williamson, article and shows at Oprah.comMarianne Williamson on "Politicking with Larry King"Sister GiantThe Peace AllianceProject Angel FoodAppearances on C-SPAN
Internet Trolls Are Raving About Tulsi Gabbard's Debate Performance'--And They're Calling Her ''Mommy'' '' Mother Jones
The internet far-right thinks Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard stole the show during Wednesday's Democratic presidential debate.
High-profile right-wing and alt-right internet trolls like Jack Posobiec, fellow Pizzagater Mike Cernovich, and Infowars' Paul Joseph Watson praised Gabbard on Twitter for her performance alongside nine other candidates on the Miami stage.
Users on 4chan affectionately referred to Gabbard as ''mommy.'' Cernovich called Gabbard the ''breakthrough star of the night,'' while Posobiec retweeted a post calling for ''a movement to push Trump to hire Tulsi Gabbard as Secretary of State.'' (Documents leaked this week show that Gabbard, who served in Iraq, was considered by the Trump transition as a possible Secretary of Veterans Affairs.)
A flash poll posted by the right-leaning Drudge Report marked Gabbard as the winner. While such surveys are statistically meaningless, the morning after the debate Watson tweeted, referencing the poll: ''Leftists are FURIOUS Tulsi Gabbard won the debate. She was the only authentic person on that stage. What does that tell you? #Drudge''.
Users on the notoriously racist and sexist message boards 8chan and 4chan, which both serve as internet hubs for far-right trolls, voiced their support for Gabbard on debate night. In 8chan's overall discussion thread for the event, Gabbard was mentioned far more than any other candidate. Users on 4chan also made several discussion threads dedicated to Gabbard's night at the debate, affectionately referring to her as ''mommy.''
Such support for Gabbard isn't entirely surprising. Since January, when Gabbard announced her campaign, elements of conservative media and the far right have been receptive to the Hawaii politician and aspects of her record, especially in foreign policy, that don't track neatly with normal progressive or Democratic policy positions. Some internet right-wingers who also feel like their politics don't match well with most candidates, even Republicans, have felt a common cause.
Trolls have been attracted by her isolationist views and her willingness to criticize Israel, a country they believe Trump and other politicians have been too cozy with, along with her accusation earlier this year that Democrats participated in ''religious bigotry'' during their questioning of a Trump judicial nominee.
But support for Gabbard in such circles has somewhat faded in the face of a number of other Democratic candidates, including Andrew Yang, who has also caught the attention of segments of the far-right internet troll bloc. Like Gabbard, Yang's relatively unconventional policies (namely his $1,000 monthly universal basic income proposal) have been attractive to 8chan and 4chan users as well as to personalities on the alt-right, including white nationalist Nick Fuentes, who feel like Trump didn't come through for them. Yang has repeatedly disavowed their support as he's tried to carve out his own base of support.
NBC News' adds a deep-fake pimple onto Tulsi Gabbard's chin during the live streaming of the first Democratic' debate. : conspiracy
Bigoted slurs are not tolerated.No accusations of rules violations in comments. Please report violations.No blog spam/malicious web sites.No abusive/threatening language. No stalking or trolling. Titles and comments with an excess of caps lock, bold text, large fonts, text colors, exaggerated punctuation and other attention-seeking devices will be removed.Facebook links will be removed.No memes... use /r/ConspiracyMemes. Other image posts are subject to removal at moderators discretion.Posting links in other subs pointing to specific submissions or comments here is subject to a ban, depending on context.Posts that attack this sub, users or mods thereof, will be removed. Accusing another user of being a troll or shill can be viewed as an attack, depending on context. First violations will usually result in a warning but bans are at the mods' discretion.Misleading, fabricated or sensationalist headlines are subject to removal.Self posts that lack context or content may be removed.Submission Statements are required for link and image posts. Link posts without a Statement will be removed after 20 minutes.Rules are explained in depth at FAQ page.
Users with reddit accounts under two months old are encouraged to visit /r/conspiracy_commons.
[Meta] and [No Meta] FlairsAll posts will be by default flaired as [No Meta] and subject to these rules. To have your post flaired as [Meta], simply start your post title with [Meta], brackets included.
Kamala Harris: "Birther" tweet targets 2020 candidate, rivals rush to her defense - CBS News
2020 Democratic hopeful Kamala Harris was the target of a birtherism-like attack '-- retweeted and then deleted by President Trump's son Donald Trump Jr. '-- targeting her identity as "not an American Black." Her rivals for the Democratic nomination jumped to her defense on Saturday, including former Vice President Joe Biden, who she confronted about race at Thursday's debate.
Harris was born in Oakland, California to parents who had emigrated to the U.S. from India and Jamaica. The viral tweet by right-wing personality Ali Alexander '-- whose Twitter bio claims that he "exposed" Harris and includes the hashtag #NeverKamala '-- mentioned her parents' background and said "I'm so sick of people robbing American Blacks (like myself) of our history. It's disgusting. Now using it for debate time at #DemDebate2? These are my people not her people."
The tweet appeared to get the attention of Donald Trump Jr., who has more than three million followers. Trump Jr. wrote "Is this true? Wow" on Thursday, but soon deleted it. A spokesman told The New York Times Trump Jr. was "asking if it was true that Kamala Harris was half-Indian because it's not something he had ever heard before."
Harris has often resisted sharing her personal background on the campaign trail. But during Thursday's debate, she confronted Biden about his history opposing busing and said she herself had been bused to a public school.
Kamala Harris is seen as a child in an undated photo released by her presidential campaign during the Democratic presidential debate in Miami, Florida, U.S. June 27, 2019. HANDOUT Harris' campaign manager, Lily Adams, said in a statement to CBS News "this is the same type of racist attacks used to attack Barack Obama. It didn't work then and it won't work now."
Harris' husband, Douglas Emhoff, expressed his gratitude on Twitter to those who came to his wife's defense. "...Thx to all the 2020 candidates and everyone else for calling out this crap for what it is"... Emhoff tweeted.
On Saturday, Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts was the first 2020 candidate to tweet in support of Harris. "The attacks against @KamalaHarris are racist and ugly. We all have an obligation to speak out and say so. And it's within the power and obligation of tech companies to stop these vile lies dead in their tracks," Warren tweeted.
Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey chimed in with a tweet saying "@kamalaharris doesn't have sh[**] to prove." Strong remarks also came from Washington Gov. Jay Inslee, former U.S. Rep. Beto O'Rourke and South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg. Biden, the current frontrunner, tweeted on Saturday "The same forces of hatred rooted in 'birtherism' that questioned @BarackObama's American citizenship, and even his racial identity, are now being used against Senator @KamalaHarris. It's disgusting and we have to call it out when we see it. Racism has no place in America."
President Trump was one of the leading voices, along with a group of conspiracy theorists, who questioned whether former President Obama was really born in the U.S. Earlier this month, Mr. Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner, would not directly answer whether the president's birther conspiracy against Mr. Obama was racist.
Democratic Presidential candidate, Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) as she visits the outside of a detention center for migrant children on June 28, 2019 in Homestead, Florida. Joe Raedle / Getty Images Alexander fired back at the 2020 candidates who defended Harris on Twitter Saturday, claiming there is a "racist Democratic smear campaign against him." A Howard University Professor directly responded.
"Shut down the weaponized ignorance," said professor Greg Carr, Howard University's chair of Afro-American Studies. Carr pointed to the 2016 presidential primary campaign of Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas.
Cruz, who was born in Calgary, Canada, also faced criticism from the then-frontrunner, Mr. Trump, but Carr and other civil rights activists say Cruz did not face anywhere near the "crowd swell of birtherism" that former President Obama and now Harris have faced. Carr called birtherism race-based and absolutely racist.
There has been social media criticism of Harris and Booker '-- who is African American and from Newark, New Jersey '-- propelled by an online campaign that operates under #ADOS: American Descendants of Slavery. Online, the group says they "seeks to reclaim/restore the critical national character of the African American identity and experience."
Carr believes their social media discussion around reparations may be driving a conversation to separate those who are "black" and "African American" '-- or "American Black" as Alexander put it. Carr made sure to emphasize that ADOS has nothing to do with major national groups fighting for reparations, like the National Coalition of Blacks for Reparations in America. He connects ADOS to a group that attempts to create controversy or issues in black communities that might lead to nefarious goals, like suppressing the African American vote.
"What good does it do to any of us to assert pride of privilege in oppression," said Carr.
Carr said he would tell Ali "stop standing between attempts to solve our collective problems and people's attempts to understand how best to do it. This doesn't add anything positive to public discourse. And of course my next question would be if you are not in fact just acting out of ignorance, 'Who are you working for?' because we've seen this show before."
Kamala Harris on the LIFT Act - The New York Times
Ms. Harris's legislation would provide up to $6,000 a year in the form of a refundable tax credit to middle-class and working families.
Image Senator Kamala Harris of California. Credit Credit The New York Times In late 2018, Senator Kamala Harris of California announced a proposal called the LIFT the Middle Class Act, a piece of legislation aimed at addressing the rising cost of living by providing middle-class and working families with a significant tax credit. She has been highlighting her proposal on the campaign trail as she seeks the Democratic nomination for president.
What it isThe legislation would provide up to $6,000 a year in the form of a refundable tax credit for households earning under $100,000 annually, and up to $3,000 for single filers earning under $50,000 per year.
If passed, it would come on top of existing tax credits and public benefits for lower-income Americans.
In making the case for the tax credit, Ms. Harris's team cites a survey that found that 57 percent of Americans do not have enough cash to cover an unexpected $500 expense.
How she uses itThe LIFT Act is essentially Ms. Harris's attempt to close the wealth gap. It places her into the growing group of candidates who have suggested addressing the issue through various measures like baby bonds, universal basic income and a wealth tax.
The policy allows Ms. Harris to address income inequality while avoiding the anti-Wall Street rhetoric associated with Senators Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts.
Ms. Harris has also used the policy as a catchall description of her economic vision, reframing questions about the racial wealth gap and reparations, for instance, into a broader discussion of racial and economic disparity.
Obstacles Rather than trying to appease the party's left wing, Ms. Harris is betting on an incremental approach. But some progressives view the LIFT Act as not bold enough to really help the neediest Americans.
The legislation would need to pass both houses of what could be a sharply divided Congress. And it is not clear how the federal government would recover the tax dollars refunded by the tax credit.
Matt Stevens is a political reporter based in New York. He previously worked for The Los Angeles Times, covering drought, water and the city's west side. @ ByMattStevens
Desegregation busing in the United States (also known as simply busing) is the practice of assigning and transporting students to schools so as to redress prior racial segregation of schools, or to overcome the effects of residential segregation on local school demographics.
In 1954, the U.S. Supreme Court landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education declared racial segregation in public schools unconstitutional. The process of integrating public schools met fierce resistance in the South where segregation laws took hold after the American Civil War and the Reconstruction Era of the United States. In Northern and Western states, de facto segregation was the customary practice. Due to patterns of residential segregation, a principal tool for racial integration was the use of busing. In the 1971 Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education ruling, the Supreme Court ruled that the federal courts had the discretion to include busing as a desegregation tool to achieve racial balance. While the Swann decision addressed de jure segregation in the South, it failed to address de facto segregation which persisted elsewhere in the country. In Georgia, Governor Jimmy Carter saw that Swann was "clearly a one-sided decision; the Court is still talking about the South, the North is still going free". In the 1974 Milliken v. Bradley decision, the U.S. Supreme Court placed an important limitation on Swann when they ruled that students could be bused across district lines only when evidence of de jure segregation across multiple school districts existed.
In the 1970s and 1980s, under federal court supervision, many school districts implemented mandatory busing plans within their district. A few of these plans are still in use today. An example of stiff resistance to desegregation busing was the Restore Our Alienated Rights movement in Boston.
Since the 1980s, desegregation busing has been in decline due to fierce opposition from white voters despite the success of the initiative at narrowing the achievement gap between white and black students. Even though school districts provided zero-fare bus transportation to and from students' assigned schools, those schools were in some cases many miles away from students' homes, which often presented problems to them and their families. In addition, many white families were angry about having to send their children miles to another school in an unfamiliar neighborhood when there was an available school a short distance away. The movement of large numbers of white families to suburbs of large cities, so-called white flight, reduced the effectiveness of the policy. Many whites who stayed moved their children into private or parochial schools; these effects combined to make many urban school districts predominantly nonwhite, reducing any effectiveness mandatory busing may have had. In addition, school districts started using magnet schools, new school construction, and more detailed computer-generated information to refine their school assignment plans.
1 History 1.1 Before World War II 1.2 After World War II 1.2.1 Black population shift 1.2.2 Legal rulings 1.3 Civil rights movement 1.4 Sociological study 1.5 Reaction 1.5.1 Before 2007 1.5.2 After 2007 2 Criticism 3 Effects 4 Historical examples 4.1 Boston, Massachusetts 4.2 Springfield, Massachusetts 4.3 Kansas City, Missouri 4.4 Las Vegas, Nevada 4.5 Los Angeles, California 4.6 Nashville, Tennessee 4.7 Pasadena, California 4.8 Prince George's County, Maryland 4.9 Richmond, Virginia 4.10 Wilmington, Delaware 5 Re-segregation 6 See also 7 References 8 Further reading 9 External links History [ edit ] Before World War II [ edit ] Prior to World War II, most public schools in the country were de jure or de facto segregated. All Southern states had Jim Crow laws mandating racial segregation of schools. Northern states and some border states were primarily white (as of 1940, populations of Detroit and Chicago were more than 90% white) and, furthermore, existing black populations were concentrated in urban ghettos partly as the result of restrictive covenants.
After World War II [ edit ] The origins of desegregation busing can be traced back to two major developments that occurred in the United States during the 1940s and 1950s.
Black population shift [ edit ] Starting in 1940, the Second Great Migration brought five million blacks from the agrarian South to the urban and manufacturing centers in Northern and Western cities to fill in the labor shortages during the industrial buildup of World War II and for better opportunities during the post-war economic boom. Shelley v. Kraemer (1948) allowed them to settle in formerly white neighborhoods, contributing to racial tension. Meanwhile, the post-war housing boom and the rise of suburbia allowed whites to migrate into the suburbs. By 1960, all major Northern and Western cities had sizable black populations (e.g., 23% in Chicago, 29% in Detroit, and 32% in Los Angeles). Blacks tended to be concentrated in inner cities, whereas newer suburbs of most cities were almost exclusively white.
Legal rulings [ edit ] At the same time, the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Brown vs Board of Education (1954) overturned racial segregation laws for public schools that had been in place in a number of states since the late 19th century, and ruled that separate but equal schools were "inherently unequal". Although the Brown decision affirmed principles of equality and justice, it did not specify how its ruling would promote equality in education. Thurgood Marshall and the NAACP wanted a speedy process for desegregating the school districts, but the Court waited until the following year to make its recommendations. Reasons for delaying had to do with the changes in the Court and with Chief Justice Earl Warren steering a careful course given the expected opposition from Southern states. In May 1955, the Court ruled in Brown II that the school districts desegregate "with all deliberate speed". Public school administrators had to begin the process of desegregating the schools through the development of policies that would promote racial mixing. A backlash of resistance and violence ensued. Even members of Congress refused to abide by the decision. In 1956 over a hundred congressmen signed the Southern Manifesto, promising to use all legal means to undermine and reverse the Court's ruling.
The momentum continued with two additional Supreme Court decisions aimed at implementation. In 1968, the Warren Court in Green v. County School Board of New Kent County, rejected a freedom of choice plan. The Court ordered the county to desegregate immediately and eliminate racial discrimination "root and branch". Then in 1971, the Burger Court in Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education ruled that the school district must achieve racial balance even if it meant redrawing school boundaries and the use of busing as a legal tool. The impact of Green and Swann served to end all remnants of de jure segregation in the South. However, the consequence of the Swann decision ushered in new forms of resistance in subsequent decades. The decision failed to address de facto segregation.
Consequently, despite being found "inherently unequal" in Brown v. Board of Education, by the late 1960s public schools remained de facto segregated in many cities because of demographic patterns, school district lines being intentionally drawn to segregate the schools racially, and, in some cases, due to conscious efforts to send black children to inferior schools. Thus, for example, by 1969, more than nine of every ten black students in Nashville still attended all-black schools. Evidence of such de facto segregation motivated early proponents of plans to engage in conscious "integration" of public schools, by busing schoolchildren to schools other than their neighborhood schools, with an objective to equalize racial imbalances. Proponents of such plans argued that with the schools integrated, minority students would have equal access to equipment, facilities, and resources that the cities' white students had, thus giving all students in the city equal educational opportunities.
A federal court found that in Boston, schools were constructed and school district lines drawn intentionally to segregate the schools racially. In the early 1970s, a series of court decisions found that the racially imbalanced schools trampled the rights of minority students. As a remedy, courts ordered the racial integration of school districts within individual cities, sometimes requiring the racial composition of each individual school in the district to reflect the composition of the district as a whole. This was generally achieved by transporting children by school bus to a school in a different area of the district.
The judge who instituted the Detroit busing plan said that busing "is a considerably safer, more reliable, healthful and efficient means of getting children to school than either carpools or walking, and this is especially true for younger children". He, therefore, included kindergarten children in the busing scheme: "Transportation of kindergarten children for upwards of forty-five minutes, one-way, does not appear unreasonable, harmful, or unsafe in any way." The resultant Supreme Court case, Milliken v. Bradley, imposed limits on busing. The key issue was whether a district court could order a metropolitan-wide desegregation plan between urban Detroit and suburban school districts. Busing would play a key role in the implementation phase. The Court essentially declared that federal courts did not have the authority to order inter-district desegregation unless it could be proven that suburban school districts intentionally mandated segregation policies. The implication of the decision was that suburban school districts in the North were not affected by the principles established by Brown. De facto segregation was allowed to persist in the North. The courts could order desegregation where segregation patterns existed, but only within municipalities, not suburban areas. The lasting consequence of the Milliken decision is that it opened the door for whites to flee to the suburbs and not be concerned about compliance with mandatory integration policies.
With waning public support, the courts began relaxing judicial supervision of school districts during the 1990s and 2000s, calling for voluntary efforts to achieve racial balance. In the early 1990s, the Rehnquist Court ruled in three cases coming from Oklahoma City, Kansas City, and DeKalb County in Georgia that federal judges could ease their supervision of school districts "once legally enforced segregation had been eliminated to the extent practicable". With these decisions, the Rehnquist Court opened the door for school districts throughout the country to get away from under judicial supervision once they had achieved unitary status. Unitary Status meant that a school district had successfully eliminated segregation in dual school systems and thus was no longer bound to court-ordered desegregation policies.
Then in 2002, the Supreme Court upheld a lower court decision in Belk v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education which declared that the school system had achieved desegregation status and that the method to achieve integration, like busing, was unnecessary. The refusal of the Court to hear the challenges to the lower court decision effectively overturned the earlier 1971 Swann ruling.
Finally, in 2007, the Roberts Court produced a contentious 5''4 ruling in Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 (PICS). The decision prohibited the use of racial classifications in student assignment plans to maintain racial balance. Whereas the Brown case ruled that racial segregation violated the Constitution, now the use of racial classifications violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. Writing for the minority, Justice Breyer said the "ruling contradicted previous decisions upholding race-conscious pupil assignments and would hamper local school boards' efforts to prevent 'resegregation' in individual schools".
Civil rights movement [ edit ] The struggle to desegregate the schools received impetus from the Civil Rights Movement, whose goal was to dismantle legal segregation in all public places. The movement's efforts culminated in Congress passing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Signed by President Lyndon Johnson, the two laws signaled the end of discriminatory voting practices and segregation of public accommodations. The importance of these two laws was the injection of both the legislative and executive branches joining the judiciary to promote racial integration. In addition, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 authorized the federal government to cut off funding if Southern school districts did not comply and also to bring lawsuits against school officials who resisted.
One argument against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that opponents of the proposed legislation found particularly compelling was that the bill would require forced busing to achieve certain racial quotas in schools. Proponents of the bill, such as Emanuel Celler and Jacob Javits, said that the bill would not authorize such measures. Leading sponsor Sen. Hubert Humphrey wrote two amendments specifically designed to outlaw busing. Humphrey said "if the bill were to compel it, it would be a violation [of the Constitution], because it would be handling the matter on the basis of race and we would be transporting children because of race". While Javits said any government official who sought to use the bill for busing purposes "would be making a fool of himself", two years later the Department of Health, Education and Welfare said that Southern school districts would be required to meet mathematical ratios of students by busing.
Sociological study [ edit ] Another catalyst for the development of busing was an influential sociological report on educational equality commissioned by the U.S. government in the 1960s. It was one of the largest studies in history, with more than 150,000 students in the sample. The result was a massive report of over 700 pages. That 1966 report'--titled "Equality of Educational Opportunity" (or often simply called the "Coleman Report" after its author James Coleman)'--contained many controversial findings. One conclusion from the study was that, while black schools in the South were not significantly underfunded as compared to white schools, and while per-pupil funding did not contribute significantly to differences in educational outcomes, socially disadvantaged black children still benefited significantly from learning in mixed-race classrooms. Thus, it was argued that busing (as opposed to simply increasing funding to segregated schools) was necessary for achieving racial equality.
[ edit ] Before 2007 [ edit ] The impact of the Brown v. Board of Education ruling was limited because whites and blacks tended to live in all-white or all-black communities. Initial integration in the South tended to be symbolic: for example, the integration of Clinton High School, the first public school in Tennessee to be integrated, amounted to the admission of twelve black students to a formerly all-white school.
"Forced busing" was a term used by many to describe the mandates that generally came from the courts. Court-ordered busing to achieve school desegregation was used mainly in large, ethnically segregated school systems, including Boston, Massachusetts; Cleveland and Columbus, Ohio; Kansas City, Missouri; Pasadena and San Francisco, California; Richmond, Virginia; Detroit, Michigan; and Wilmington, Delaware. From 1972 to 1980, despite busing, the percentage of blacks attending mostly-black schools barely changed, moving from 63.6 percent to 63.3 percent.
In some southern states in the 1960s and 1970s, parents opposed to busing created new private schools. The schools, called segregation academies, were sometimes organized with the support of the local White Citizen's Council.
For the 1975''76 school year, the Louisville, Kentucky school district, which was not integrated due to whites largely moving to the suburbs, was forced to start a busing program. The first day, 1,000 protestors rallied against the busing, and a few days into the process, 8,000 to 10,000 whites from Jefferson County, Kentucky, many teenagers, rallied at the district's high schools and fought with police trying to break up the crowds. Police cars were vandalized, 200 were arrested, and people were hurt in the melee, but despite further rallies being banned the next day by Louisville's mayor, demonstrators showed up to the schools the following day. Kentucky Governor Julian Carroll sent 1,800 members of the Kentucky National Guard and stationed them on every bus. On September 26, 1975, 400 protestors held a rally at Southern High School, which was broken up by police tear gas, followed by a rally of 8,000 the next day, who marched led by a woman in a wheelchair to prevent police reprisals while cameras were running. Despite the protests, Louisville's busing program continued.
Congressional opposition to busing continued. Delaware senator Joe Biden said ''I don't feel responsible for the sins of my father and grandfather,'' and that busing was ''a liberal train wreck.'' In 1977, senators William Roth and Biden proposed the ''Biden-Roth'' amendment. This amendment "prevented judges from ordering wider busing to achieve actually-integrated districts." Despite Biden's lobbying of other senators and of getting the Judiciary Committee Chairman's support, senator James Eastland, "Biden-Roth" narrowly lost.
After 2007 [ edit ] Civil rights advocates see the 2007 ruling of the Roberts court as the inevitable consequence of gradual court decisions dating back to the early 1970s to ease judicial supervision and limit important tools to achieve integrated schools. Even those school districts that voluntarily created race-conscious programs are under pressure to abandon these efforts as the white parents are refusing to participate in any pupil assignment programs. In some cases, white parents filed reverse discrimination lawsuits in court. Wherever the courts have backed away from mandating school districts to implement desegregation plans, resegregation of Blacks and Latinos has increased dramatically. In 1988, 44 percent of southern black students were attending majority-white schools. In 2005, 27 percent of black students were attending majority white schools. By restricting the tools by which schools can address school segregation, many fear that the PICS decision will continue to accelerate this trend. The ruling reflects the culmination of the conservatives' central message on education that "race should be ignored, inequalities should be blamed on individuals and schools, and existing civil rights remedies should be dismantled". In 2001 Congress passed the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) which was promptly signed by President George W. Bush. The law put a premium on student testing, not integration, to measure academic progress. Financial penalties were incurred on schools if students did not demonstrate adequate academic performance. While initially supported by Democrats, critics say, the law has failed to adequately address the achievement gap between whites and minorities and that there are problems with implementation and inflexible provisions.
Criticism [ edit ] Support for the practice is influenced by the methodology of the study conducted. In a Gallup poll taken in the early 1970s, very low percentages of whites (4 percent) and blacks (9 percent) supported busing outside of local neighborhoods. However, a longitudinal study has shown that support for desegregation busing among black respondents has only dropped below 50% once from 1972-1976 while support among white respondents has steadily increased suggesting that the Gallup poll numbers may be skewed. This increased support may be due the diminished impact of desegregation policies over time. A 1978 study by the RAND Corporation set out to find why whites were opposed to busing and concluded that it was not because they held racist attitudes, but because they believed it destroyed neighborhood schools and camaraderie and increased discipline problems. It is said that busing eroded the community pride and support that neighborhoods had for their local schools. After busing, 60 percent of Boston parents, both black and white, reported more discipline problems in schools. In the 1968, 1972, and 1976 presidential elections, candidates opposed to busing were elected each time, and Congress voted repeatedly to end court-mandated busing.
Critics point out that children in the Northeast were often bused from integrated schools to less integrated schools. The percentage of Northeastern black children who attended a predominantly black school increased from 67 percent in 1968 to 80 percent in 1980 (a higher percentage than in 1954).
Busing is claimed to have accelerated a trend of middle-class relocation to the suburbs of metropolitan areas. Many opponents of busing claimed the existence of "white flight" based on the court decisions to integrate schools. Such stresses led white middle-class families in many communities to desert the public schools and create a network of private schools.
Ultimately, many black leaders, from Wisconsin State Rep. Annette Polly Williams, a Milwaukee Democrat, to Cleveland Mayor Michael R. White led efforts to end busing.
In 1978, a proponent of busing, Nancy St. John, studied 100 cases of urban busing from the North and did not find what she had been looking for; she found no cases in which significant black academic improvement occurred, but many cases where race relations suffered due to busing, as those in forced-integrated schools had worse relations with those of the opposite race than those in non-integrated schools. Researcher David Armour, also looking for hopeful signs, found that busing "heightens racial identity" and "reduces opportunities for actual contact between the races".A 1992 study led by Harvard University Professor Gary Orfield, who supports busing, found black and Hispanic students lacked "even modest overall improvement" as a result of court-ordered busing.
Another mystery was why Asian students, segregated in some school systems, nevertheless thrived academically.
During the 1970s, 60 Minutes reported that some members of Congress, government, and the press who supported busing most vociferously sent their own children to private schools, including Senator Edward Kennedy, George McGovern, Thurgood Marshall, Phil Hart, Ben Bradlee, Senator Birch Bayh, Tom Wicker, Philip Geyelin, and Donald Fraser. Many of the judges who ordered busing also sent their children to private schools.
Effects [ edit ] Busing integrated school age ethnic minorities with the larger community.[clarification needed ] The Milliken v. Bradley Supreme Court decision that busing children across districts is unconstitutional limited the extent of busing to within metropolitan areas. This decision made suburbs attractive to those who wished to evade busing.[citation needed ]
Some metropolitan areas in which land values and property-tax structures were less favorable to relocation saw significant declines in enrollment of whites in public schools as white parents chose to enroll their children in private schools. Currently, most segregation occurs across school districts as large cities have moved significantly toward racial balance among their schools.
Recent research by Eric Hanushek, John Kain, and Steven Rivkin has shown that the level of achievement by black students is adversely affected by higher concentrations of black students in their schools. Additionally, the impact of racial concentration appears to be greatest for high-achieving black students.
Historical examples [ edit ] Boston, Massachusetts [ edit ] In 1965 Massachusetts passed into law the Racial Imbalance Act, which ordered school districts to desegregate or risk losing state educational funding. The first law of its kind in the nation, it was opposed by many in Boston, especially less-well-off white ethnic areas, such as the Irish-American neighborhoods of South Boston & Charlestown, Boston.
Springfield, Massachusetts [ edit ] Unlike Boston, which experienced a large degree of racial violence following Judge Arthur Garrity's decision to desegregate the city's public schools in 1974, Springfield quietly enacted its own desegregation busing plans. Although not as well-documented as Boston's crisis, Springfield's situation centered on the city's elementary schools. Much of the primary evidence for Springfield's busing plans stemmed from a March 1976 report by a committee for the Massachusetts Commission on Civil Rights (MCCR). According to the report, 30 of the city's 36 elementary schools were grouped into six separate districts during the 1974''75 school year, and each district contained at least one racially imbalanced school. The basic idea behind the "six-district" plan was to preserve a neighborhood feeling for school children while busing them locally to improve not only racial imbalances, but also educational opportunities in the school system.
Kansas City, Missouri [ edit ] In 1985, a federal court took partial control of the Kansas City, Missouri School District (KCMSD). Since the district and the state had been found severally liable for the lack of integration, the state was responsible for making sure that money was available for the program. It was one of the most expensive desegregation efforts attempted and included busing, a magnet school program, and an extensive plan to improve the quality of inner city schools. The entire program was built on the premise that extremely good schools in the inner-city area combined with paid busing would be enough to achieve integration.
Las Vegas, Nevada [ edit ] In May 1968, the Southern Nevada chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) filed a lawsuit against the Clark County School District (CCSD). The NAACP wanted the CCSD to acknowledge publicly, and likewise, act against the de facto segregation that existed in six elementary schools located on the city's Westside. This area of Las Vegas had traditionally been a black neighborhood. Therefore, the CCSD did not see the need to desegregate the schools, as the cause of segregation appeared to result from factors outside of its immediate control.
The case initially entered the Eighth Judicial District Court of Nevada, but quickly found its way to the Nevada Supreme Court. According to Brown II, all school desegregation cases had to be heard at the federal level if they reached a state's highest court. As a result, the Las Vegas case, which became known as Kelly v. Clark County School District, was eventually heard by the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. On May 10, 1972, the Ninth Circuit handed down its decision in favor of the NAACP, which therefore required the CCSD to implement a plan for integration. The CCSD then instituted its Sixth Grade Center Plan, which converted the Westside's six elementary schools into sixth-grade classrooms where nearly all of the school district's sixth graders (black and white alike) would be bused for the 1972''73 school year.
Los Angeles, California [ edit ] In 1963, a lawsuit, Crawford v. Board of Education of the City of Los Angeles, was filed to end segregation in the Los Angeles Unified School District. The California Supreme Court required the district to come up with a plan in 1977. The board returned to court with what the court of appeal years later would describe as "one of if not the most drastic plan of mandatory student reassignment in the nation". A desegregation busing plan was developed, to be implemented in the 1978 school year. Two suits to stop the enforced busing plan, both titled Bustop, Inc. v. Los Angeles Board of Education, were filed by the group Bustop Inc., and were petitioned to the United States Supreme Court. The petitions to stop the busing plan were subsequently denied by Justice Rehnquist and Justice Powell. California Constitutional Proposition 1, which mandated that busing follow the Equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution, passed in 1979 with 70 percent of the vote. The Crawford v. Board of Education of the City of Los Angeles lawsuit was heard in the Supreme Court in 1982. The Supreme Court upheld the decision that Proposition 1 was constitutional, and that, therefore, mandatory busing was not permissible.
Nashville, Tennessee [ edit ] In comparison with many other cities in the nation, Nashville was not a hotbed of racial violence or massive protest during the civil rights era. In fact, the city was a leader of school desegregation in the South, even housing a few small schools that were minimally integrated before the Brown v. Board of Education decision in 1954. Despite this initial breakthrough, however, full desegregation of the schools was a far cry from reality in Nashville in the mid-1950s, and thus 22 plaintiffs, including black student Robert Kelley, filed suit against the Nashville Board of Education in 1955.
The result of that lawsuit was what came to be known as the "Nashville Plan", an attempt to integrate the public schools of Nashville (and later all of Davidson County when the district was consolidated in 1963). The plan, beginning in 1957, involved the gradual integration of schools by working up through the grades each year starting in the fall of 1957 with first graders. Very few black children who had been zoned for white schools showed up at their assigned campus on the first day of school, and those who did met with angry mobs outside several city elementary schools. No white children assigned to black schools showed up to their assigned campuses.
After a decade of this gradual integration strategy, it became evident that the schools still lacked full integration. Many argued that Housing Segregation was the true culprit in the matter. In 1970 the Kelley case was reintroduced to the courts. Ruling on the case was Judge Leland Clure Morton, who, after seeking advice from consultants from the United States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, decided the following year that to correct the problem, forced busing of the children was to be mandated, among the many parts to a new plan that was finally decided on. This was a similar plan to that enacted in Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools in Charlotte, North Carolina, the same year.
What followed were mixed emotions from both the black and white communities. Many whites did not want their children to share schools with black children, arguing that it would decrease the quality of their education. While a triumph for some, many blacks believed that the new plan would enforce the closure of neighborhood schools such as Pearl High School, which brought the community together. Parents from both sides did not like the plan because they had no control over where their children were going to be sent to school, a problem that many other cities had during the 1970s when busing was mandated across the country. Despite the judge's decision and the subsequent implementation of the new busing plan, the city stood divided.
As in many other cities across the country at this time, many white citizens took action against the desegregation laws. Organized protests against the busing plan began before the order was even official, led by future mayoral candidate Casey Jenkins. While some protested, many other white parents began pulling their children out of the public schools and enrolling them in the numerous private schools that began to spring up almost overnight in Nashville in the 1960s and 1970s. Many of these schools continued to be segregated through the 1970s. Other white parents moved outside of the city limits and eventually outside the Davidson County line so as not to be part of the Metropolitan District and thus not part of the busing plan.
In 1979 and 1980, the Kelley case was again brought back to the courts because of the busing plan's failure to fully integrate the Metropolitan Nashville Public Schools (MNPS). The plan was reexamined and reconfigured to include some concessions made by the school board and the Kelley plaintiffs and in 1983 the new plan, which still included busing, was introduced. However, problems with "white flight" and private schools continued to segregate MNPS to a certain degree, a problem that has never fully been solved.
Pasadena, California [ edit ] In 1970 a federal court ordered the desegregation of the public schools in Pasadena, California. At that time, the proportion of white students in those schools reflected the proportion of whites in the community, 54 percent and 53 percent, respectively. After the desegregation process began, large numbers of whites in the upper and middle classes who could afford it pulled their children from the integrated public school system and placed them into private schools instead. As a result, by 2004 Pasadena became home to 63 private schools, which educated one-third of all school-aged children in the city, and the proportion of white students in the public schools had fallen to 16 percent. In the meantime, the proportion of whites in the community has declined somewhat as well, to 37 percent in 2006. The superintendent of Pasadena's public schools characterized them as being to whites "like the bogey-man", and mounted policy changes, including a curtailment of busing, and a publicity drive to induce affluent whites to put their children back into public schools.
Prince George's County, Maryland [ edit ] In 1974, Prince George's County, Maryland, became the largest school district in the United States forced to adopt a busing plan. The county, a large suburban school district east of Washington, D.C., was over 80 percent white in population and in the public schools. In some county communities close to Washington, there was a higher concentration of black residents than in more outlying areas. Through a series of desegregation orders after the Brown decision, the county had a neighborhood-based system of school boundaries. However, the NAACP argued that housing patterns in the county still reflected the vestiges of segregation. Against the will of the Board of Education of Prince George's County, the federal court ordered that a school busing plan be set in place. A 1974 Gallup poll showed that 75 percent of county residents were against forced busing and that only 32 percent of blacks supported it.
The transition was very traumatic as the court ordered that the plan be administered with "all due haste". This happened during the middle of the school term, and students, except those in their senior year in high school, were transferred to different schools to achieve racial balance. Many high school sports teams' seasons and other typical school activities were disrupted. Life in general for families in the county was disrupted by things such as the changes in daily times to get children ready and receive them after school, transportation logistics for extracurricular activities, and parental participation activities such as volunteer work in the schools and PTA meetings.
The federal case and the school busing order was officially ended in 2001, as the "remaining vestiges of segregation" had been erased to the court's satisfaction. Neighborhood-based school boundaries were restored. The Prince George's County Public Schools was ordered to pay the NAACP more than $2 million in closing attorney fees and is estimated to have paid the NAACP over $20 million over the course of the case.
Richmond, Virginia [ edit ] In April 1971, in the case Bradley v. Richmond School Board, Federal District Judge Robert R. Merhige, Jr., ordered an extensive citywide busing program in Richmond, Virginia. When the massive busing program began in the fall of 1971, parents of all races complained about the long rides, hardships with transportation for extracurricular activities, and the separation of siblings when elementary schools at opposite sides of the city were "paired", (i.e., splitting lower and upper elementary grades into separate schools). The result was further white flight to private schools and to suburbs in the neighboring counties of Henrico and Chesterfield that were predominately white. In January 1972, Merhige ruled that students in Henrico and Chesterfield counties would have to be bused into the City of Richmond in order to decrease the high percentage of black students in Richmond's schools. This order was overturned by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals on June 6, 1972, barring forced busing schemes that made students cross county/city boundaries. (Note: Since 1871, Virginia has had independent cities which are not politically located within counties, although some are completely surrounded geographically by a single county. This distinctive and unusual arrangement was pivotal in the Court of Appeals decision overturning Merhige's ruling). The percentage of white students in Richmond city schools declined from 45 to 21 percent between 1960 and 1975 and continued to decline over the next several decades. By 2010 white students accounted for less than 9 percent of student enrollment in Richmond. This so-called "white flight" prevented Richmond schools from ever becoming truly integrated. A number of assignment plans were tried to address the non-racial concerns, and eventually, most elementary schools were "unpaired".
Wilmington, Delaware [ edit ] In Wilmington, Delaware, located in New Castle County, segregated schools were required by law until 1954, when, due to Belton v. Gebhart (which was later rolled into Brown v. Board of Education on appeal), the school system was forced to desegregate. As a result, the school districts in the Wilmington metropolitan area were split into eleven districts covering the metropolitan area (Alfred I. duPont, Alexis I. duPont, Claymont, Conrad, De La Warr, Marshallton-McKean, Mount Pleasant, New Castle-Gunning Bedford, Newark, Stanton, and Wilmington school districts). However, this reorganization did little to address the issue of segregation, since the Wilmington schools (Wilmington and De La Warr districts) remained predominantly black, while the suburban schools in the county outside the city limits remained predominantly white.
In 1976, the U.S. District Court, in Evans v. Buchanan, ordered that the school districts of New Castle County all be combined into a single district governed by the New Castle County Board of Education. The District Court ordered the Board to implement a desegregation plan in which the students from the predominantly black Wilmington and De La Warr districts were required to attend school in the predominantly white suburb districts, while students from the predominantly white districts were required to attend school in Wilmington or De La Warr districts for three years (usually 4th through 6th grade). In many cases, this required students to be bused a considerable distance (12''18 miles in the Christina School District) because of the distance between Wilmington and some of the major communities of the suburban area (such as Newark).
However, the process of handling an entire metropolitan area as a single school district resulted in a revision to the plan in 1981, in which the New Castle County schools were again divided into four separate districts (Brandywine, Christina, Colonial, and Red Clay). However, unlike the 1954 districts, each of these districts was racially balanced and encompassed inner city and suburban areas. Each of the districts continued a desegregation plan based upon busing.
The requirements for maintaining racial balance in the schools of each of the districts was ended by the District Court in 1994, but the process of busing students to and from the suburbs for schooling continued largely unchanged until 2001, when the Delaware state government passed House Bill 300, mandating that the districts convert to sending students to the schools closest to them, a process that continues as of 2007[update]. In the 1990s, Delaware schools would utilize the Choice program, which would allow children to apply to schools in other school districts based on space.
Wilmington High, which, many felt, was a victim of the busing order, closed in 1998 due to dropping enrollment. The campus would become home to Cab Calloway School of the Arts, a magnet school focused on the arts that was established in 1992. It would also house Charter School of Wilmington, which focuses on math and science, and opened up in 1996.
Delaware currently has some of the highest rates in the nation of children who attend private schools, magnet schools, and charter schools, due to the perceived weaknesses of the public school system.[citation needed ]
Re-segregation [ edit ] According to the Civil Rights Project at Harvard University, the desegregation of U.S. public schools peaked in 1988; since then, schools have become more segregated because of changes in demographic residential patterns with continuing growth in suburbs and new communities. Jonathan Kozol has found that as of 2005, the proportion of black students at majority-white schools was at "a level lower than in any year since 1968". Changing population patterns, with dramatically increased growth in the South and Southwest, decreases in old industrial cities, and much increased immigration of new ethnic groups, have altered school populations in many areas.
School districts continue to try various programs to improve student and school performance, including magnet schools and special programs related to the economic standing of families. Omaha proposed incorporating some suburban districts within city limits to enlarge its school-system catchment area. It wanted to create a "one tax, one school" system that would also allow it to create magnet programs to increase diversity in now predominately white schools. Ernest Chambers, a 34-year-serving black state senator from North Omaha, Nebraska, believed a different solution was needed. Some observers said that in practical terms, public schools in Omaha had been re-segregated since the end of busing in 1999.
In 2006, Chambers offered an amendment to the Omaha school reform bill in the Nebraska State Legislature which would provide for creation of three school districts in Omaha according to current racial demographics: black, white, and Hispanic, with local community control of each district. He believed this would give the black community the chance to control a district in which their children were the majority. Chambers' amendment was controversial. Opponents to the measure described it as "state-sponsored segregation".
The authors of a 2003 Harvard study on re-segregation believe current trends in the South of white teachers leaving predominately black schools is an inevitable result of federal court decisions limiting former methods of civil rights-era protections, such as busing and affirmative action in school admissions. Teachers and principals cite other issues, such as economic and cultural barriers in schools with high rates of poverty, as well as teachers' choices to work closer to home or in higher-performing schools. In some areas black teachers are also leaving the profession, resulting in teacher shortages.
Education conservatives argue that any apparent separation of races is due to patterns of residential demographics not due to court decisions. They argue that the Brown decision has been achieved and that there is no segregation in the way that existed before the ruling. They further argue that employing race to impose desegregation policies discriminates and violates Brown ' s central warning of using racial preferences.
See also [ edit ] Civil rights movement in Omaha, NebraskaMilliken v. BradleyMorgan v. HenniganSchool segregation in the United StatesReferences [ edit ] ^ a b c Jost, Kenneth (April 23, 2004). "School Desegregation". CQ Researcher. 14 (15): 345''372. ^ a b c d Patterson, James (2001). Brown v. Board of Education: A Civil Rights Milestone and Its Troubled Legacy (Pivotal Moments in American History). USA: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-515632-3. ^ Theoharis, George (October 23, 2015). " ' Forced busing' didn't fail. Desegregation is the best way to improve our schools". The Washington Post . Retrieved January 15, 2019 . ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z aa ab ac Frum, David (2000). How We Got Here: The '70s. New York, New York: Basic Books. pp. 252''264. ISBN 0-465-04195-7. ^ Jost, K (April 23, 2004). "School Desegregation". CQ Researcher. 14 (15): 345''372. ^ Morgan v. Hennigan 1974 ^ "Walking into History: The Beginning of School Desegregation in Nashville". ^ Jost, K. (April 23, 2004). "School Desegregation". CQ Researcher. 14 (15): 345''372. ^ Jost, Kenneth (2007). "Racial Diversity in Public Schools". CQ Researcher. 17 (32): 745''767. ^ Kiviat, Barbara J. (2000) "The Social Side of Schooling", Johns Hopkins Magazine, April 2000, accessed 30 December 2008. ^ Hanushek, Eric A. (1998), "Conclusions and Controversies about the Effectiveness of School Resources", Economic Policy Review, Federal Reserve Bank of New York, 4(1): pp. 11-27, accessed 30 December 2008 ^ McMillen, Neil R. (1971). The Citizen's Council: Organized Resistance to the Second Reconstruction, 1954''1964. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. p. 301. ISBN 0-252-00177-X. ^ Viser, Matt (7 March 2019). "Biden's tough talk on 1970s school desegregation plan could get new scrutiny in today's Democratic Party". The Washington Post . Retrieved 12 April 2019 . [Biden] added, ''I don't feel responsible for the sins of my father and grandfather. I feel responsible for what the situation is today, for the sins of my own generation. And I'll be damned if I feel responsible to pay for what happened 300 years ago.'' ^ SOKOL, JASON (4 August 2015). "How a Young Joe Biden Turned Liberals Against Integration". Politico . Retrieved 12 April 2019 . Biden called busing ''a liberal train wreck.'' ^ SMITH, ASHER (11 April 2019). "JOE BIDEN'S RECORD ON RACIAL INTEGRATION IS INDEFENSIBLE". Current Affairs . Retrieved 12 April 2019 . the bill required judges to tailor their court orders to remedy only the adverse effects of existing segregation, i.e. it prevented judges from ordering wider busing to achieve actually-integrated districts ^ Zeleny, Jeff (11 April 2019). "Letters from Joe Biden reveal how he sought support of segregationists in fight against busing". CNN . Retrieved 12 April 2019 . My bill strikes at the heart of the injustice of court-ordered busing. It prohibits the federal courts from disrupting our educational system in the name of the constitution where there is no evidence that the governmental officials intended to discriminate," Biden wrote to fellow senators on March 25, 1977. "I believe there is a growing sentiment in the Congress to curb unnecessary busing. ^ Jeff Zeleny (11 April 2019). "Joe Biden: Letters reveal how he sought support of segregationists in fight against busing". MSN News . Retrieved 12 April 2019 . Two weeks later, Biden followed up with a note to Eastland "to thank you again for your efforts in support of my bill to limit court ordered busing." ^ BEN MATHIS-LILLEY (11 April 2019). "Biden Praises Jeb Bush as Old Letters Show He Sought Support From Famous Segregationist". Slate . Retrieved 12 April 2019 . Wrote Biden to Eastland: ''My bill strikes at the heart of the injustice of court-ordered busing.'' ^ Orfield, G. & Lee, C. (2007). Historic reversals, accelerating resegregation, and the need for new integration strategies. Los Angeles: The Civil Rights Project. ^ "Brennan Center for Justice". ^ Orfield, G (2009). Reviving the goal of an integrated society: A 21st century challenge. Los Angeles: The Civil Rights Project. p. 4. ^ Administrator (2014-07-02). "Public Opinion on Civil Rights: Reflections on the Civil Rights Act of 1964". Roper Center . Retrieved 2019-01-15 . ^ Woodward, Jennifer R. (Winter 2011). "How Busing Burdened Blacks: Critical Race Theory and Busing for Desegregation in Nashville-Davidson County". The Journal of Negro Education. 80 (1): 22''32. JSTOR 41341103. ^ Frum, David (2000). How We Got Here: The '70s. New York: Basic Books. p. 265. ISBN 978-0-465-04195-4. ^ "North Carolina Education", Adversity.net. Retrieved on June 28, 2007. ^ Orfield, Gary; Franklin Monfort (1992). Status of School Desegregation: The Next Generation. Alexandria, VA: National School Boards Association. ISBN 978-0-88364-174-3. ^ Michael R. Olneck and Marvin Lazerson, "Education" pp. 313, 317, in "Harvard Encyclopedia of American Ethnic Groups", ed. Stephan Thernstrom, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 1980 ^ Rivkin, Steven G., and Finis Welch. 2006. "Has school desegregation improved academic and economic outcomes for blacks?" In Handbook of the Economics of Education, edited by Eric A. Hanushek and Finis Welch. Amsterdam: North Holland: 1019''1049. ^ Eric A. Hanushek, John F. Kain, and Steve G. Rivkin. 2009. "New evidence about Brown v. Board of Education: The complex effects of school racial composition on achievement", Journal of Labor Economics, 27, no. 3 (July): 349-383. ^ Eric A. Hanushek, and Steven G. Rivkin. 2009. "Harming the best: How schools affect the black-white achievement gap", Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 28, no. 3 (Summer): 366-393. ^ Fox, Margalite (January 27, 2012). "Kevin H. White, Mayor Who Led Boston in Busing Crisis, Dies at 82". The New York Times . Retrieved January 29, 2010 . ^ Massachusetts Commission on Civil Rights, "The Six-District Plan: Integration of the Springfield, Mass., Elementary Schools", University of Maryland Law School Library, pp.1-50. ^ a b Matthew, Ronan, A History of the Las Vegas School Desegregation Case: Kelly et al. v. Clark County School District (Las Vegas: UNLV, 1998), pp. 28, 33, 94. ^ Crawford v. Board of Ed. of Los Angeles 458 U.S. 527 (1982) ^ Crawford v. Board of Educ. of the City of Los Angeles, 200 Cal. App. 3d 1397, 1402 (1988). ^ Bustop, Inc. v. Los Angeles Bd. of Ed., 439 U.S. 1380 (1978) ^ David S. Ettinger, "The Quest to DESEGREGATE Los Angeles Schools Archived 2008-02-28 at the Wayback Machine", Los Angeles Lawyer, March 2003 ^ Richard A. Pride and J. David Woodard, The Burden of Busing: The Politics of Desegregation in Nashville, Tennessee, University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville: 1985. ^ "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2007-06-16 . Retrieved 2007-01-07 . CS1 maint: Archived copy as title (link) ^ http://www.richmond.com/news/latest-news/report-schools-segregation-by-race-income-worsening/article_a05050c1-9ea8-5ebd-b00a-239aab565e7f.html ^ "School Busing - The Civil Rights Movement in Virginia", Virginia Historical Society ^ Samuel B. Hoff, "Delaware's Constitution and Its Impact on Education" ^ iccjournal.biz ^ Kozol, J. "Overcoming Apartheid", The Nation, December 19, 2005. Retrieved April 11, 2017 ^ Johnson, T. A. (2009-02-03) "African American Administration of Predominately Black Schools: Segregation or Emancipation in Omaha, Nebraska", Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for the Study of Black Life and History in Charlotte, NC. ^ "Law to Segregate Omaha Schools Divides Nebraska", The New York Times. April 15, 2006. Retrieved April 12, 2009. ^ Jonnson, P. (January 21, 2003) "White teachers flee black schools", Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved 4/12/09. Further reading [ edit ] David S. Ettinger, "The Quest to Desegregate Los Angeles Schools," Los Angeles Lawyer, vol. 26 (March 2003).Brian Daugherity and Charles Bolton (eds.), With All Deliberate Speed: Implementing Brown v. Board of Education. Fayetteville, AR: University of Arkansas Press, 2008. ISBN 1-557-28868-2.Tracy E. K'Meyer, From Brown to Meredith: The Long Struggle in School Desegregation in Louisville, Kentucky, 1954-2007. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 2013. ISBN 1-469-60708-5.Matthew Lassiter, The Silent Majority: Suburban Politics in the Sunbelt South. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2005. ISBN 0-691-09255-9.J. Anthony Lukas, Common Ground: A Turbulent Decade in the Lives of Three American Families. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1985. ISBN 0-394-41151-1.Lillian B. Rubin, Busing and Backlash: White Against White in an Urban School District. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1972. ISBN 0-520-02198-3.Amy Stuart Wells, Both Sides Now: The Story of School Desegregation's Graduates. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2009. ISBN 0-520-25677-8.External links [ edit ] The Legacy of School Busing NPRMoney And School Performance: Lessons from the Kansas City Desegregation Experiment by Paul Ciotti. Policy Analysis, CATO Institute.A Boston judge's experiment in social engineering has unraveled neighborhoods and frustrated black achievement. Hoover Institution.25 Years of Forced Busing. Good Riddance to a Bad Idea, at Adversity.netJohn Joseph Moakley Oral History Project, Garrity Decision Oral History Interviews. Suffolk University Archives; Boston, MA.The Freedom House, Inc. records 1941''1996 (M16) are available at Northeastern University Libraries, Archives and Special Collections Department.The Metropolitan Council for Educational Opportunity records 1961''2005 (M101) are available at Northeastern University Libraries, Archives and Special Collections Department.Digitized primary sources related to busing for school desegregation in Boston from various libraries and archives are available via Digital Commonwealth.Busing in Boston: A research guide. Moakley Archive & Institute, Suffolk University.
Senate Democrats wish talk on reparations would go away | TheHill
Senate Democrats are not fans of legislation on reparations for slavery, which has become a hot topic in the 2020 presidential campaign.
Democratic lawmakers acknowledge that slavery is a terrible stain on the nation's history and that African Americans were subjected to unjust and racist laws for decades after abolition.
But the question of figuring out who should pay for economic harm accrued over hundreds of years is a political land mine.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein Dianne Emiel FeinsteinSenate Democrats wish talk on reparations would go away Democratic senator introduces bill to ban gun silencers Negotiators face major obstacles to meeting July border deadline MORE (Calif.), the senior Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, said she understands why some thought leaders, such as author Ta-Nehisi Coates, are calling for reparations, but warned the issue is divisive.
''I understand why. I also understand the wound that it opens and the trials and tribulations it's going to bring about. Some things are just better left alone and I think that's one of those things,'' she said.
''This is a major blemish on American democracy that has lasted for over 100 years now,'' she said of slavery and discriminatory laws that followed the Civil War. ''It's not going to change and we have to learn from it and I think we have.''
Many Democrats don't want to talk about whether reparations should be considered.
''No comment,'' said Sen. Jack Reed John (Jack) Francis ReedSenate Democrats wish talk on reparations would go away Trump urged to quickly fill Pentagon post amid Iran tensions Overnight Defense: Shanahan exit shocks Washington | Pentagon left rudderless | Lawmakers want answers on Mideast troop deployment | Senate could vote on Saudi arms deal this week | Pompeo says Trump doesn't want war with Iran MORE (D-R.I.), who punctuated his answer with a slice of his hand.
Sen. Ron Wyden Ronald (Ron) Lee WydenSenate Democrats wish talk on reparations would go away Overnight Health Care '-- Sponsored by Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids '-- Senate panel advances bipartisan package on health costs | Grassley, Wyden in talks on deal to limit drug price increases | Court asks if blue states have standing in ObamaCare suit Senate passes .5B border bill, setting up fight with House MORE (D-Ore.) said he was too busy to weigh in on the complex topic.
''I can't deal with a big issue when I'm on the fly,'' he said as he hustled to a meeting in the Capitol.
Sen. Patrick Leahy Patrick Joseph LeahyTop Democrat urges Pelosi to take Senate border bill Political interference at DOJ threatens the rule of law, and Congress needs to act Senate Democrats wish talk on reparations would go away MORE (D-Vt.) said ''I saw something in the press about it. I haven't even looked at it.''
''I'll be happy to look at it,'' he added.
Support for reparations has steadily grown since June 2014 when Coates, as a writer for The Atlantic magazine, wrote his landmark essay: ''The Case for Reparations.''
The subject gained more prominence last week when Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee Sheila Jackson LeeSenate Democrats wish talk on reparations would go away O'Rourke: Cash reparations policy 'stops the conversation' on the issue EXCLUSIVE: Trump on reparations: 'I don't see it happening' MORE (D-Texas), a member of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties and sponsor of the House reparations measure, held a hearing on reparations at which Coates testified.
On the campaign trail, Sen. Cory Booker Cory Anthony BookerTrump campaign manager gloats after Biden-Harris exchange during Democrats' debate Buttigieg opens second night of Democratic debate with first answer in Spanish Warren, Booker, Castro see favorability jump after first Democratic debate: poll MORE (D-N.J.) has spearheaded the push for reparations. He is the sponsor of the Senate bill that would set up a commission to study the impact of slavery and discrimination against African Americans and make recommendations on reparation proposals to the descendants of slaves.
Booker's bill has 14 Senate co-sponsors, including five presidential hopefuls: Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand Kirsten Elizabeth GillibrandDemocrats whack Trump in second debate Sanders, Harris, Biden only Dem debaters to favor eliminating private health insurance Live coverage: 2020 candidates face off in second night of Democratic debates MORE (D-N.Y.), Kamala Harris Kamala Devi HarrisHarris spikes in Google search after Biden confrontation Trump campaign manager gloats after Biden-Harris exchange during Democrats' debate Harris attacks Biden's record on civil rights in debate MORE (D-Calif.), Elizabeth Warren Elizabeth Ann WarrenSanders, Harris, Biden only Dem debaters to favor eliminating private health insurance Overnight Health Care '-- Sponsored by Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids '-- What to watch for in tonight's debate | Warren uses debate stage to embrace 'Medicare for All' | Gottlieb elected to Pfizer board | Democrats investigate Trump Medicaid changes Warren, Booker, Castro see favorability jump after first Democratic debate: poll MORE (D-Mass.), Bernie Sanders Bernie SandersBernie Sanders says he would move to 'rotate' Supreme Court justices if elected Delaney mocks Democrats at second debate: 'These people are terrible at interrupting' Trump comments on Democratic debates during G-20 meeting with Merkel MORE (I-Vt.) and Michael Bennet Michael Farrand BennetDem candidates rip Trump on China ahead of crucial trade summit Democrats whack Trump in second debate Michael Bennet taken by surprise with debate question: 'Was that directed to me?' MORE (D-Colo.).
But many other Democrats are keeping their distance.
''I haven't seen it and I don't have any opinion about it,'' Sen. Bob Menendez Robert (Bob) MenendezSenate passes .5B border bill, setting up fight with House Senate to vote on blocking Trump's Saudi arms deal as soon as this week There is a severe physician shortage and it will only worsen MORE (D-N.J.) said of Booker's legislation.
Other Democrats say they need to learn more about it.
''Still learning about it but open to the idea, certainly. I find Cory to be one of the more thoughtful people I've ever known,'' said Sen. Martin Heinrich Martin Trevor HeinrichSenate Democrats wish talk on reparations would go away Overnight Energy: Democrats ask if EPA chief misled on vehicle emissions | Dem senators want NBC debate focused on climate change | 2020 hopeful John Delaney unveils T climate plan Democratic senators want NBC primary debate to focus on climate change MORE (D-N.M.).
Sen. Mark Warner Mark Robert WarnerHouse passes sweeping Democrat-backed election security bill Senate Democrats wish talk on reparations would go away Pelosi: Congress will receive election security briefing in July MORE (D-Va.) said of Booker's bill, ''I'm looking at the legislation [on setting up a commission] but have not taken a position on it.''
One Democratic senator said reparations is one more issue getting touted on the campaign trail that Republicans will likely use as ammunition against other Democratic candidates in 2020, along with proposals such as ''Medicare for All,'' the Green New Deal and free college education.
The lawmaker, who requested anonymity, said Democrats would be better off focusing on topics that unite voters and where they have an advantage over Republicans, like protecting people with pre-existing medical conditions.
''In a presidential campaign where people are eyeing different constituencies based on where they're trying to run and where they're trying to do well and break through the pack, that makes a lot of sense. I don't think that has much of a chance in the Congress we're in,'' said the senator.
''If you're just talking presidential Democratic primaries, there's interest in these issues and hearing it explained. When you start getting into specific Senate races, I don't know how that helps, the contrast of a presidential candidate being for something and a Democratic Senate candidate not taking a position,'' the lawmaker said, adding that Republican Senate candidates are going to ''have a lot of issues like that'' to pull from the presidential race.
The lawmaker expressed concern that with more than 20 candidates running for the Democratic nomination, the party's message is going to be all over the place.
''Central for us is trying to get one message and be disciplined, because the president is going to be incredibly disciplined,'' the senator said. ''They're starting messaging on things they haven't even accomplished but making it sound like they accomplished things.''
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell Addison (Mitch) Mitchell McConnellProgressives, centrists in open warfare after House caves on Trump border bill Senate set to vote on Trump's power to attack Iran On The Money: House sends Trump border aid bill after Pelosi caves | McConnell dismisses one-year stopgap floated by White House | Mnuchin pushing Trump to put Secret Service under Treasury control MORE (R-Ky.) says his strategy to keep GOP control of the Senate is to tie Democratic candidates to liberal proposals being pushed by Harris, Booker, Warren, Sanders and other White House hopefuls.
McConnell told reporters in April that Republicans need to say to voters, ''if you're uncomfortable with things like the Green New Deal and 'Medicare for None,' the best way to avoid that is to have a Republican Senate.''
McConnell last week dismissed reparations as unworkable.
''I don't think reparations for something that happened 150 years ago, for whom none of us currently living are responsible, is a good idea,'' he said.
It's a good issue for Republicans because it unites the GOP and divides Democrats.
Sen. Tim Scott Timothy (Tim) Eugene ScottSenate Democrats wish talk on reparations would go away The Hill's Morning Report - Democrats frustrated by Hope Hicks's silence Only black GOP senator Tim Scott calls reparations a 'non-starter' MORE (R-S.C.), the only African American Republican in the Senate, last week dismissed reparations as a ''non-starter.''
In an interview with The Hill this week, President Trump Donald John TrumpTrump campaign manager gloats after Biden-Harris exchange during Democrats' debate Biden pushes back on Obama's climate record Dem candidates rip Trump on China ahead of crucial trade summit MORE indicated he's not in favor of reparations.
''I think it's a very unusual thing,'' Trump said of the possibility of reparations. ''You have a lot of '-- it's been a very interesting debate. I don't see it happening, no.''
National Republican Senatorial Committee Chairman Todd Young Todd Christopher YoungSenate Democrats wish talk on reparations would go away Overnight Defense: Officials brief Congress after Iran shoots down drone | Lawmakers fear 'grave situation' | Trump warns Iran | Senate votes to block Saudi arms sales | Bombshell confession at Navy SEAL's murder trial The 7 GOP senators who voted to block all or part of Trump's Saudi arms sale MORE (Ind.) said reparations is targeted squarely at the most liberal voters.
''I think it will excite the far left of the Democratic Party, which is exactly what it's designed to do,'' he said.
Sen. Christopher Coons Christopher (Chris) Andrew CoonsDemocrats want White House hopefuls to cool it on Biden attacks Senators revive effort to create McCain human rights commission Senate Dem to reintroduce bill with new name after 'My Little Pony' confusion MORE (D-Del.), a co-sponsor of Booker's bill on reparations, said slavery ''has left a long and real and lasting impact'' that needs to be addressed.
But he also acknowledged ''there are real complexities around confronting this issue.''
''Figuring out a viable path forward in terms of who would be compensated and how and from what source of funding is a very thorny question,'' he said.
Brand Safety and The Purge
NA - All media is advertising
Provide people with the mental tools to understand media and stay healthy
How to stay safe from amygdala attacks
Misundertsanding about advertising - Not just about repetition - in fact that is weak - BRANDING$
If you understand this then you will understand de-platforming and how to stop it
If the advertiser is god, the brand is Jesus.
Display Ads - Low Value
Problems for advertisers
Pre-Trump Terrorism videos
Cambridge Analytic and Privacy
Now Trump is fucking with their revenue
VIDEO - Simon Sinek: How great leaders inspire action | TED Talk
Want personalized recommendations?Join TED Recommends and get the perfect ideas selected just for you.
Get startedLanguage SelectorTED.com translations are made possible by volunteertranslators. Learn more about theOpen Translation Project.
Why = Misison Statement
How Apple's Current Mission Differs from Steve Jobs' ideals
Contrast that with Steve Jobs' original, personal ethos, "To make a contribution to the world by making tools for the mind that advance humankind." Indeed, what satisfied him most was watching kids use Apple products in the classroom.
Apple's Inc. (AAPL) current mission statement, as of 2019: "Apple designs Macs, the best personal computers in the world, along with OS X, iLife, iWork and professional software. Apple leads the digital music revolution with its iPods and iTunes online store. Apple has reinvented the mobile phone with its revolutionary iPhone and App store, and is defining the future of mobile media and computing devices with iPad."
Apple's Inc. (AAPL) current mission statement, as of 2019: "Apple designs Macs, the best personal computers in the world, along with OS X, iLife, iWork and professional software. Apple leads the digital music revolution with its iPods and iTunes online store. Apple has reinvented the mobile phone with its revolutionary iPhone and App store, and is defining the future of mobile media and computing devices with iPad."
Contrast that with Steve Jobs' original, personal ethos, "To make a contribution to the world by making tools for the mind that advance humankind." Indeed, what satisfied him most was watching kids use Apple products in the classroom.
Apple's current mission statement comes off as a bit myopic, doesn't it'--especially in relation to Jobs' original mission statement. Jobs was tortured in his quest to create great products. Clearly, that type of passion is only present when someone is working for a greater purpose. The most fundamental difference between Apple's current ideals and its founder's vision is that Jobs saw Apple products as a tool to improve the quality of life for mankind. In contrast, Apple sees its products not as a tool for human advancement but as its raison d'ªtre'--its reason for being. This evolution partially stems from Jobs and the company's intense focus on producing high-quality products from a functional and aesthetic perspective encompassing all the steps of a product's life cycle. Although his attention to detail has become an essential part of his legacy, it was a means to a higher end.
Key Takeaways Steve Jobs saw Apple products as a tool to improve the quality of life for mankind.Apple currently sees its products, not as a tool for human advancement, but as its raison d'ªtre'--its reason for being.It is important to remember that in 1980, Apple was a young company headed by a 25-year-old. Idealism tends to run amok at this age and stage in a company's life. Its future was uncertain, and it seemed inconceivable that it would be successful in taking on larger, established, better-funded competitors such as IBM, Hewlett Packard, or Digital. Most people did not share Jobs' and Apple's vision that the personal computer would be the "bicycle for the mind."
Apple has become larger and more influential than all its competitors put together in 1980. It has a very real chance to become the world's first trillion-dollar company. From its 1980 initial public offering (IPO), its share price has gained 25,000%, not including dividend payouts. It is now one of the most valuable company in the world.
In short, Jobs' baby has grown from being an idealistic upstart to a company that has more cash on hand than many countries. It's natural, given this astounding change in 35 years, that its values and focus would change.
Google's Mission Statement and Vision Statement (An Analysis) - Panmore Institute
Google's Corporate Mission StatementGoogle's corporate mission is ''to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful
A Google Street View car. Google LLC's (formerly Google Inc.) corporate vision statement and corporate mission statement emphasize innovation and excellence. Corresponding strategic objectives ensure business effectiveness in the computer technology, cloud computing, consumer electronics, and digital content distribution industries. (Photo: Public Domain)Google LLC's (formerly Google, Inc.) mission statement and vision statement reflect the powerful position of the company in the global market. Founded in 1998, the company follows its corporate mission and corporate vision, leading to its current position as one of the most valuable brands in the world. Even after its reorganization leading to the company's being a subsidiary of Alphabet, Inc., such brand value remains a major strength, as shown in the SWOT Analysis of Google LLC. The company's mission statement defines the strategies of the business, such as the development of new products. In a similar way, the company's vision statement pushes the organization to achieve new heights, such as through rapid innovation. The success of Google is directly connected to business efforts to fulfill its corporate mission and corporate vision. Such fulfillment supports the company's growth in the computer technology (software and hardware), cloud computing, consumer electronics, and digital content distribution industries.
Google LLC follows its corporate vision statement and corporate mission statement through strategies that support business growth. The resulting business condition helps the company counteract the effects of competitors like Apple Inc. and Amazon.com Inc., as well as Facebook Inc., Snap Inc. (Snapchat), and Twitter Inc., which have significant presence in the global online advertising market. Such strategies represent Google's generic strategy for competitive advantage and intensive strategies for growth. Google's corporate mission and vision statements are used as bases for the company's strategic choices, especially in dealing with the external factors in the industry environment.
Google's Corporate Mission StatementGoogle's corporate mission is ''to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful.'' Ever since its beginnings, the company has focused on developing its proprietary algorithms to maximize effectiveness in organizing online information. Google continues to focus on ensuring people's access to the information they need. The company's mission statement adheres to a utilitarian benefit that the business provides to its users. In this regard, the following are the primary elements of Google's corporate mission:
World's informationOrganizationUniversal accessibilityUsefulnessGoogle's corporate mission statement is parallel to the company's vision statement. The mission statement has four variables, namely, world's information, organization, universal accessibility, and usefulness. The company fulfills the ''world's information'' component by crawling websites. The company organizes the information through its proprietary computer algorithms. Google also fulfills the ''universal accessibility'' component of its corporate mission by offering its products worldwide. For example, the company's online search service, blogging platform (Blogger.com), and video-sharing platform (subsidiary YouTube) are globally accessible. Such organizing of information makes results useful to the individual user. Through personalization and analysis of extensive databases, Google effectively follows its mission statement. This condition makes the company effective in delivering value to online users, who are a major stakeholder group identified in Google's corporate social responsibility strategy and stakeholder management.
Google's Corporate Vision StatementGoogle's corporate vision is ''to provide access to the world's information in one click.'' The company's nature of business is a direct manifestation of this vision statement. For example, Google's most popular product is its search engine service. This product enables people to easily access information from around the world. The company applies its vision together with the mission statement to maintain dominance as an Internet technology, software, and hardware business. The following are the primary elements of the company's corporate vision:
World's informationAccessOne clickGoogle's corporate vision statement has three variables, namely, world's information, accessibility, and one click. The company fulfills the ''world's information'' component of the vision statement by indexing webpages and maintaining databases of the resulting information. Google fulfills the ''accessibility'' component by offering its products to everyone around the world. The ''one click'' component of the corporate vision refers to easy access to information. The company fulfills this component by offering innovative products, such as the easy-to-use Google Search. These products are specified in the product mix of Google's marketing mix or 4P and enable the business to maximize the accessibility of its technical capabilities to benefit online users. Thus, the company effectively follows its vision statement.
Google's Corporate Vision and Corporate Mission '' RecommendationsGoogle effectively follows its corporate mission and vision statements. The company is known for effective products, like Search, that satisfy the specifics of the vision and mission of the business. Leadership in the industry supports the ''universal accessibility'' component of the mission statement by making the company's products widely used. Innovative strategies contribute to the company's capacity to maintain its leadership in the industry. This leading position empowers Google to continue fulfilling its mission statement and vision statement.
It is recommended that Google modify its corporate vision and mission statements to reflect the wide variety of products that the company currently offers, considering new and planned future products. The company's vision and mission remain the same in spite of changes in the product mix. Thus, the adjustment should reflect the current diversity of Google's products. Also, ideally, the corporate vision should depict the future condition of the company, with consideration for its diversified business. In relation, the corporate mission should indicate the company's aims in terms of such diversification of business operations.
ReferencesAlphabet Inc. '' Form 10-K.Google LLC '' About.Kantabutra, S., & Avery, G. C. (2002). Proposed model for investigating relationships between vision components and business unit performance. Journal of Management & Organization, 8(2), 22-39.Kirkpatrick, S. A., Wofford, J. C., & Baum, J. R. (2002). Measuring motive imagery contained in the vision statement. The Leadership Quarterly, 13(2), 139-150.Kotter, J. (2013). Your company vision: If it's complicated, it shouldn't be. Forbes.Marjanova Jovanov, T., & Fotov, R. (2014). Corporate mission: Much ado about nothing or essential strategic step? International Journal of Arts and Sciences, 170-182.Pace, S. (2017). Shaping corporate brands: From product features to corporate mission. International Studies of Management & Organization, 47(2), 197-205.Slack, F. J., Orife, J. N., & Anderson, F. P. (2010). Effects of commitment to corporate vision on employee satisfaction with their organization: An empirical study in the United States. International Journal of Management, 27(3), 421.Suranga, J. M. (2017). Importance of corporate vision. In Proceedings of International HR Conference, 1(1), 34-40.U.S. Department of Commerce '' International Trade Administration '' The Software and Information Technology Services Industry in the United States.U.S. Department of Commerce '' International Trade Administration '' The Media and Entertainment Industry in the United States.Williams, L. S. (2008). The mission statement: A corporate reporting tool with a past, present, and future. Journal of Business Communication, 45(2), 94-119.
Our mission is to give everyone a voice and show them the world
Army General Dempsey hosts a town hall meeting with service members via Facebook in 2014. Facebook Inc.'s vision statement and mission statement are combined in the company's official mission statement. (Photo: Public Domain)Facebook Inc. is among the largest online social networks in the world. This market position aligns with the company's mission statement and vision statement, which point to leadership in impacting the world's social relations. A company's corporate vision statement describes the condition that the business wants to achieve. In this case, Facebook's vision statement guides employees in focusing their efforts to support corporate effectiveness in growing the business internationally. On the other hand, a company's corporate mission statement identifies the primary aims and actions needed to reach the vision. Facebook's mission statement determines the strategies and tactics to grow and develop the firm. Through consistent focus on the corporate mission and vision statements, the company uses its strengths (see SWOT Analysis of Facebook Inc.) to support business leadership in the global market for online social networking and related Internet advertising services.
Facebook Inc.'s corporate mission statement gives specifics about what the company intends to do as a leading online social media business. On the other hand, Facebook's corporate vision statement requires specification to provide a guide for the firm's human resources to support global business expansion and diversification. Effective mission and vision implementation can help the company compete against firms like Google, Google's subsidiaries, Snapchat, and Twitter, which operate in the international market for online advertising services.
Facebook's Corporate Mission StatementFacebook's corporate mission is ''to give people the power to build community and bring the world closer together.'' This new mission statement was implemented in the midst of data privacy and security issues involving Cambridge Analytica and other parties. In early 2017, the company's corporate mission was ''to give people the power to share and make the world more open and connected.'' In this regard, the new corporate mission shows that the company now focuses on making its social networking web site an important part of community development. The following are the major components of Facebook's mission statement:
Empowering peopleEnabling community buildingConnecting the worldThe ''empowering people'' component of Facebook's mission statement signifies the company's goal of making its online social networking service a means to make users more capable online. In addition, the corporate mission shows that this capability is in the form of community building. For example, people can use the social network to facilitate communication and information sharing among members of communities. These communities include neighborhoods, foundations, shared-interest communities, and a wide variety of virtual communities. In connection with the corporate vision, the mission statement further indicates that Facebook Inc. has the goal of connecting the world. Connections are created when users communicate through the social media website and its corresponding mobile apps. In relation, the company enables businesses to connect with their customers.
Facebook's Corporate Vision StatementFacebook's corporate vision statement, based on the company's social media service offerings, is ''People use Facebook to stay connected with friends and family, to discover what's going on in the world, and to share and express what matters to them.'' This corporate vision shows that the business is not just a basic online social networking site. Instead, the company also facilitates knowledge acquisition and valuable communication among individual users. Facebook's vision statement has the following main components:
Global market scopeTool for communicationTool for discoveryTool for self-expressionThe ''global market scope'' component of Facebook's corporate vision is based on the company's specification of ''people'' as users, indicating everyone around the world. The corporate vision also shows that the company sees itself as a facilitator of communication among friends and family. Moreover, Facebook Inc. aims to be a global discovery tool through information access. In addition, the company aims to make its online social network a global tool for self-expression. These components of Facebook's vision statement require the company to grow internationally to maintain its leadership position in the multinational social media market.
Facebook Inc.'s Corporate Vision & Corporate Mission: RecommendationsSome of the conventions on the ideal corporate statement characteristics are included in Facebook's corporate mission and vision. For example, the company's mission statement illustrates what the company does, as well as the intended target market. However, an ideal corporate mission statement includes details about the services offered, long-term goals, philosophy, and self-concept. These details are lacking in Facebook's corporate mission. Also, the company's vision statement is concise, but not clear enough in terms of the future-oriented aims of the business. To satisfy the ideals of corporate vision statement development, Facebook must make its corporate vision clearer, more concise, inspiring, and future-oriented.
Facebook Inc. presents its corporate vision and mission statements in a single official statement. It is recommended that the company separate these statements to help investors, management, and other employees understand the strategic direction and goals of the business. It is also recommended that the company include diversification in its corporate mission and vision statements. Diversification is relevant to Facebook Inc.'s generic competitive strategy and intensive growth strategies, which include diversifying the business by offering other services, such as through Instagram, Oculus VR and WhatsApp, Inc., which operate as subsidiaries.
ReferencesDavid, M.E., David, F.R., & David, F.R. (2014). Mission statement theory and practice: A content analysis and new direction. International Journal of Business, Marketing, & Decision Science, 7(1), 95-110.Ekpe, E. O., Eneh, S. I., & Inyang, B. J. (2015). Leveraging organizational performance through effective mission statement. International Business Research, 8(9), 135-141.Facebook Inc. '' An Update to Our Plans to Restrict Data Access on Facebook.Facebook Inc. '' Form 10-K.Kirkpatrick, S. A., Wofford, J. C., & Baum, J. R. (2002). Measuring motive imagery contained in the vision statement. The Leadership Quarterly, 13(2), 139-150.Marjanova Jovanov, T., & Fotov, R. (2014). Corporate mission: Much ado about nothing or essential strategic step? International Journal of Arts and Sciences, 170-182.Singal, A. K., & Jain, A. K. (2013). An empirical examination of the influence of corporate vision on internationalization. Strategic Change, 22(5-6), 243-257.Tomek, G., Vavrova, V., Cervenka, P., Nascakova, J., & Tomcikova, M. (2016). Corporate vision from management development in the globalization context. In Production Management and Engineering Sciences (Vol. 297, No. 303, pp. 297-303). Routledge & GSE Research.United States Department of Commerce '' International Trade Administration '' The Software and Information Technology Services Industry in the United States.U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary '' Testimony of Mark Zuckerberg, April 10, 2018.
Why Twitter's Mission Statement Matters
Our mission: To give everyone the power to create and share ideas and information instantly, without barriers.
Reach the largest daily audience in the world by connecting everyone to their world via our information sharing and distribution platform products and be one of the top revenue generating Internet companies in the world.
Believe it or not, Twitter Inc. has a perfectly respectable mission statement:
Our mission: To give everyone the power to create and share ideas and information instantly, without barriers.
CEO Dick Costolo had to point this out Wednesday night, after a slide from an investor presentation by CFO Anthony Noto became the laughingstock of Twitter. It featured a Venn diagram with interlocking circles labeled ''objective,'' ''scope,'' and ''competitive advantages,'' then this ''strategy statement'':
Reach the largest daily audience in the world by connecting everyone to their world via our information sharing and distribution platform products and be one of the top revenue generating Internet companies in the world.
This is 80 characters over Twitter's 140-character limit. It is also a wordy, clunky mess that instantly lent itself to derision, revision, and even this complicated sentence diagram. Then again, as Peter Kafka of Re/code pointed out, investors seemed perfectly happy with it, as the company stock price rose 7% by the end of the day.
This raises a question: Does it really matter if a company has a good mission statement?
My reading of the HBR literature on this is that the answer is yes. Maybe not a mission statement per se, but a vision, a set of goals, a strategic intent that (1) goes beyond just making lots of money and (2) is unique to the company. In other words, something that doesn't sound like this:
The Company's primary objective is to maximize long-term stockholder value, while adhering to the laws of the jurisdictions in which it operates and at all times observing the highest ethical standards.
That's the profoundly uninspiring and undistinguished mission statement of Dean Foods , which I learned about in Greg McKeown's 2012 HBR.org piece, ''If I Read One More Platitude-Filled Mission Statement, I'll Scream,'' a helpful guide to paring down a ''directional document'' to what really matters. The closest thing to a definitive guide to building such a document in the first place may be James C. Collins and Jerry I. Porras's 1996 HBR article ''Building Your Company's Vision.'' Here's their explanation for why an organization needs a vision:
Truly great companies understand the difference between what should never change and what should be open for change, between what is genuinely sacred and what is not. This rare ability to manage continuity and change'--requiring a consciously practiced discipline'--is closely linked to the ability to develop a vision. Vision provides guidance about what core to preserve and what future to stimulate progress toward.
Collins and Porras divide their vision thing into two parts. One is the company's core ideology, which is made up of its core values and core purpose. The other is its envisioned future, where one finds the famous ''BHAGs'' (Big, Hairy, Audacious Goals) that Collins and Porras first described in their book Built to Last, plus vivid descriptions of what it will look like when they're reached.
Twitter's mission statement is a pretty good on the core purpose, which Collins and Porras define as ''the organization's reason for being.'' The strategy statement seems to be a groping, as-yet-incomplete attempt at defining a BHAG. What's missing is any expression of the company's core values. This seems about right for Twitter, which at the tender age of eight has already seen all its founders '-- the people most often responsible for giving a company durable values and vision '-- leave. And while Ev Williams and Jack Dorsey are still board members and significant shareholders, the sense one gets from Nick Bilton's entertaining history of the company's early days, Hatching Twitter, is that they never came close to agreeing on what the company's core values should be.
This is a big challenge for Costolo, and a reason to fear that the company is letting its values be defined by its outside shareholders. It's also a sign that the Collins-Porras framework actually can be helpful in figuring out where a company's vision needs work.
Next up is Google, where co-founder and CEO Larry Page has decided that its mission statement (''to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful'') needs to be expanded as the company moves from purely digital endeavors into the physical world. Google has pretty clearly expressed core values, although they have been greeted with a lot more skepticism in recent years as the company has grown into a global giant. But now it has to sort out its core purpose from its BHAGs. This may sound a little silly, but actually involves the crucial strategic question of what about Google should stay the same and what should change.
At Twitter, the question is whether it can groom its BHAGs and paint a vivid picture of what it will be like to achieve them, while at the same time deciding on some core values. And if that sounds a little silly, here's what doesn't: growing fast enough to keep its investors off its back while it figures all this stuff out.
Trump MAGA vs Clinton I"m with Her
Phony Beliefs, i.e. virtue signalling
The rise of pride marketing and the curse of 'pink washing'
With the gay pride season coming to a close, here is a question: have you withdrawn money from a multi-coloured gAyTM this summer? Or have you even tucked into your Burger King Pride Whopper? And if you have, are you aware that it might just be the latest stage in an awkward history of corporate ''pink washing''?
Celebrating LGBT rights is a fashionable topic in marketing land. Long gone are the days where marketers may have only coyly targeted the LGBT community. In today's marketing, at least for some, even queer products for a straight audience have become mainstream '' used to sell anything from fast food to credit cards, clothing to eReaders '' but it's not clear whether this is a real ''win win'' for the market and the LGBT community.
It remains notoriously difficult to define who makes up the ''LGBT community'', and particularly what identifying as LGBT means in terms of lifestyle, political goals and choice of partners or a mix of all of the above. It is, nevertheless, fairly simple to establish that the relationship between the ''community'' and ''mainstream marketers'' has not always been an easy one.
Rise of the pink dollarAlthough the world's first gay magazine, Der Eigene, was published in Germany in 1892, it wasn't until the late 1950s and beyond that more prominent gay media began to emerge as laws outlawing homosexual activities were softened. However, in the early days, advertising in LGBT media was largely restricted to LGBT organisations, and LGBT-owned businesses directly targeting the community.
A vodka tonic for LGBT. torbakhopper, CC BYMaybe because of the political (and sometimes sexual nature) of many publications, major advertisers were cautious to advertise in the gay press. Even widely discussed (and criticised) survey data kick started a narrative of the ''pink dollar'' and an affluent and untapped marketing demographic failed to spark a rush. The emergence of AIDS in the 1980s helped to rein in commercial attitudes towards the LGBT community and it wasn't until the second half of the decade that the first few mainstream brands '' Absolut Vodka's campaign in The Advocate, for example '' started cautiously appearing in gay magazines alongside the community organisations and businesses.
It was the 1990s which saw a genuine turnaround. Advertisers openly hailed the ''Dream Market'' of urban, well-educated, double-income gay and lesbian couples. Yet, there was still a palpable fear of broader public attitudes towards LGBT issues, with few advertisers trying to openly depict LGBT storylines in their advertising directed at mainstream customers.
Instead, advertisers relied on targeting LGBT-identifying individuals through increasingly sophisticated media channels aimed at the community, such as radio stations, television channels, and an increasing variety of glossy lifestyle magazines, each one educating their gay audiences where to spend their, supposedly, high disposable income in terms of fashion, travel, art and fine cuisine.
It's complicatedNot everyone welcomed the newly found love affair between big business and small community, and the effect of ''selling out'' the LGBT political agenda. From the start, there have been concerns about the portrayals of LGBT individuals in marketing. For instance, research by Katherine Sender has highlighted the fact that marketers continue to avoid targeting or portraying lesbians. While Ellen and The L Word have somewhat softened the stereotype, Sender found that many advertisers still see lesbians as ''neither fish nor fowl''. Other forms of sexual identities, including bisexuality and transsexual identities are virtually absent from any form of commercial representation.
Scholars have also warned that increased LGBT visibility compromises the original social justice agenda of the LGBT movement. In Alexandra Chasin's research, ''going to the market'' means abandoning the effort to challenge inequalities in society. Instead there is an acceptance of normalisation and depoliticisation as a consequence of greater economic relevance '' at least for those select few that have been chosen as targets for advertisers.
There is certainly ample evidence of ''normalising'' depictions of LGBT identities by mainstream advertisers when depicting LGBT lifestyles '' something that scholars refer to as ''homonormativity''. It is a concept complementary to heteronormativity, the assumption that all individuals fall into two complementary categories as males and females and that they behave in accordance with their gendered ''norms''.
Homonormativity is the assimilation of these norms into the LGBT culture and identity: in other words, it is the assumption that gay couples are just like every one else. As Lisa Duggan has pointed out:
[Homonormativity] does not contest dominant heteronormative assumptions and institutions, but upholds and sustains them, while promising the possibility of a demobilized gay constituency and a privatized, depoliticized gay culture anchored in domesticity and consumption.
Becoming bolderFollowing successes by targeting the LGBT market directly, some marketers also made bold steps out of the ghetto '' and started to use gay themes in advertising targeted mostly at a non-gay audience. A first came in 1994. Playing on the stereotype of the worldly, urban gay male couple, equipped with a superior sense of style and fashion, IKEA showcased a same-sex couple choosing furniture at the store. The advert was widely celebrated by gay groups, with only fringe voices raising concerns about the stereotypical depiction of the gay characters.
First gay TV commercial IKEA ad 1994.Other organisations followed: controversially, in 2005, Israel started to promote itself as a gay-friendly tourist destination. The campaign was designed to portray Israel as a progressive country '' against a backdrop of violence and regressive policies of other governments in the region. The campaign was widely criticised as ''pinkwashing'', with critics arguing the campaign was intended to offer up a ''relevant and modern'' alternative to the controversy and anger over the treatment of Palestinians.
Open LGBT depictions in mainstream marketing were still relatively exceptional, until recently. Taking a lead from the popularity of ''LGBT inclusive'' television programmes such as Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, big marketers have come out of the closet: From Amazon to JCPenney in the US '' not to forget Barclays Bank in the UK '' all have seemingly thrown their corporate weight behind the LGBT movement.
However, just as was the case with Israel, you can't shake the feeling that these companies are glad for the distraction from their own controversies. Barclays has been the most complained about bank in the UK for a few years running now. JCPenney's same-sex mothers and fathers advertising came just after the company announced large-scale redundancies. And Amazon faces a host of criticism ranging from poor working conditions and tax avoidance to treatment of smaller publishers.
Their association with the LGBT equality message might genuinely reflect a desire to distance themselves from past controversies '' and to become more inclusive and open. But the suspicion will be that they are indulging in a bit of low-cost ''pink washing'' to soften the edges of some spiky reputational damage. Companies need to do more than just depict a gay guy, or a lesbian couple, or adorn their products with the rainbow flag '' especially when faced with increasingly knowledgeable, and cynical, consumers who hopefully can see through a touch of pink sparkle.
A retail rainbow: Vendors mark LGBTQ Pride on sales racks | WTOP
Major retailers have diversified their inventory for Pride month, selling apparel and other goods that celebrate LGBTQ culture to mark the 50th anniversary of the Stonewall uprising .
NEW YORK (AP) '-- Major retailers have diversified their inventory for Pride month, selling apparel and other goods that celebrate LGBTQ culture to mark the 50th anniversary of the Stonewall uprising .
In New York City, Macy's flagship store is adorned with rainbow-colored Pride tribute windows, set in the same space as its famous Christmas displays. Times Square's digital billboards are splashed with pitches for Pride-linked clothing and cosmetics sold at Sephora, CoverGirl and Levi's stores nearby.
But this year, the truly game-changing Pride sales scene is not in cutting-edge New York.
In 25 years working for organizations devoted to LGBTQ causes, ''this is absolutely the first year that I have noticed the retail celebration of Pride moving from larger coastal cities to smaller towns and cities,'' said Stephen Macias, the Los Angeles-based head of the Diversity & Inclusion department at the MWWPR global publicity firm.
He was taken aback by what he saw visiting his childhood hometown, Fresno, California, in an agricultural part of the state politically distant from liberal Los Angeles and San Francisco.
''When I went home to Fresno, where I was bullied at the mall as an effeminate kid, I was looking at so many stores with rainbow flags, Pride displays and same-sex families set up in the windows,'' Macias said. ''I was shocked that in Middle America, we were being celebrated. It was no problem, with each store trying to outdo the others.''
In Oklahoma City, the locally owned Red Coyote Running and Fitness displayed shoes with rainbow Pride flags planted in them. On Saturday, it sponsored an inaugural ''Love Run'' race, complete with rainbow medals.
The retail push in large part is commemorating the 50th anniversary of the Stonewall uprising, days of protests touched off by a police raid on the Stonewall Inn in New York City's Greenwich Village in the early morning hours of June 28, 1969.
It took decades, but American businesses in recent years have introduced more LGBTQ-themed items, no longer considering them anathema to mass marketing. The LGBTQ presence in retail has never been as visibly mainstream as in 2019.
''A dozen years ago, the conventional wisdom among retailers was that reaching out to the LGBTQ community means losing to the rest of consumers,'' Macias said. ''But the retail landscape turned out to be different; the fear of backlash by supporting LGBTQ consumers never materialized in any meaningful way.''
Not everyone praises the Pride merchandising, which some see as thinly disguised corporate promotion.
''Major corporations have turned LGBT struggles into marketing moments to make themselves look good,'' said Bill Dobbs, a longtime New York gay activist. ''The modern movement for gay rights was jump-started by Stonewall, and it's still a battle for the lives of LGBT people '-- not about selling trinkets and clothes with rainbow colors. They're a distraction.''
Some companies participating in Pride campaigns have also been criticized for having their apparel made in countries where being gay is illegal, or where persecution is commonplace.
''Some people in these corporations may have good intentions, but it's just a marketing tactic,'' said Terry Roethlein, a volunteer with the Reclaim Pride Coalition, which opposes major corporate sponsorship of New York's LGBTQ events.
''So many things that we sell in this country are produced in all kinds of deplorable conditions abroad,'' Roethlein said. ''And that's just another problem with retailing pride products '-- part of the unscrupulous nature of these marketing efforts. We want queer liberation, not rainbow capitalism.''
Many companies with Pride-branded apparel lines are also making donations to LGBTQ organizations or are giving a percentage of their sales.
H&M is putting 10% of the sales from its ''Love for All'' collection to the United Nations campaign against the criminalization of LGBTQ people. UGG footware is donating 25% of its proceeds from sales of ''Yeah Pride'' slippers this month to benefit Lady Gaga's Born This Way Foundation.
Target, which is selling family-themed Pride merchandise, including toddler T-shirts that read ''Love my Dads'' and ''Love my Moms,'' is donating $100,000 to GLSEN, an organization focused on ensuring safe schools for LGBTQ students. Profits from American Apparel's Stonewall-themed T-shirts are going to an initiative that provides cosmetics to low-income transgender women of color.
Macy's sponsored dozens of Pride parades across the country this year, with employees marching in them. It is encouraging shoppers to make donations at the register to The Trevor Project, a youth suicide prevention and crisis service. It is also donating $4 to The Trevor Project for every Pride-branded INC brand shirt it sells, or $2 for every set of INC socks.
''The giving campaign, with proceeds from the pride collection, is fundamental for an organization supporting diversity and inclusion,'' said Abigail James, a Macy's senior vice president. ''That's a core value for us, it's something that is a part of who we are in a world that has changed and evolved.''
Associated Press photojournalist Sue Ogrocki in Oklahoma City contributed to this report.
Copyright (C) 2019 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, written or redistributed.
The Problem With the 'Rainbow-Washing' of LGBTQ+ Pride | WIRED
Corporations might genuinely support the LGBTQ+ community with Pride-related promotions, but is there a line between allyship and marketing that shouldn't be crossed?
It happens every June like clockwork: the rainbows come out. (Pun intended.) Suddenly major metropolitan storefronts are filled with multi-colored displays and clothes emblazoned with "Love Is Love" and other slogans of the LGTBQ+ rights movement. It seems as though even your cable provider wants to know you should turn off the TV and get out to celebrate the queer community.
Yes, everyone wants to get in on Pride now. Two decades after companies pulled their ads from the Ellen episode in which Ellen DeGeneres came out as gay, corporations can't wait to market their goods to queer people. Target has "Love Wins" T-shirts; Amazon's Alexa personal assistant will tell you Pride facts; Nike has some "Be True" sneakers for you; a couple years back, Burger King even had a "Proud Whopper." The list goes on and on.
But when are all these Pride-related promos genuine attempts at supporting the LBGTQ+ community and when are they just rainbow-washing? Is there a line between allyship and marketing that shouldn't be crossed? As Pride month wraps up, the WIRED staff sat down to discuss the issues.
Angela Watercutter, Senior Associate Editor: I'll start, but I'll keep it quick. For a long time, I would get excited when I saw companies doing Pride-related ads etc. They might've been shallow attempts, but they always seemed better than the days when companies didn't want their names associated with LGBTQ+ people at all. Over time, my feelings have gone back and forth. Sometimes I walk past a window display and think ''Did Marsha P. Johnson and Sylvia Rivera take on the cops at Stonewall to sell T-shirts?'' And honestly, I don't know if I'll ever have an answer to that question. What about you guys? Justice, I think you were the one who first mentioned rainbow-washing the other day. Where do you land?
Justice Namaste, Social Media Coordinator: Well Angela, I really started thinking about the idea of rainbow-washing after seeing Apple's 'Pride Edition' Apple Watch wristband that they announced during the WWDC keynote a couple of weeks ago. It irritated me that this massive tech company would be making money off a symbol that not only represents joy and celebration, but also the LGBTQ+ community's long history of struggle and oppression. But my issue isn't specifically with Apple, a company that actually has a track record of supporting LGBTQ+ causes (and an openly gay CEO), it's with the way rainbow imagery gets co-opted to benefit groups and individuals who aren't LGBTQ+.
Rainbow-washing allows people, governments, and corporations that don't do tangible work to support LGBTQ+ communities at any other time during the year to slap a rainbow on top of something in the month of June and call it allyship. A perfect example of this is the city of Atlanta's rainbow crosswalks, an undeniably beautiful project, but one that cost the city nearly $200,000 (!!!!). Now Atlanta has a long and rich LGBTQ+ history, and the city deciding to commemorate that history and to honor those lost during the 2016 Pulse shooting is quite touching.However, I can't help but wonder if painting some crosswalks is what Atlanta's LGBTQ+ communities would've wanted the city to do with those funds. Seeing storefronts and lamp posts adorned with rainbows during the month of June always brings a smile to my face'--and this kind of visible support is something that was denied to LGBTQ+ folx who came before us'--but what are the limitations of symbolic gestures?
Emma Grey Ellis, Reporter: I agree, Justice. A decent share of these corporations could take another lesson in allyship. Being an ally is like being a wingman: If you make it about you, you're doing it wrong! To me, some of the worst offenders are companies that keep their rainbow-washing vague. (There's a Red Bull billboard on top of my building that is just a rainbow of cans with a caption that says, ''Wings for everyone.'' Didn't realize getting jittery wasn't already an egalitarian pursuit.) Corporations could be powerful allies using their privilege and deep pockets to put people who do real work for the LGBTQ+ community front and center. Co-opting a color scheme and a few hashtags is '... not that.
Watercutter: And I think that's the difference in a lot of cases. If you're selling Pride gear and giving your profits to an organization like the Trevor Project and/or making sure your company is hiring/supporting LGBTQ+ employees, that's a good-faith effort. If it's just about changing your logo on Twitter or hanging a flag in your store so queer people will spend their queer dollars there, well, in the immortal words of Shania Twain, that don't impress me much.
I was actually at a live taping of the Food 4 Thot podcast last weekend and this very topic came up and I was kind of relieved that most of the panel had the same mixed feelings. So I imagine it's something that'll be discussed for a while. (I mostly just bring this up to mention Food 4 Thot, because they're very funny and everyone should listen.)
Jason Kehe, Senior Associate Editor: To be perfectly frank, I don't know what the big deal is. Here's how I think about this. Some kid comes out to his parents. They don't understand. Maybe they're religious, or don't have gay friends, whatever. Then their cable company'--distant, bureaucratic, soulless'--tweets, I don't know, a rainbow flag on a TV screen. The parents see that. They think, huh, my kid isn't alone. Even our stupid cable company supports him. Maybe we should too. To me, that's nice. Obviously companies want to look cool and sell stuff. Capitalism! But in this case, it also means seeding a homophobic world with more symbols of love and support. I say wash the world in rainbows.
Josie Colt, Gear Fellow: My question is: Do corporations ever fly flags out of sincere support? Unless they've shown other actions of allyship, rainbow-washing seems like an attempt to appear hip, hop on the current bandwagon and make a few bucks while they're at it. Should the same question be applied to people who tag along to parades? If that's your one action of solidarity for the whole year, should you be wearing a rainbow at all? Then again, sincere or not, showing the world that much rainbow doesn't seem so bad either.
Ahalya Srikant, Research Fellow: I agree with Jason that sometimes we have to put aside our own standards for the good of the community as a whole. Living in a big city can make life easier to be out and proud of who you are. But for a lot of the LGBTQ+ community, pride is still a protest.
I also know that I am incredibly privileged to live in San Francisco, and can just be myself with little to no repercussions for my sexual identity. I think we sometimes forget, in our safe cities, that there are still horrible fates for LGBTQ+ people across the country and around the world. The average life expectancy of a trans person is 35, gay conversion therapy is still legal in 37 states, and homosexual relationships are still banned in 74 countries.
I completely agree that companies need to be held to a higher standard of allyship and dream of a world where LGBTQ+ people are genuinely supported and recognized. But unfortunately, bandwagoning of social rights sometimes needs to come before the genuine intent to support. In the meantime, if even one child sees that commercial with the rainbow flag and decides it is worth it to live another day, that meaningless advertisement was worth it.
More Great WIRED StoriesInside the crypto world's biggest scandalFinally, a real world grading system for autopilot techPotential pitfalls of sucking carbon from the atmosphereStar Wars and the battle of ever-more-toxic fan cultureMeet Germn Garmendia, the aggressively normal YouTube superstar who wants it allLooking for more? Sign up for our daily newsletter and never miss our latest and greatest stories
'The silence is deafening': Major brands are avoiding Trump '-- even as he promotes them from the White House - The Salt Lake Tribune
In a scene likely worth millions of dollars in free advertising, President Donald Trump displayed a spread of burgers from some of the country's biggest fast-food chains inside the State Dining Room of the White House on Monday as hungry football players looked on.
With cameras rolling, he offered a presidential endorsement of "all-American" restaurants including McDonald's, Chick-fil-a and Wendy's.
"We like American companies, OK?" Trump said, standing before hundreds of Big Macs and chicken sandwiches alongside the North Dakota State football team. "Go eat up. Enjoy yourselves, everybody."
But the companies haven't been quick to return the affection or attempt to cash in on the presidential product placement, with McDonald's, Chick-fil-A and Wendy's all remaining silent about Trump's endorsements. When Trump held a similar event in January, Burger King was the only company to reference it on social media '-- by mocking Trump for misspelling the word hamburger in a tweet.
''[D]ue to a large order placed yesterday, we're all out of hamberders,'' Burger King tweeted on Jan. 15, a day after Trump honored the Clemson football team with Whoppers and Big Macs, adding that it was ''just serving hamburgers today.''
due to a large order placed yesterday, we're all out of hamberders. just serving hamburgers today.
'-- Burger King (@BurgerKing) January 15, 2019 The corporate reticence underscores the tense relationship between a polarizing president and top U.S. consumer brands. From Sharpies to Big Macs to Diet Cokes, companies behind some of the president's favorite products have kept him at arm's length even as he has lavished them with public praise and highlighted their products in the White House.
"It used to be that brands would love to get an endorsement from the president," said Tim Calkins, who teaches marketing at Northwestern University's Kellogg School of Management. "Now, if anything, I think these companies probably squirm a bit."
Trump's own divisive brand makes him a less-than-ideal endorser for companies seeking to avoid the partisan fray, Calkins said.
Representatives of McDonald's, Burger King and Chick-fil-a did not respond to multiple requests asking if they welcomed Trump's endorsement. Newell Brands Inc., which produces the Sharpie pens Trump has praised while signing executive orders, also did not respond to multiple requests. White House officials also did not respond to requests for comment.
In the past, consumer brands have been eager to highlight their proximity to presidents, whose endorsements are especially significant because they are presumed to have access to the best products, said Nick Powills, CEO and chief brand strategist of Chicago-based No Limit Agency.
When then-President Barack Obama visited restaurants in Washington, D.C., and abroad, the companies regularly highlighted the visits on social media and some still have menu items named after him.
"It was almost like winning a Michelin star," Powills said of the presidential visits.
During a White House visit by the Boston Red Sox in 2014, slugger David Ortiz took a selfie with Obama on a Samsung smartphone. Samsung, which had an endorsement deal with Ortiz, tweeted out a photo of the "historic" moment, noting that it was "captured with his Galaxy Note 3."
Presidents John F. Kennedy, Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter each invited instructors from Evelyn Wood Reading Dynamics to give speed-reading courses to staff in the White House, a marketing coup for the company.
Today, even businesses that once sought out the Trump brand have acted to distance themselves from a president whose divisive and incendiary rhetoric has sparked opposition from more than half the country.
Since the 2016 campaign, six New York residential buildings have moved to strip the "Trump Place" logos from their facades, and several retailers have stopped selling Trump-branded apparel.
Nike, which last year moved out of a Trump-owned New York location, started an ad campaign in September featuring NFL quarterback-turned-activist Colin Kaepernick. The ads put Nike squarely at odds with Trump, who had attacked Kaepernick and other NFL players for kneeling in protest during the national anthem.
The company said its sales increased 10 percent in the quarter after the ad was released, despite public criticism from Trump.
"For companies whose consumers are more progressive, more Democratic, being called out by the president isn't a bad thing," said Julie Hootkin, a partner at Global Strategy Group. "It might be a really good thing."
Consumers increasingly want companies to take action on political and social issues, according to a study published last week by Global Strategy Group. The survey found that eight in 10 consumers want companies to take a stand, and almost half said it would be appropriate for corporations to take a position against Trump.
On the other hand, there are a number of brands that have actively played up their closeness with Trump, including U.S. Steel, Boeing, Fox News and Foxconn. Speaking at the Conservative Political Action Conference last week, MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell said Trump was "chosen by God."
And Trump is certainly not toxic to the thousands of supporters who have purchased his "Make America Great Again" hats and other campaign merchandise. Writers of pro-Trump books have lobbied White House aides to secure a presidential tweet, and the president's shout-outs have helped propel several tomes to bestseller status.
But companies also have discovered the dangers of associating with a mercurial president.
In early 2017, Harley-Davidson's top executives visited the White House and showed off several motorcycles to Trump, who praised the company for making products in America.
By 2018, Trump was publicly advocating for a boycott against Harley after the company announced it was shifting some of its production to Asia. The company blamed tariffs resulting from Trump's trade war with China and Europe. In January, Harley Chief Financial Officer John Olin told investors the tariffs would cost the company as much as $120 million in 2019.
"Many @harleydavidson owners plan to boycott the company if manufacturing moves overseas," Trump tweeted in August. "Great!"
A company spokeswoman declined to comment beyond saying that "there was no boycott."
Trump has also publicly attacked other private corporations, including Ford, General Motors, and the NFL. The president regularly attacks Amazon and CEO Jeff Bezos, who also owns The Washington Post.
Some companies, including outdoor retailer Patagonia, have taken aggressive stances against Trump's policies. Patagonia sued Trump in 2017 over his move to reduce the size of two national monuments in Utah, and used its retail website to deliver a stark message to shoppers: "The President Stole Your Land."
Patagonia spokeswoman Corley Kenna said the move was not driven by profit motives or politics.
"Our community expects us to take bold positions," she said.
Other brands have been reluctant to take on the president, who has been willing to use the power of his office to pursue vendettas against corporate foes.
"The silence is deafening," said Calkins, the Northwestern professor. "Everybody is very nervous about how the administration might respond."
Some brands have found other politicians more palatable than Trump, even in today's polarized climate. After Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., announced his presidential bid last month, the Twitter account for Hot Pockets posted a picture of the senator holding one of its snacks.
"@CoryBooker don't forget about us when you get elected," the company tweeted.
A company spokeswoman said there is no formula for deciding when to engage with politicians and noted the company's previous interaction with Booker about 2012 Hurricane Sandy relief efforts.
Apparel brand Rag & Bone posted a tweet of Obama sporting a customized version of the company's bomber jacket last month.
During his presidency, Obama's impromptu stops at local establishments would often spark celebratory tweets from the businesses: "#presidentialswag" Taylor Gourmet tweeted in 2014; "delighted" said Politics & Prose in 2014; "Super honored!" Shake Shack said in 2015.
Trump has largely avoided Washington, D.C.'s restaurants and small businesses, opting instead for restaurants inside the Trump International Hotel on Pennsylvania Avenue.
Powills said the lack of response from the fast-food companies highlighted by Trump in recent weeks striking.
''It's unfortunate that that's what we've come to,'' said Powills. ''No matter what, you're at a celebration at the White House and it should be something you (promote). It's too bad that silence is the answer.''
All the advertisers that have dropped Laura Ingraham after David Hogg's boycott '' VICE News
parklandAll the advertisers that have dropped Laura Ingraham after David Hogg's boycott
Parkland survivor David Hogg's call for a boycott of conservative commentator Laura Ingraham's advertisers is causing an exodus from her shows.
Earlier this week Ingraham mocked Hogg, a survivor of the Florida school shooting and activist for gun control, for not getting into all the colleges he applied to. In response, Hogg asked his nearly 600,000 Twitter followers to boycott Ingraham's biggest advertisers: Sleep Number, AT&T, Nutrish, Allstate & Esurance, Bayer, Rocket Mortgage, Liberty Mutual, Arby's, TripAdvisor, Nestl(C), Hulu, and Wayfair.
So far, the following advertisers have announced that they are either pulling ads or won't initiate new programs with Ingraham, who hosts the daily syndicated "The Laura Ingraham Show" and "The Ingraham Angle" on Fox News:
Nutrish TripAdvisor Expedia Wayfair Nestl(C) Johnson & Johson Hulu Joseph A. Bank Pet food company Nutrish was the first to announce it was removing its ads from Ingraham's programs on Thursday.
TripAdvisor followed suit.
Parkland survivor David Hogg's call for a boycott of conservative commentator Laura Ingraham's advertisers is causing an exodus from her shows.
Earlier this week Ingraham mocked Hogg, a survivor of the Florida school shooting and activist for gun control, for not getting into all the colleges he applied to. In response, Hogg asked his nearly 600,000 Twitter followers to boycott Ingraham's biggest advertisers: Sleep Number, AT&T, Nutrish, Allstate & Esurance, Bayer, Rocket Mortgage, Liberty Mutual, Arby's, TripAdvisor, Nestl(C), Hulu, and Wayfair.
So far, the following advertisers have announced that they are either pulling ads or won't initiate new programs with Ingraham, who hosts the daily syndicated "The Laura Ingraham Show" and "The Ingraham Angle" on Fox News:
Pet food company Nutrish was the first to announce it was removing its ads from Ingraham's programs on Thursday.
TripAdvisor followed suit.
Wayfair, a furniture and decor retailer, announced Thursday that it would also be pulling its ads from Ingraham's programs. In a statement sent to VICE News, Jane Carpenter, the head of public relations, said: ''In our view, these statements focused on a high school student cross the line of decency. As such, we have made a decision to stop advertising on that program.''
The company added the following statement:
As a company, we support open dialogue and debate on issues. However, the decision of an adult to personally criticize a high school student who has lost his classmates in an unspeakable tragedy is not consistent with our values. We do not plan to continue advertising on this particular program.
Reached by VICE News, a spokesman for Expedia said the travel bookings company would also stop advertising on Laura Ingraham shows but declined to comment further.
A Nestl(C) spokesperson said it would not air further ads on Fox News' "The Ingraham Angle."
Johnson & Johnson confirmed to HuffPost Thursday that the company will be pulling its advertising from Ingraham's show. Hulu responded to Hogg's tweet saying they are pulling their ads too.
After Nutrish and TripAdvisor pulled their ads from her programs, Ingraham issued an apology on Twitter.
''Any student should be proud of a 4.2 GPA '--incl. @DavidHogg111,'' Ingram wrote in a series of tweets. ''On reflection, in the spirit of Holy Week, I apologize for any upset or hurt my tweet caused him or any of the brave victims of Parkland. For the record, I believe my show was the first to feature David immediately after that horrific shooting and even noted how 'poised' he was given the tragedy. As always, he's welcome to return to the show anytime for a productive discussion.''
Hogg and his sister and another Parkland survivor, Lauren Hogg, didn't seem to take her apology to heart. In a tweet Lauren sent and Hogg retweeted, she called Ingraham out for not apologizing until her advertisers began backing out.
Conservative outlets and activists began criticizing Hogg for his lack of college prospects after the 17-year-old told TMZ he was recently rejected by UCLA, UC San Diego, and Cal State Long Beach. He added that he'd been accepted to Florida Atlantic University, Cal Poly, and Cal State San Marcos.
''At this point, we're changing the world,'' Hogg told TMZ. ''If colleges want to support us in that, great; if not, doesn't matter. We're still going to change the world.''
Read: Conservatives are now mocking David Hogg's grades and college prospects
On Wednesday, Ingraham took to Twitter to say that Hogg was whining about his rejections and said it was ''totally predictable'' that he wouldn't be accepted to those universities with a 4.1 GPA. She did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Hogg answered Ingraham's criticism by tweeting out a list of her biggest advertisers, and encouraging his followers to boycott them.
TMZ producer Harvey Levin, who interviewed Hogg, responded to Ingram asking if she'd even watched the interview.
''David was not whining,'' Levin tweeted. ''I called him about the story. He was not feeling sorry for himself in the slightest. It was my idea that colleges should consider applicants who are so committed. Did you watch the video???''
Other survivors and activists have been tweeting as well, including Hogg's sister, 14-year-old Lauren Hogg, who told Ingraham to "please grow up."
This kind of overtly personal criticism is nothing new to the survivors of the Feb. 14 Marjory Stoneman Douglas school shooting. Hogg and his classmates, many of whom have become vocal activists in favor of gun control reform, have been the target of conservative criticism for weeks. The attacks have gotten considerably more aggressive since they planned and appeared at Saturday's March for Our Lives in Washington, D.C.
Since then, Hogg has been compared to Hitler Youth by Minnesota Republican Rep. Mary Franson and right-wing media outlets like Breitbart, Infowars, and Bill Mitchell. Parkland survivor Emma Gonzlez, another vocal activist, has been targeted and criticized by conservatives for wearing a Cuban flag on her jacket. A doctored video of Gonzlez tearing up the Constitution spread on conservative social media over the weekend as well.
Both students, along with their peers, have also fallen victim to conspiracy theories that they are paid actors who are pretending to be grieving teenagers.
Cover image: Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School student David Hogg adresses the crowd during the March For Our Lives rally against gun violence in Washington, DC on March 24, 2018. (Jim Watson/AFP/Getty Images)
CORRECTION: A previous version of this story incorrectly identified the colleges David Hogg said he has been rejected from. He did not mention UC Irvine or UC Santa Barbara.
VIDEO - Why brands are taking a political stand '' Marketing Week
''Believe in something. Even if it means sacrificing everything,'' urges the latest iteration of Nike's long-running 'Just Do It' campaign, marking the 30th anniversary of the famous tagline.
The text on that advertisement frames the face of American footballer Colin Kaepernick, a polarising figure who controversially protested against racial injustice in the US by not standing up for the national anthem at the start of a game. By aligning with Kaepernick's stand against racial injustice and police brutality in the US, the sports giant made its point of view on a contentious issue clear.
Nike is not alone. Today, brands are increasingly presenting themselves as 'influencers' on the pressing issues in society. Many align their point of view to topics that affect the lives of consumers, be that climate change, racial injustice, police brutality or immigration. However, to what extent do the perceptions and purchasing decisions of consumers really depend upon a brand's point of view?
READ MORE: Download YouGov's report, 'The social voice of brands'
Purpose is arguably the new brand currency. Telling a powerful story is the most effective way to create a deeper emotional connection with customers. In the light of this, new research from YouGov presented at the Festival of Marketing seeks to examine whether brands choosing to take a side on a particular issue is a worthwhile strategy.
Brands' social role
Speaking at the Festival, YouGov's UK head of data products Amelia Brophy discussed the nuances of consumer attitudes towards brands that have a social voice. The company's research into the topic '' in the form of a transatlantic white paper '' works to uncover how consumers feel about brands that seek to express a point of view on contentious social issues.
''What does the consumer think about brands using these issues?'' asks Brophy. ''Are they receptive to them and is it something that as marketers we should consider doing to really help us get our point across?''
The role of brands in society is a strong theme that comes out of the research. Is it important for brands to have a clear point of view on the wider issues in society?
Nike had a customer base that was ripe for a campaign that spoke to a social issue.
Amelia Brophy, YouGovThe data gives an uncertain picture: 42% of British people like brands that are willing to get involved in social issues and 52% of British people believe a brand should be able to express an opinion on a certain topic. ''What this tells us is that there is also a whole group of people who are unengaged or disinterested, don't really care when a brand gets involved on a social issue or don't like it,'' comments Brophy.
''So already when we are talking about consumers at a high level like this is shows us that it is an area that marketers should be cautious going into.''
Yet the data also demonstrates a reason for some brands to pursue a strategy of taking a stand on a polarising topic. When the research delves deeper into why brands should get involved in social issues, the story becomes richer. 'I want to trust the brands that I interact with' is a top choice for why consumers would want companies to state their views.
''When consumers are looking at brands to take a position on a social issue, part of that is about them understanding the brand more so that they can decide if it is a brand they can trust,'' comments Brophy.
Risk versus rewardBrands should not embark on this type of cause marketing strategy lightly, the report suggests, and having a point of view on a contentious issue can be dangerous territory for them to enter into. The receptiveness of consumers towards brands having a point of view on contentious issues varies greatly between different groups.
Nike's campaign with Colin Kaepernick was hugely controversial, prompting slews of people to post videos of themselves on social media, burning Nike products along with the hashtag #JustBurnIt.
However, as YouGov reveals, that stand on the issues of racism and police brutality was well placed for Nike. Data on American Nike customers finds that the majority of them like it when companies have a message and they like brands that are willing to get involved on social issues.
What is striking about the Nike advertisement, says Brophy, is how confident the brand was on putting out a campaign that it knew would resonate with its consumer as well as have a negative fall-out. ''Nike has taken a really calculated risk here,'' she says. ''Nike had a customer base that was ripe for a campaign that spoke to a social issue that those consumers believed in.''
Ultimately, what society wants is for brands to be authentic. ''These themes of honesty, genuineness, consistency and trustworthiness just keep coming through,'' says Brophy. ''Really the centre of this issue is that consumers want brands that they can trust.''
VIDEO - Megan Rapinoe of Team USA ON MESSAGE for NIKE
Analysts at eMarketer research TV ad spend in 2018.
Infographic Courtesy of eMarketer.Last year, TV ad spending in the U.S. saw a first-time drop since 2009. With the double-digit growth of digital video, TV ad spend will continue to decline this year with TV's share of total U.S. media ad spending dropping from 33.9% in 2017 to 31.6%.
With the swift acceleration of cord-cutting and the upsurge of over-the-top (OTT) viewing, spending on TV ads will slip 0.5% in 2018 to $69.8 billion, according to eMarketer's latest U.S. advertising forecast. TV ad spend is expected to see a slight uptick in 2020 due to the U.S. presidential election and Summer Olympics in Tokyo, but it will sink back to negative territory in the following years and fall to less than a quarter of total ad spend by 2022.
''The shift of audiences to OTT viewing is changing the climate of the TV ad market,'' says eMarketer senior forecasting director Monica Peart. ''As ratings for TV programming continue to decline, advertiser spending will also continue to see declines, especially in years that do not boast major events such as presidential elections and Olympic games.''
Meanwhile, total digital ad spending in the U.S. will climb 18.7% this year to $107.3 billion. OTT platforms, which have a small but growing share of the market, will continue to play an import role. This year, Roku's U.S. ad revenues (mostly video but some display formats, as well) will surpass $293 million, up 93% over 2017. And, Hulu's U.S. ad revenues will increase by more than 13% to reach $1.12 billion.
Analysts at eMarketer research TV ad spend in 2018.
Infographic Courtesy of eMarketer.''Over-the-top platforms are growing in number and size, and many compete directly with pay TV by offering bundles of live channels at attractive price points,'' said eMarketer principal analyst Paul Verna. ''Consumers who want to cut or shave the cord now have a wealth of options that didn't exist a couple of years ago. And we expect the offerings to become even more robust as more players enter the market.''
These advertising trends come as cord-cutting continues to gain momentum in the U.S. Last July, eMarketer increased its estimates for cord-cutters substantially for 2017 through 2021. This year, the number of TV viewers in the U.S. will drop 0.2% to 297.7 million. Conversely, the number of OTT viewers will grow 2.7% to reach 198.6 million.
This isn't a new trend, as digital advertising has been pulling its dollars from traditional media for several years now. This has been due, in large part, to the decline in newspapers and magazines. Another major factor has been the convenience of streaming on any device, from anywhere, at any time. Advertisers are following eyeballs, and simply put, their dollars are better spent online.
US Ad Spending 2018 - eMarketer Trends, Forecasts & Statistics
Ad spending on digital media is expected to overtake traditional media in 2019. Digital ad investments exceeded expectations during H1 2018 and will now reach $111.14 billion by year's end, above our March 2018 estimate of $107.30 billion. By 2019, digital media will account for 55.0% of total media ad spending.
A surge in search ad spending is behind the revision to digital advertising, with projections rising from $45.81 billion to $48.49 billion. Search's growth is mainly attributable to Google, which accounts for 71.0% of the US search ad market. Google's search ad revenues overperformed during the first half of 2018 as advertisers'--especially local advertisers'--increased investment in mobile search advertising.
Google's net search ad revenues will total $34.42 billion in 2018, a 19.4% increase over 2017. The company will maintain double-digit growth into 2020, when its total ad revenues will represent over one-fifth of total media ad spending.
Political Ad Spending Will Approach $10 Billion in 2020, New Forecast Predicts - WSJ
Spending on political advertisements is projected to hit a new high in 2020, surging $3.6 billion above the most recent presidential campaign year.
Political ad spending will total $9.9 billion in 2020, according to the latest U.S. advertising forecast from WPP PLC's ad-buying unit GroupM. That would be up from $8.7 billion in 2018, when midterm congressional elections were held, and from $6.3 billion in 2016, when President Trump was elected.
The growth between presidential campaign years is accelerating. Political ad spending rose by $2 billion between 2012 and 2016, according to GroupM, and by $1.1 billion between 2008 and 2012.
Political spending in 2018 was ''shockingly high,'' said Brian Wieser, global president of business intelligence at GroupM. ''There's just generally more activity in a presidential year than a nonpresidential year, so whatever the 2018 number was, 2020 was going to be bigger.''
Digital advertising and fundraising capabilities, along with the increasing competition between parties, are among factors fueling spending, said Kyle Roberts, the chief executive of media-measurement firm Advertising Analytics LLC.
''Fundraising on the internet is bigger than ever, and candidates have more reach into low dollars than ever before, and it results in more cash in the system,'' he said. Election campaigns increasingly are able to amass considerable sums from small donations made online by supporters.
Political spending in 2018 accounted for $2 billion, or 2%, of total digital ad spending in the U.S., according to the GroupM report. In 2020, digital political ad spending is projected to increase to about $2.8 billion, or 2.2% of total digital ad spending.
The political spending increases come as the overall ad business is expected to keep growing, albeit at a slower rate than in past years. Stripping out political advertising, total ad spending is projected to increase 4% in 2020, compared with projected growth of 5.3% for 2019.
Technology firms continue to pour money into ads, with Alphabet Inc.'s Google, Facebook Inc., Netflix Inc. and Amazon.com Inc., among others, each spending $1 billion or more on advertising last year for a total of $28 billion, according to Mr. Wieser. This year, that number likely will increase to around $33 billion, he said.
''The overall economy, and by extension the advertising economy, has been running hot in 2017 and 2018 given the stimulus within the economy between tax cuts and heightened deficits,'' said Mr. Wieser in an email. ''We would assume both economic growth and advertising growth should decelerate unless a new stimulus emerged.''
Excluding political spending, digital ad growth is expected to decelerate, increasing 15% in 2020, compared with 17% in 2019 and 21% in 2018, because of the sheer size that spending with the major digital ad platforms has already achieved, said Mr. Wieser.
''Only so much money can go into digital in the first place, and the overall ad economy is only so large,'' said Mr. Wieser.
Write to Alexandra Bruell at email@example.com
VIDEO - (2) Brand Safety in 2019: Delivering Trust in Mobile Advertising [Webinar] - YouTube
The timing is certainly awkward: Procter & Gamble, a top-spending marketer, announced that it's resuming ad spending on YouTube '-- coming amid a new report the Google-owned video giant served ads for hundreds of advertisers against a range of objectionable content.
A year ago, news reports that YouTube was placing ads against violent and extremist videos led to a broad boycott, which led hundreds of advertisers to halt spending, including P&G, AT&T, Dish Network and PepsiCo. Last fall, YouTube was hit again by a backlash over ads on videos that attracted child predators.
But despite its pledges to address the ''brand safety'' crisis, YouTube is still delivering unpleasant surprises to Madison Avenue.
On Thursday, CNN reported that ad spots from 300-plus companies and government agencies ran on YouTube channels ''promoting white nationalists, Nazis, pedophilia, conspiracy theories and North Korean propaganda.'' The ads were for companies including Netflix, Amazon, Netflix, the New York Times Co., Adidas, Hershey and Hilton '-- which were unaware that their marketing messages were running against such content, per the report. Under Armour told CNN that it was suspend YouTube spending for now.
In response, YouTube reiterated that it continues to work on improving its processes for serving ads. ''We have partnered with our advertisers to make significant changes to how we approach monetization on YouTube with stricter policies, better controls and greater transparency,'' a rep for YouTube said in a statement.
Despite the latest revelations, P&G on Friday said it will now be advertising on YouTube after a year-long break, as first reported by Bloomberg. The consumer-packaged goods company worked with YouTube and ''we now feel the right measures are in place for P&G brands to have the option to advertise on YouTube,'' a P&G rep said in a statement.
What's important to note: P&G is giving the OK for brands to spend only on fewer than 10,000 ''white-listed'' channels that YouTube has cleared as safe for brand advertising.
P&G spent a total of $7.1 billion on advertising worldwide across TV, print, radio, online and other channels. According to the company, it cut digital advertising spending by $200 million last year, amid the YouTube freeze and as P&G found some online ads weren't being effectively targeted.
Even though P&G had suspended ad spending on YouTube, it continued to maintain channels for its brands on the video site '-- as well as a P&G channel, where it ran the popular ''Thank You, Mom'' campaign timed for the 2018 Winter Olympic Games in Korea.
Wondery, the three-year-old podcast publisher headed by former Fox International Channels chief Hernan Lopez, this week announced the closing of $10 million in Series B financing. With the funding, the company plans to expand internationally and has hired Declan Moore, most recently CEO of National Geographic Partners, the joint venture between National Geographic Society and [...]
In a pair of cost-cutting moves, Pierre Omidyar's First Look Media is shuttering the Topic Magazine digital publication dedicated to nonfiction storytelling and is dropping its funding for political cartoon site The Nib. Topic Magazine, launched two years ago, is ceasing publication as First Look plans to put more resources toward Topic.com's original video content [...]
AT&T will donate $500,000 to Sports Fans Coalition NY, the not-for-profit organization that operates Locast, which lets users live-stream local broadcast TV stations via the internet for free. According to the telco, the donation ''will support SFCNY's mission to make free broadcast content available to consumers and offer them more choice.'' AT&T added the Locast [...]
Actress and YouTuber Shay Mitchell revealed on social media Friday that she is six months pregnant with her first child with boyfriend Matte Babel '-- and her ''pregnancy journey'' will be documented in an original series on YouTube. The biweekly YouTube original series ''Almost Ready'' will premiere every other Wednesday starting July 17 on Mitchell's [...]
It's become an industry guessing game: Will Netflix ever relent on its no-commercials stance and cash in on advertising? There's a persistent idea that Netflix is leaving money on the table by not selling advertising '-- which the company could definitely use toward its $18.9 billion in long-term content-spending obligations, not to mention paying off [...]
Snap's Spidey sense is tingling in a new pact with Sony Pictures. To hype the release of ''Spider-Man: Far From Home,'' Sony Pictures is letting Snapchat users take selfies with the famed webslinger and pal-turned-nemesis Mysterio '-- with the studio sponsoring the first Snapchat lens tied to four major world landmarks. The Sony campaign uses [...]
Apple said chief design officer Jony Ive, who has led the tech giant's award-winning design team since 1996, will leave the company later this year. But he's not falling too far from the Apple tree: Ive plans to form an independent design company '-- with Apple among its primary clients. According to Apple, while Ive [...]
Giant advertiser Unilever threatens to pull its ads from Facebook and Google over 'toxic content' - Los Angeles Times
One of the world's largest advertisers is threatening to pull its ads from social sites such as Facebook and YouTube if the tech companies don't do more to minimize divisive content on their platforms.
Unilever's chief marketing officer, Keith Weed, called on Silicon Valley on Monday to better police what he describes as a toxic online environment where propaganda, hate speech and disturbing content that exploits children thrive.
"Fake news, racism, sexism, terrorists spreading messages of hate, toxic content directed at children '-- parts of the internet we have ended up with is a million miles from where we thought it would take us," Weed said in a speech at the Interactive Advertising Bureau's Leadership Meeting in Palm Desert. "It is in the digital media industry's interest to listen and act on this."
Last year, Unilever spent nearly $9.5 billion marketing its brands, including Lipton tea, Dove soap, Axe body spray and Ben & Jerry's ice cream. One quarter of that budget, or about $2.4 billion, was spent on digital advertising.
Weed said that the company will promise to boost more "responsible content," including ads that tackle gender stereotypes, and that it will partner only with digital networks that pledge to use an industry standard for ad metrics and improve consumer ad experiences. Weed said he has already begun discussions with Facebook Inc., Google, Twitter Inc., Amazon.com Inc. and Snapchat maker Snap Inc. (Amazon Chief Executive Jeff Bezos also owns the Washington Post.)
''It is acutely clear from the groundswell of consumer voices over recent months that people are becoming increasingly concerned about the impact of digital on well-being, on democracy '-- and on truth itself,'' Weed said. ''This is not something that can be brushed aside or ignored. Consumers are also demanding platforms which make a positive contribution to society.''
Google and Facebook dominate online advertising, and they have come under increased pressure from lawmakers, academics and industry critics to invest more heavily in filtering out misinformation and abusive content on their networks.
Last year, Google's YouTube faced a vocal backlash from U.S. advertisers who said the company was not doing enough to prevent their ads from being played alongside derogatory and extremist content. Google '-- a division of Alphabet Inc. '-- has since adopted changes to the YouTube platform, which draws 1.6 billion monthly users. Those changes include stricter criteria for what types of videos can receive ad dollars, and more human reviews of content.
In response to Weed's message, Google said it takes its partners' and users' trust and safety seriously. ''We will continue to work to earn that trust every day,'' it said.
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg announced this year that his social network's news feed would show its 2.1 billion users more posts from their friends and family, as opposed to news organizations and brands, in an effort to generate more "meaningful" interactions. During its most recent earnings call, Zuckerberg acknowledged that Facebook users spent 50 million fewer hours per day on the social network than they did the previous quarter, in part by seeing fewer viral videos '-- a consequence of Facebook's new push to prioritize the quality of interactions on its platform over the popularity of content.
Despite the recent pushback, Google and Facebook continue to dominate the market for online advertising. According to EMarketer's latest estimates, the two companies are expected to claim nearly two-thirds of the U.S. market share for digital ads. Google is expected to command 42% of the market, with Facebook at 23%.
Weed said that 2018 ''is either the year of techlash, where the world turns on the tech giants '-- and we have seen some of this already '-- or the year of trust, the year where we collectively rebuild trust back in our systems and our society.''
Facebook said in a statement: "We fully support Unilever's commitments and are working closely with them."
3:20 p.m.: This article was updated after Unilever's Keith Weed delivered his remarks and to add comment from Google.
This article was originally published at 11:15 a.m.
Advertisers Are Fleeing YouTube To Avoid ''Directly Funding Creators Of Hateful'' Content
YouTube is losing advertisers as big-name companies pull ads from the site because, according to a report from The New York Times, ''The automated system in which ads are bought and placed online has too often resulted in brands appearing next to offensive material on YouTube such as hate speech.''
More and more major companies are abandoning the ad services of YouTube's parent company, Google, amid concerns that ads for their brands are being placed next to extremist material. On March 22, The New York Times reported that AT&T and Johnson & Johnson ''were among several companies to say Wednesday that they would stop their ads from running on YouTube and other Google properties amid concern that Google is not doing enough to prevent brands from appearing next to offensive material, like hate speech.'' The decision by advertisers comes as Google has struggled in its efforts to prevent websites that peddle fake news from using its online advertising services to profit. It also comes as Google and YouTube have been criticized following a BuzzFeed News report for driving revenue for conspiracy theorists who broadcast to millions and monetize conspiracy theories like ''Pizzagate,'' which led to an armed confrontation in a DC-pizza shop.
Now, The New York Times reports that ''the technology underpinning YouTube's advertising business has come under intense scrutiny'' as ''other deep-pocketed marketers [are] announcing that they would pull their ads from the service.'' According to the Times report, the problem ''is particularly jarring'' for YouTube specifically, because ''YouTube splits advertising revenue with its users, meaning advertisers risk directly funding creators of hateful, misogynistic or terrorism-related content.'' From The Times' March 23 report:
YouTube is now one of the pillars of Google's advertising business and the most valuable video platform on the internet. In recent years, advertisers, unable to ignore its massive audience, flocked to YouTube to reach younger people who have started to shun traditional broadcast television.
But the technology underpinning YouTube's advertising business has come under intense scrutiny in recent days, with AT&T, Johnson & Johnson and other deep-pocketed marketers announcing that they would pull their ads from the service. Their reason: The automated system in which ads are bought and placed online has too often resulted in brands appearing next to offensive material on YouTube such as hate speech.
That technology, known as programmatic advertising, allows advertisers to lay out the general parameters of what kind of person they want to reach '-- say, a young man under 25 '-- and trust that their ad will find that person, no matter where he might be on the internet. This approach plays to the strengths of tech giants like Google and Facebook, allowing advertisers to use automation and data to cheaply and efficiently reach their own audiences, funneling money through a complicated system of agencies and third-party networks.
But more than 400 hours of content are uploaded to YouTube every minute, and while Google has noted that it prevents ads from running near inappropriate material ''in the vast majority of cases,'' it has proved unable to totally police that amount of content in real time. And that has advertisers increasingly concerned.
While brands have expressed concern about showing up next to unsavory photos and videos uploaded to digital platforms by users '-- like pornography on Snapchat '-- the situation with YouTube is particularly jarring. YouTube splits advertising revenue with its users, meaning advertisers risk directly funding creators of hateful, misogynistic or terrorism-related content.
The revenue-sharing model has minted stars, some of whom gain cultlike followings for edgy and inappropriate content. Last month, the platform cut business ties with its biggest star, Felix Kjellberg, known to his 54 million subscribers as PewDiePie, after The Wall Street Journal reported on crude anti-Semitic jokes and Nazi imagery in his comedy videos. He was part of YouTube's premium advertising product called Google Preferred '-- a category of popular, ''brand safe'' videos on YouTube.
YouTube Struggles With Advertiser Vs. Conservative Voices Conflicts '' Deadline
YouTube is caught in the middle of a war between conservative commentors and advertisers.
CNN has reported that mainstream companies like 20th Century Fox, Paramount and others were still advertising on conservative and conspiracy YouTube channels like Alex Jones's InfoWars. After being contacted by CNN concerning that apparent choice, they pulled the ads.
However, conservative commentators are claiming that YouTube is engaging in an over-reaching censorship campaign that they are calling ''The Purge,'' a take-down flurry that lumps together conservative pundits, gun advocates, conspiracy channels and many other right-wing commentators.
Many of the conservative sites are receiving strikes or getting their channels taken down and are claiming that the actions amount to political censorship that, they claim, common carriers should not engage in.
Related StoryShay Mitchell To Document Her Pregnancy In YouTube Series 'Almost Ready'
Last week, YouTube reprimanded InfoWars for its stance on so-called ''crisis actors,'' claiming a video posted to the Alex Jones Channel violated its community standards. The Jones channel received a second strike (later rescinded). Three strikes and it could be removed from YouTube. The company blamed over-zealous new hires who may have overstepped their guidelines.
YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki has talked about her concerns regarding take-downs. She recently blogged, ''We realize we have a serious social responsibility to get these emerging policy issues right, so we seek advice from dozens of expert advisors and third-parties.''
The CNN report noted that the brands purchase their ads from YouTube or through marketing companies, and do not know exactly where their ads will appear. However, they can broadly exclude certain channels or subjects, but often things slip through the cracks. Paramount, one of the companies contacted by CNN, claimed it opted into a ''sensitive subject exclusion'' filter to control where its ads appear. But apparently its ads still appeared on the Alex Jones site.
YouTube did not respond to questions from CNN about that issue.
''We have a filter and brand safety assurances from Google (YouTube's parent) our content would never run around offensive content,'' a Paramount Network spokesperson told CNN.
A spokesperson for 20th Century Fox told CNN the company was unaware of placement on an InfoWars channel and immediately took it down after learning of the issue.
Big Tech helps advertisers avoid unvetted user-generated content - Axios
The world's biggest tech companies have found a new way for marketers to buy video ads that won't show up next to shady user-generated content.
Why it matters: For a while, advertisers shifted digital budgets away from more expensive ads on premium publisher websites and TV, to cheaper ads at scale on tech platforms, because it was efficient, but that strategy is changing in response to problems posed by running ads against unvetted user-generated content.
What it looks like: Companies like YouTube, Snapchat, Facebook and Twitter are all building virtual fences around premium video content, and allowing advertisers to target ads solely against vetted material, most created by media publishers.
Tech platforms are charging advertisers more to run ads within pools of vetted videos. Advertisers, in turn, can be assured that their ads don't run against things like terrorist content or hate speech.Twitter's Head of Global Client Solutions Sarah Personette told Axios earlier this month at an Axios Media Trends event that the company has rolled out solutions for advertisers to reach audiences at scale, while remaining around vetted premium content. "If advertisers want to reach a Latin audience and get in front of only Univision content, they can do it," she said.Snapchat was pitching a new ad-buying product called Snap Select at Cannes last week, Digiday's Kerry Flynn reports. "The product lets advertisers buy ads exclusively in Snap's premium content, as in its shows and vetted publishing partners, rather than between content from Snap users."Facebook this year debuted "Showcase," an ad-buying program that allows advertisers to buy ads only around premium video content from publishers in its "Watch" video tab.YouTube is becoming more attractive to ad agencies, which have begun creating their own lists of pre-approved, premium content for advertisers to place ads around, Digiday's Lucinda Southern reports. YouTube has also added more videos to its "Google Preferred" program, which allows advertisers to buy video ad packages around premium content.Be smart: The big complaint about buying ads this way is that they mimic the buying strategy of television. Advertisers can choose a show, channel or content type to run their ads around, but they can't always target ads by user.
The bottom line: Platforms can fund all the original content that they want, but it will be very hard to scale these types of opportunities without licensing content from publishers.
This has begun to improve the market dynamic between tech companies and media companies from where it was a few years ago, when platforms made money off users sharing publisher content that they didn't have to license.Go deeper: Advertisers want to mine your brain
Brand Safety in the Era of Consumer Activism | MarketingProfs
In the process of the Sleeping Giants campaign, a scandal of epic proportions in the advertising world was uncovered: We discovered that Google AdSense and Facebook Audience Network were programmatically serving ads on sites with racist, misogynist, or white-supremacist rhetoric.
In November 2016, a then-anonymous social media account called Sleeping Giants (I'm a co-founder) began an unusual campaign: tweeting at brands whose ads were appearing on Breitbart.
Each tweet featured a screenshot of the ad sitting next to outrageous headlines, such as "Birth Control Makes Women Unattractive and Crazy" and "Political Correctness Protects Muslim Rape Culture," and each tweet carried a variation of the same message: "Hey, do you know your ad is supporting racism and bigotry online?"
A few weeks into the campaign, on Nov. 30, Kellogg's announced it would be blacklisting Breitbart from its ad buy. That was a tipping point both for brands and for social-media-savvy consumers.
It was the start of something big
The Sleeping Giants campaign snowballed virtually overnight as hundreds, then thousands, of followers joined. Tweeting screenshots is easy'--and, obviously, no brand wants to be caught alongside racist, misogynist, or white-supremacist rhetoric.
https://t.co/4TYRUOj9sv - THE SG UPDATED CONFIRMED LIST pic.twitter.com/xQXQsozZth
'-- Sleeping Giants (@slpng_giants) December 8, 2016Today, with the support of 300,000 Giants across Twitter and Facebook, over 4,000 advertisers have blacklisted Breitbart. (The official Confirmed List is public.) The results are tangible: Breitbart has lost 90% of its advertisers.
In the process of the Sleeping Giants campaign, a scandal of epic proportions in the advertising world was uncovered: We discovered that Google AdSense and Facebook Audience Network were programmatically serving ads on sites with racist, misogynist, or white-supremacist rhetoric.
Most marketing teams have discovered their problematic programmatic ad placements through disappointed customers who were taking part in social media campaigns.
Brand safety: Avoiding fake & hyperpartisan news on the Google Display Network - Marketing Land
What does online brand safety mean in the age of hyperpartisan, sensationalized and fake news content?
With programmatic targeting and retargeting, brands can find themselves cozied up to content that may not match up with their values and messaging. That's not new, but the proliferation of sites aimed at attracting clicks by appealing to humans' basest need to have their viewpoints validated adds another layer of complexity for brands buying ads on open ad exchanges and ad networks like the Google Display Network.
Well over 1,000 advertisers have reportedly pulled out of Breitbart, and yet that site is part of the Google Display Network. So are hundreds of other hyperpartisan political sites '-- both left-wing and right-wing, with content that ranges from flirting with untruths to outright lies '-- on which brands might be surprised to find their ads appearing (more on that below). Here we are looking at websites only, but ads can also appear alongside YouTube and apps should also be considered.
''Fake news'' definitions can vary widely, from misinformation to conspiracy theories, to hoaxes to blatantly false reports. Google's take as it pertains to the GDN is different still. Google has no publisher policy against sites running false news stories, as long as they aren't misrepresenting who they are or the intention of the content '-- i.e., sites can't impersonate a news outlet, and news headlines can't link to diet pill promotions. We've written about what exactly the policy covers and doesn't in our companion piece, ''Google isn't actually tackling 'fake news' content on its ad network.''
This can be awkward. Here are some examples:
Smartfood ''You deserve delight'' ads appearing next to NSFW headlines.
Planned Parenthood ''Give Now'' ads showing up on a far right-wing website that hasn't even bothered to fully update its ''Sample Page'' template.
Bergdorf Goodman and Alliance for Healthcare Security ads on shock-pundit AnnCoulter's site.
How does this happen?There are several ways ads can show up on sites in the Display Network. First, these placements could be intentional '-- with the sites chosen specifically as ''managed'' placements on the Display Network by the advertisers. That's not likely the case here, but it's possible.
The other scenarios rely on automation. Google has added more targeting controls to AdWords, and even more in DoubleClick, for the Display Network from the original contextual targeting with keywords (e.g., ads for health insurance plans can appear alongside articles about the ACA). Other targeting options include demographics, interest and affinity audiences, topics, and of course, retargeting to customers and/or past site visitors.
Targeting options on the Google Display Network in AdWords
The ads in the examples above were not served as the result of retargeting campaigns. The Bergdorf Goodman ad shown above could be the result of interest targeting, which can include in-market (like ''Women's Apparel'') or affinity audience targeting (like ''Fashionistas'') based on my previous browsing behaviors, including visits to other high-end retail sites. Google's interest targeting is built on a mix of third-party data and browsing behavior on pages, apps, channels, videos and content on YouTube and the Google Display Network sites.
Topic targeting isn't as simple as targeting websites that cover specific topics such as Right-Wing and Left-Wing Politics, which are both options. Topic targeting occurs at the time an impression becomes available and is based on the content on the page, not the overall political vantage, for example, of the site overall. That means advertisers targeting Right-Wing Politics can find their ads shown on sites that skew left-wing if the content includes keywords that signal a right-wing context, and vice versa. For that reason, the topics that are listed with websites in the Display Planner will not necessarily correlate to the types of content ads can display against with topic targeting.
Retargeting may be the trickiest decision for brands to weigh when considering where their ads should appear. Here are several examples of retargeted ads for retail brands appearing on far-left- and far-right-wing sites. These ads happen to be for retail brands, but Marketing Land also saw examples from CPG, telecommunications, automotive and financial services advertisers, among other verticals, while reporting this story.
Retargeted ads from Neiman Marcus, Macy's, Nordstrom and Gap
The ad company you keepOften, it may not be the content but the content recommendation ads and ads from other networks on a lot of the sites that are more unsettling to brands. Many of these sites are absolutely safe to visit, others less so.
Content recommendation blocks are used heavily on many of these sites, including full-screen pop-ups from Spoutable.
Some mobile experiences include pop-up ads and content recommendation ads that display between an article title and body.
One of the worst examples of ad loading I saw was on a site called LeftLiberal.com. The page below had 75 ad trackers on it. There is a Google-served banner at the top, a block of sponsored links from Content.ad, a virus alert ad in the bottom right, and a video ad served by Epom in the bottom left that is covering up another Google-served responsive text ad. This site was also one of the many using popups Dingit.tv.
I should also offer a consumer warning here: some sites I visited while reporting this story automatically opened a new browser tab with phony virus protection alerts designed to be hard to close out of or had sketchy virus warning ads appear in the bottom right corner of the page. The worst of these scenarios opened up a new browser tab automatically with a ''safety alert'' that claimed my Facebook login, credit card number, email account login and photos had been compromised and that I needed to call support. (Do not
call or click on these kinds of ads.) Several sites also triggered background pop-up video ads.
A site called Prntly.com that dubs itself ''America's Top News Site'' took nearly 30 seconds to load and had 66 ad trackers on the home page alone.
Marketing Land found and reported to Google several examples of apparent violations of the Misrepresentative content policy, and we have asked questions about violations of the Valuable content policy that covers ad-to-editorial content ratios. We have also asked about whether certain examples violate Google's AdSense hate speech policy that prohibits content that advocates against an individual, group or organization. We will update here when we hear back.
Does environment matter?Somehow, in the age or programmatic ad buying, context seems to have taken a back seat to audience reach for many brands. When aiming to reach certain audiences or retargeting, does it matter if a brand's ads show on content it wouldn't otherwise target if that's where their site visitors and customers are going?
Different brands will have different answers to questions about context and environment. When brands set impression and audience quotas, they and their media buyers may be reluctant to cut of significant sources of reach.
But in this new landscape, marketers running campaigns on ad networks like the GDN need to be asking these questions for themselves, because Google won't do it for them.
How to opt outMany companies will have no problem with their ads appearing next to hyperpartisan content or on sites with fake news. And some may want to explicitly target audiences reading this type of content.
For AdWords users that want to opt out, there is no Site Category exclusion option for political content, but there are other options '-- none quite perfect.
Placement exclusions are the primary way Google suggests addressing opt-outs. Advertisers can exclude individual sites and even individual pages on which they don't want their ads to appear. This can be hard to manage when there are new sites coming into the GDN on a regular basis, and in many cases, advertisers won't know to exclude a site until after their ads run and the sites show up in site placement reports. Another thing to note in terms of brand safety is that AdSense publishers have the option of making themselves anonymous to advertisers. These sites show up as anonymous.google in advertisers' placement reports. It is possible to exclude all anonymous.google sites, though this can be a blunt instrument that excludes brand-appropriate sites and even converting sites.
Topics exclusions are also a blunt tool. There are several granular options under Topics, including Right-Wing and Left-Wing Politics, but as discussed above, this targets content not sites. Excluding Left-Wing Politics could mean ads won't show next to right-wing content.
Topics exclusions can also cut off access to content that isn't necessarily extreme, too. Similarly, interest exclusions can paint too broad a brush in many cases.
Advertisers can also add contextual exclusions by adding negative keywords to their display campaigns.
I've compiled a Google Sheet of some sites included in the right-wing and/or left-wing politics topics in Display Planner (reminder these topics don't align to Topics targeting in campaigns and the list is always subject to change). There is a mix of mainstream, left-wing and right-wing sites. It's meant to give advertisers a sense of the political content inventory in which their ads might appear on when running GDN campaigns.
About The Author Ginny Marvin is Third Door Media's Editor-in-Chief, managing day-to-day editorial operations across all of our publications. Ginny writes about paid online marketing topics including paid search, paid social, display and retargeting for Search Engine Land, Marketing Land and MarTech Today. With more than 15 years of marketing experience, she has held both in-house and agency management positions. She can be found on Twitter as @ginnymarvin.
Google - Improving our brand safety controls
From our founding days at Google, our mission has always been to make information universally accessible and useful. We believe strongly in the freedom of speech and expression on the web'--even when that means we don't agree with the views expressed.
At the same time, we recognize the need to have strict policies that define where Google ads should appear. The intention of these policies is to prohibit ads from appearing on pages or videos with hate speech, gory or offensive content. In the vast majority of cases, our policies work as intended. We invest millions of dollars every year and employ thousands of people to stop bad advertising practices. Just last year, we removed nearly 2 billion bad ads from our systems, removed over 100,000 publishers from our AdSense program, and prevented ads from serving on over 300 million YouTube videos.
From our founding days at Google, our mission has always been to make information universally accessible and useful. We believe strongly in the freedom of speech and expression on the web'--even when that means we don't agree with the views expressed.
At the same time, we recognize the need to have strict policies that define where Google ads should appear. The intention of these policies is to prohibit ads from appearing on pages or videos with hate speech, gory or offensive content. In the vast majority of cases, our policies work as intended. We invest millions of dollars every year and employ thousands of people to stop bad advertising practices. Just last year, we removed nearly 2 billion bad ads from our systems, removed over 100,000 publishers from our AdSense program, and prevented ads from serving on over 300 million YouTube videos.
However, with millions of sites in our network and 400 hours of video uploaded to YouTube every minute, we recognize that we don't always get it right. In a very small percentage of cases, ads appear against content that violates our monetization policies. We promptly remove the ads in those instances, but we know we can and must do more.
We've heard from our advertisers and agencies loud and clear that we can provide simpler, more robust ways to stop their ads from showing against controversial content. While we have a wide variety of tools to give advertisers and agencies control over where their ads appear, such as topic exclusions and site category exclusions, we can do a better job of addressing the small number of inappropriately monetized videos and content. We've begun a thorough review of our ads policies and brand controls, and we will be making changes in the coming weeks to give brands more control over where their ads appear across YouTube and the Google Display Network.
We are committed to working with publishers, advertisers and agencies to address these issues and earn their trust every day so that they can use our services both successfully and safely.
VIDEO - Facebook and Google face scrutiny from ad execs at Cannes
This year as executives from the world's biggest brands and ad agencies gathered on the French Riviera for the annual Cannes Lions advertising festival, Facebook and Google, which control the majority of all digital advertising, are facing unprecedented scrutiny.
Governments around the world are looking to hold these two giants '-- called the "digital duopoly" '-- accountable for the content posted on their platforms and for the way they protect users data.
The other question, posed by a number of Democratic presidential candidates: Should Facebook and Google be broken up? These potential regulatory challenges come as executives from around the world meet to discuss where to invest the $600 billion expected to be spent on advertising worldwide this year.
The largest companies in the industry teamed up to announce a new "Alliance for Responsible Content" at this year's festival. Sixteen of the world's largest advertisers along with the ad agencies and tech platforms '-- Facebook, Twitter and Google '-- are working to create standards for what's considered appropriate content and expectations of how they'll prevent offensive and inappropriate content from surfacing.
This comes as Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., proposes new legislation that would remove the tech companies' protection from liability from the content on their platforms by overhauling Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.
"Brand safety is critical for every brand. No one wants to see your ad suggesting people buy next to a jihadist video," said Michael Kassan, CEO of MediaLink, whose parent company Ascential runs the conference. "It's about protecting that. The platforms have the same level of responsibility. If your network was putting things like that on the air, the FCC would be looking very carefully."
"When I talk to our clients, they're really concerned about the platforms on which their messages are received. They want to be in brand-safe platforms," said Mark Read, CEO of WPP, one of the world's largest advertisers.
"We're working with Google, Facebook, Twitter, and 16 advertisers, together with all of the major holding companies. '... It's really an initiative to bring people together for collective action to make sure the platforms are safe places for our clients to reach their consumers," Read said.
The chief brand officer of one of those participating companies, Procter & Gamble's Marc Pritchard, said this is about more than just removing terrorist content.
"We really expect to ensure that the platforms have control over their content and the quality of their content," Pritchard said. "The other piece, which we've called out many times before, if we want to have more civility when it comes to editorial comments, so we have a civil internet. Just as we have on TV, like we have on radio, like we have in print."
WPP's Read said these companies should be held to a higher standard, but he also said he does not believe that it would help consumers to break the companies up.
"Clearly with the shift online these two companies are ever more powerful. But you have to ask ourselves, 'What are we really trying to achieve by the people who's going to be broken up?'" Read said. "And is that really going to make the world a better place? The great benefit of these platforms for consumers is most of their products are free."
Michael Roth, CEO of IPG, said brands will start to move their dollars if things don't change.
"Everyone talks about government regulation breaking [Google and Facebook] up. But what really will happen is our clients will start not spending with them. And that will be the biggest effect eventually if it doesn't get corrected," Roth said.
Kassan said that this is a "Network" moment, with the advertisers saying they're "mad as hell and not going to take it anymore." He said they'll have to "not just move their lips, but also move their feet." And now, Roth and Kassan agree that there are a growing wealth of ad options, including Amazon, Snap and Hulu.
For other companies here, the pressure on Google and Facebook poses an opportunity. Conde Nast, the magazine publisher that's been investing heavily in digital video, is positioning itself as means for brands to access YouTube's viewers without the risk.
"We're the largest premium publisher on YouTube today," Conde Nast CEO Roger Lynch said. "And so advertisers who may not want to advertise just broadly on YouTube will advertise through us on YouTube."
Lynch said he knows they are working with advertisers who won't advertise on YouTube, but will advertise through Conde Nast on YouTube.
And AT&T's ad tech division, Xandr, is also hoping to benefit from the growing scrutiny facing its much larger rivals.
"I think it's becoming more and more difficult for technology platforms to claim they have no responsibility for the content that is shared on their platforms," Xandr CEO Brian Lesser said. "I don't know if it's about breaking up, and don't know the extent of what Sen. Hawley is introducing, but I do think it is time for the big digital platforms to take some responsibility for the content."
As for the question of whether regulation of the biggest ad platforms would be bad for the tech industry, Kassan said it's a question of what the regulation looks like.
"You had Enron and then you ended up with Sarbanes-Oxley," Kassan said, referring to the law that changed how the financials of public companies were regulated after the collapse of Enron. "I would suggest that Sarbanes-Oxley was an overreaction. My hope would be we don't see that happen in tech. And the challenge of course is those who are making the decisions in the various regulatory agencies are not as steeped in the tech. You hope that the decision-making process is not done in a vacuum."
VIDEO - Reddit Expands Operations in New York by 60 people
Why Bitcoin Stands Above Other Cryptocurrencies Despite Volatility
Bitcoin's volatility has been on full display this week. After hitting an 18-month high, nearing $14,000 Wednesday, the price of a Bitcoin plummeted on below $11,000 on Thursday. But Pierre Rochard, Founder of Bitcoin Advisory, says that the cryptocurrency will stabilize as it matures.
Reddit is out to charm agencies and brands '-- and Madison Avenue '-- into trusting it with their ad dollars and with new hires in New York, where it has a growing team.
This week, Reddit announced Mary Ann Belliveau is joining the company as its new senior director of brand partnerships. Belliveau was most recently a national sales director at Twitter, where she worked for four years. Prior to Twitter, she spent 11 years at Google, where she helped found the company's marketing team. Belliveau's experience in sales at platforms, especially ones looking to improve their relationships with advertisers, made her a strong hire, said Jen Wong, chief operating officer at Reddit.
''Community [like at Reddit] is really different than social media, new pattern, different value. We're birthing a new narrative and discipline to marketers. She's been through that cycle before and can help us shape that,'' Wong said.
Indeed, Belliveau worked in Google's New York office when the platform was still trying to figure out their sales strategy. She is now part of Reddit's growing team in New York, where there are now about 60 people. That office is also hiring for its new ads engineering team, dedicated to machine learning and ads optimization. The New York office is in addition to Reddit's about 400 people at its San Francisco headquarters and its smaller offices in Los Angeles, Chicago and Dublin.
Belliveau joins other sales leaders across the organization: Zubair Jandali leads the entire Brand Partnerships organization from San Francisco; Neal Hubman leads West Coast Brand Partnerships; Adam Carl leads Brand Partnerships in the Midwest; Will Cady leads brand strategy from Los Angeles; Leanne Doan leads agency development from New York; Jack Koch leads measurement and insights from New York; Alex Riccomini leads business development in San Francisco; and Shariq Rizi leads ads engineering in San Francisco.
As its new sales lead, Belliveau said she doesn't plan on immediately altering Reddit's sales organization, which is currently structured regionally rather than by verticals.
''We need to socialize what Reddit is and how to work with us in terms of moving your business forward and proving that out to them. In a way, that's data-driven. We have a lot of basic goals, which is to have a sales org that's top-notch, where everybody's on the same page and we're instilling trust,'' Belliveau said.
Part of growing that trust is being a more ''proactive marketer,'' Reddit's vp of marketing and business development, Roxy Young, told Digiday in January. And that includes attending more conferences and events. Reddit met with five of the six major agency holding companies and several advertisers at CES in January. Reddit's head of brand strategy Will Cady presented at this year's Social Media Week New York and will present again at the conference's Los Angeles event.
Subscribe to the Digiday Video BriefingSubscribe for an exclusive, inside look at what's actually happening in the video industry delivered to your inbox weekly.
''People hate ads, but people love brands,'' Cady said during his presentation on May 1. He shared an example of Chipotle using Reddit for feedback on new products like queso and Keto bowl and YouTube Music creating playlists for topic-specific pages on the site called subreddits.
Reddit is looking to expand its relationships with brands in CPG, beauty, fast food, consumer tech, telecom and entertainment.
''We're focused on all brands, but the brands that see the most success [on Reddit] are the ones seeking transformation or looking into break into a new space. Auto is really exciting for us because that whole industry is going through a transformation,'' Cady told Digiday.
Brand safety continues to deter some marketers from advertising on Reddit. In a Digiday survey of 94 client-side marketers in April, 38% of respondents said they avoided Reddit due to brand-safety concerns. Cady told Digiday he saw this concern as a perception problem, citing Reddit's platformwide community standards, subreddit-specific rules, human moderators and its anti-evil engineering teams.
''Our layered moderation is extremely unique. We see other platforms catching up to us. But nothing makes a brand feel safer than building trust,'' Cady said.
Wong said Reddit is prioritizing clarifying its position as well as building more products for advertisers. Last year, it released selling video ads on a cost-per-view basis. Earlier this year, it released cost-per-click ads and other performance-based advertising options.
''Our next step is to have our product better reflect our distinctiveness and uniqueness in terms of measurement and insights. People are seeking something different, and we're really different,'' Wong said.
This story was updated to add the names of some regional sales management at Reddit.
As YouTube hits a snag, advertisers 'ought to keep an eye' on Amazon's AVOD service | The Drum
Consumers and marketers alike are surely familiar with Amazon's ad-free Prime Video service, but the internet giant is armed with another streaming service that's poised to make major inroads.
Amazon bought IMDb in 1998. In January, the company launched IMDb Freedive, an ad-supported video on demand (AVOD) service, which was renamed to IMDb TV on 17 July.
According to Amazon, IMDb TV runs about half of the number of ads as a typical network TV broadcast does, and brands such as AT&T, Proctor & Gamble, Verizon and PepsiCo have already run 15- and 30-second spots on the platform.
So while Amazon Prime Video houses more noteworthy content, eMarketer suggests that Amazon '' which recently armed itself with Sizmek's ad server '' could emerge as a major competitor in the AVOD space with its IMDb TV property.
''Amazon's growth into the No. 3 digital advertising platform means it now has a seat at the table with major brands, which will become increasingly significant as Amazon steers its ad business in the direction of video,'' said Andrew Lipsman, eMarketer principal analyst. ''While the rebranding of IMDb TV isn't earth-shattering news on its own, it's another incremental step along Amazon's path to becoming a power-player in ad-supported video.''
One source at a supply-side platform (SSP) said A9 '' Amazon's ad tech unit '' could face initial hurdles ingesting programmaticly transacted inventory.
"A9 does a great job monetizing high volume transactional campaigns, but programmatic video strategy for a platform with an AVOD model can be a very different game. There are so many moving parts to consider, [and] the programming aspects are the real factors to attract the brands, eyeballs and dollars," said the source.
Amazon's original content and data, whether at point-of-purchase or in the home, should help IMDb TV mitigate some problems other OTT services face.
"Content discovery and ingestion is their lifeblood and that is not an easy task. [IMDb TV] needs to accept external HLS streams, commercial breaks and metadata, while Amazon will have those things internally and ready to roll. This is where it could get interesting with additional revenue streams for Amazon in which they could act as a DMP in some instances, similar to Roku and their practices," said the source.
Amazon comes in third in digital ad revenue behind Google and Facebook, with the former being a major player in OTT. However, reports are hinting at Google-owned YouTube possibly plateauing in growth.
A recent Comscore study on the state of OTT shows that over the last two years, Amazon is penetrating households at a more rapid rate that YouTube is.
YouTube still reels in ad dollars, even though the rate of click growth rate is decelerating, as reported by CNBC.
Ad spend on YouTube is also fluctuating. Between January-May of 2019, MediaRadar found that media and entertainment companies increased their ad spend on YouTube by 3% compared to the same timeframe in 2018, accounting for a quarter of the platform's ad revenue.
However, tech companies '' YouTube's top revenue sector at 26% '' spent roughly the same amount on the platform year-over-year. And most notably, retailers spent 20% less on YouTube in the beginning of 2019 compared to the same time last year.
Todd Krizelman, chief executive officer of MediaRadar, said this is likely more of a retail problem than a YouTube problem.
Still, Google's vice-president of agency and brand solutions Tara Walpert Levy went to Cannes pushing the platform's new Discovery Ads as Google prioritizes shoppable experiences while focusing on a wider industry narrative beyond YouTube.
The SSP source said direct brands are likely to jump all over IMDb TV, while retailers may force themselves to advertise on the newly-named platform.
"The retailers will have no choice not to use such a valuable, data-driven channel to market themselves," said the source.
Lipsman said there's still space for a handful of players in OTT, but Amazon's trove of consumer data '' one of the reasons retailers are losing sleep '' may give it a leg up.
''There's still growth in the digital video and OTT advertising space that there's plenty of room for everyone to continue on their strong growth trajectories in the near term,'' Lipsman said. ''At the same time, the competition ought to keep an eye on what Amazon is doing because they enter the ad-supported video space with key advantages given their valuable first-party consumer purchase data.''
By 2021, eMarketer predicts Amazon's US ad revenue will total over $19bn.
''While Amazon's digital ad business has been the talk of the industry over the past year or two, the real market to watch is what happens to TV advertising as Amazon opens up more ad-supported video inventory,'' Lipsman said.
'So much online video is rubbish': European brand marketers sound off on brand safety and video inventory - Digiday
Brand marketers are unsure how much to invest in new, exciting channels like connected TV and in-app video, given fraudsters are beginning to focus there. This was just one of the challenges discussed by brand marketers during closed-door sessions this week at Digiday's Brand Summit Europe in Wicklow, Ireland. Other issues debated included how to locate enough quality online video to invest in, what's needed to feel reassured about brand safety, and how to best tap into the direct-to-consumer market.
Lack of video inventory supply ''Video is such a loose term. So much of the online video, outside of broadcasters' video-on-demand, is rubbish. There are still so many sites where the video just plays in the corner of the screen, or is autoplay and it's a bad user experience. Finding good video which is click-to-play, sound on once you start it, so not crappy autoplay, is so scarce.''
''So much money is going into video, but once you start assessing the quality of it, you realize that it isn't a good experience. Broadcaster VOD is good quality '-- there are often too many ads ahead of the content '-- but there isn't enough of it.''
''Video never comes up in attribution for us, which we find a real challenge.''
''Part of the problem with there not being enough good quality video is the fact publishers aren't paid enough to create good quality video. Marketers aren't willing to pay them, but this stuff costs money. Important to admit that.''
Ad fraud frustration''When it comes to connected TV, every day there are articles in the trade press talking about the quality of the inventory on CTV, and how good the targeting capabilities are there. But because the CPMs are so high there, fraudulent activity is following it. So it feels like there are cool, interesting new places to be but there is also a lot of threat. Same issue with in-app video.''
''It's [ad fraud] like trying to grab water. As you tighten your grip on it the issues move around the ad ecosystem. It started in display, then moved into video and now mobile in-app inventory. They're [fraudsters] following the money. It's so tough to police. It's becoming a case of technology waging war on technology to close those loopholes.''
Subscribe to the Digiday Video BriefingSubscribe for an exclusive, inside look at what's actually happening in the video industry delivered to your inbox weekly.
Platform gripes''Facebook has said that one second on video can have an impact. Fine. But that's hardly something to aspire to.''
''The only way platforms like Google and Facebook would show more willing to take charge of issues like brand safety is if marketers pull money from them significantly.''
''It's well known how many fraudulent apps there are in the Google store but they [Google] don't seem to do much to acknowledge that, or work to proactively tackle that, which is disappointing. We're almost reliant on the walled gardens to take a lead on these issues but they just take so so long.''
''Even if you were brave and decided not to put budget into YouTube you would struggle to get the level of inventory anywhere else. It boils down to that. They have the majority inventory.''
''We use viewability for hygiene. But we found it interesting that when we looked at all the channels, Facebook is relatively new in terms of tracking viewability, so it's a lot lower but we use it to inform our content strategy so like digital out-of-home. But we don't make videos for that platform anymore as people just don't watch them.''
Figuring out DTC opportunity''DTC is a very sexy word that means different things depending on who you speak to. Everyone wants to do it, but they need to think about the consumer proposition '-- it's not a matter of having what you already sell in-store.''
''Bridging the gap between e-commerce and marketing teams is a big task. FMCG companies have traditionally worked with supermarkets so there isn't a lot of inherent experience with DTC. A lot of discussions are around getting consumers to buy online but it can also be about physical shops too. DTC doesn't have to mean only e-commerce, there are broader opportunities '-- it can be a combination of having stores or working with third-party partners like Amazon or eBay.''
''We find it really hard working with Amazon. It's almost like you have to thank them for having your products on their platform. So how can we get to that point where we can have a more balanced partnership with them?''
''Amazon is one of those corporations that can be a partner or an enemy. But you have to find some way to factor them into your plan.''
Subscribe to the Digiday Video Briefing: A weekly email with news, quotes and stats around the modernization of video, TV and entertainment.
Advertisers are split over the effectiveness of YouTube and Facebook's brand safety fixes | The Drum
The vast majority (94%) of advertisers are still worried about brand safety, with almost half saying they don't think platforms like YouTube and social networks like Facebook are doing enough about it.
As a result, around 45% of advertisers are funneling spend into premium publishers in a bid to solve the issue.
Amid a race towards GDPR compliance and intense scrutiny around the way tech platforms and advertisers use consumer data, concerns around brand safety haven't been as prominent in the headlines are they were in 2017; the height of YouTube's 'big brands fund terror' scandal.
However, a study from Advertising Perceptions (commissioned by Oath and seen by The Drum) surveyed some 300 marketers on the topic and found that 58% were more concerned about ad misplacement compared to last year, showing anxiety around the issue continues to bubble on.
While 51% of respondents said that social media platforms were doing a good job at tackling the issue, 45% said they were doing a ''poor'' job. When it came to user generated content platforms like YouTube, 54% said they are confident their concerns were being addressed, however 42% said they weren't.
Ad exchanges and DSPs came out on top for confronting the issue head on, with 70% of brand marketers saying they were leading the way in this respect.
Facebook and YouTube are 'cleaning up their own backyards'For YouTube, 2017 was bookmarked by a series of brand safety crises. While the matter has been the subject of ad industry discussion for years, things came to a head last January when the Times ran an expose noting that the UK government, Mercedes-Benz and Waitrose were among the brands running ads alongside extremist and pornographic content on the Alphabet-owned video site.
Then, in November '' after a series of crunch talks, reparations and some brands pulling spend '' the Times published another report alleging that campaigns from some of the world's biggest brands, including Adidas, had been featured adjacent to videos depicting ''undressed'' or ''scantily clad'' children. The paper also claimed these videos were attracting "comments from paedophiles".
In April, a similar CNN investigation caused Under Armour to pull spend after it was revealed that its content was hosted on YouTube channels that promoted white nationalists, Nazis, paedophilia and North Korean propaganda.
Since then, YouTube has opened itself up to the brand safety standards set by set by the Joint Industry Committee for Web Standards (Jicwebs) in a bid to be "more transparent" on top of assuaging advertisers with greater control over where their ads appear.
It's also been working against a four-pronged plan of action which has seen it hire more people and invest in machine learning to vet videos. It's also sought to clean up its own back yard by implementing stricter advertising criteria to give marketers peace of mind about where their ads are running. In the UK at least though, brands remain cautious.
When it comes to Facebook, its focus is similarly on assuaging the advertisers that invest within its walls.
Speaking earlier this year, Steve Hatch, Facebook's vice-president for Europe, said the social network now had over 2,000 staff tasked with focusing on the "integrity" of its platforms.
"With the application of AI we review 99% of all IS and Al Qaeda content before it's been reported and often before it reached the platforms itself," he noted.
He continued: "I recognise that we have a huge responsibility to address specific concerns of advertisers and the industry, just some of the issues that are topical and on the list are measurement, brand safety and transparency. In each case we've listened and we've acted."
Facebook has also signed up for accreditation by the Media Ratings Council.
Gold standard Stateside, the 4A's recently announced the formation of a brand safety task force, called the Advertiser Protection Bureau (APB).
Through this bureau, agencies will share the collective responsibility of achieving what the trade body calls 'Advertising Assurance,' or how the association defines its efforts to enforce environments where brands and consumers can coexist with trust.
The scheme has the potential to streamline a process in which risky environments are flagged by the APB and then investigated by agency-client teams.
In the UK, trade bodies like the Internet Advertising Bureau (IAB) have taken a stand on the issue, implementing a 'Gold Standard' certification scheme to encourage brands and their partners to raise the brand safety bar.
While the IAB said it currently has no plans to involve law enforcement, the City of London Police recently said the brand safety furore becoming a national news story was ''fantastic'' for the force in aiding its ongoing efforts to help tackle the murkier side of the internet.
Google says YouTube might never be 100% brand-safe | The Drum
Despite efforts to quash advertisers concerns around brand safety and restore trust, the UK marketing director for Google Ads has admitted the tech giant might never be able to guarantee ''100% safety'' for brands on YouTube.
''I don't think that's the reality of the platform,'' Nishma Robb explained, her comments coming just weeks after advertisers like AT&T once again froze spend over brand safety concerns.
This time, worries were heightened after it was found that paedophiles were leaving ''predatory'' comments on videos featuring children.
''The reality is the internet has dark pockets and our job is to continue to work hard to ensure we have the machines and processes to remove harmful content."
YouTube has accelerated the launch of a comment classifier which identifies and removes unsuitable posts. Robb claimed they catch 98% of extremist or violent videos before they are seen by anyone, though admitted the AI safeguards it's put in place won't spike all potentially harmful content.
It's a figure that marks an improvement on previous AI-powered detection removal tools which at the last count purged 75% of extremist videos YouTube videos before human detection. Some 400 hours of video are uploaded to YouTube every minute.
However, despite progress, the 2% which make-it through the firewall mean advertisers are still approaching the platform with caution.
Diageo is among those still tentatively "testing" its way back to the platform on a global scale after a series of brand safety scandals. Meanwhile Sky, the UK's largest advertiser, also revealed last summer that it still hadn't resumed spend. "We only put money where we understand how it's being spent," said the broadcaster's chief exec Stephen van Rooyen.
AT&T had only just resumed spending after the last brand safety scandal - brought on by The Times expos(C) into how brands were inadvertently funding terrorism - before it pulled budgets once again in light of the dangers posed by paedophiles in the comment sections.
Robb has stressed that YouTube is doing more than simply investing in machine learning to tackle the issue. YouTube has also been working with authoritative bodies like ''the police, the charities and NGO's'' to collectively ''understand the trends of bad actors and the things they do'' within its walls, she said.
Robb's comments came during a panel at Incorporated Society of British Advertisers (Isba) annual conference on Tuesday (5 March).
A brief history of YouTube's brand safety crises Over the past two years, YouTube has faced unrelenting questions from advertisers on the issue of ad misplacement.
More recently, the Google-owned platform was forced to disable comments on content featuring minors following fears the comments section was being abused. AT&T, Hasbro, Nestle, Disney and Epic Games were among those to temporality freeze spend, but the roots of the problem run a lot deeper.
The issue was first brought to mainstream attention back in 2017 when The Sunday Times published an investigation detailing how household brands were inadvertently ''funding terror'' by having their ads run adjacent to extremist and violent content. It was a front-page story caused the likes of M&S and the UK government to pull investment in the short-term.
In December the same year, the crisis rumbled on as YouTube was revealed to be serving ads against videos featuring child abuse and disturbing scenarios. The headlines prompted Mars, Diageo and Adidas to vote with their wallets. Mars returned but then temporarily pulled spend again in August later that year after a pre-roll ad for Starburst was shown before a video fuelling London gang violence.
In every instance, YouTube has pledged action against what its UK and Ireland boss Ronan Harris has described as ''wholly unacceptable'' and ''undesirable''.
In response to recent child safety concerns, YouTube upped its use of machine-learning, which helped it to double the speed at which it is able to take down any content that violates rules.
Despite this, Robb said YouTube will ''continue to use humans and human verification'' to make sure ''the platform is safe for users, particularly, and advertisers.''
As part of its charm offensive, the platform has also developed a suite of internal tools to combat the issue. These include strict new criteria for content monetisation and greater controls for advertisers on what they perceive as 'appropriate content.'
Additional reporting by Rebecca Stewart
Mars and Unilever on 'moral and business responsibility' to improve online safety
Some of the leading architects of the new Global Alliance for Responsible Media have spoken of their "moral and business responsibility" to improve online safety for both brands and consumers.
Robert Rakowitz, head of global media at Mars, and Luis Di Como, executive vice-president of global media at Unilever, spoke to Campaign at Cannes Lions, where they launched the alliance, which includes many top advertisers, all the large agency groups and some of the major tech platforms, including Google and Facebook.
Rakowitz described the battle for online safety as like "whack-a-mole" because new challenges keep emerging and said advertisers and agencies would struggle to make a difference on their own and need the help of the tech platforms.
He said: "This is our ocean plastic and we've got to clean it up."
Di Como added: "My wish is I can leave my kids with the iPad and feel that it's safe."
Rakowitz and Di Como, who represent two of the world's biggest advertisers, said they first began discussing the idea for the alliance with two other senior figures '' John Montgomery, global executive vice-president of brand safety at WPP's Group M, and Isabel Massey, global digital director at Diageo '' at the end of last year.
This is an edited version of an interview with Rakowitz, Di Como and Montgomery.
What are the ambitions for the alliance?
Di Como: We want an environment where not only our brands are safe but an environment where kids and everybody in society feels safe in their online experiences. The purpose of this alliance is to put safety at the centre and bring back trust into the advertising ecosystem.
Bringing all of us together for the first time '' aligning on priorities, aligning on guidelines, creating new ways of working, new technologies that we can put in place, more people in order to address this '' is critical.
Rakowitz: Where we've been has been marketers and the agencies [talking] with the platforms [on an individual basis] and it's probably been on a market-based [local] level. When you actually do the maths '' the number of advertisers, the number of markets, the number of platforms '' it quickly becomes inefficient and it's fraught with mishap [in terms of achieving anything collectively]. And it's been reactive.
We want an inclusive [industry-wide] conversation that's proactive in the defence of consumers [and] safeguarding brands and these platforms. Instead of being a game of "whack-a-mole" with only one hand on the mallet '' meaning the advertiser and the agency '' we need more hands on that mallet [meaning the online platforms too].
There have been previous industry initiatives to sort out online safety that have had limited impact. Why is this alliance going to be different?
Di Como: There has been a lot of progress. Unilever pioneered a responsiblity framework [for media measurement] that we launched in 2018 and we are a member of the Coalition for Better Ads, and there are so many [bad and intrusive] ad formats that have been removed. When we talk about influencer marketing, there have been billions of [fake] accounts that have been removed.
But in order to accelerate all of this, we are strongly convinced that working together we can tackle [online safety more effectively]. Yes, there have been initiatives before and there will continue to be. Has there been progress? Yes. Is it enough? No. We must never be complacent. If there is any single incident, we still need to tackle this. We have a zero-tolerance philosophy.
For zero tolerance, do you need 100% transparency from the platforms? Individually and collectively, it feels like advertisers have limited power to push for the platforms to be more responsible. The platforms can say they will be responsible, but what convinces you that Google and Facebook are going to be willing partners?
Di Como: All of the [internet] players have been in to see us, knowing there is much more work that needs to be done. They have made progress '' you have seen the Facebook transparency report '' but we say all the time: "This is not yet enough." And there are new [safety] challenges that are becoming much more complex. And it's the same on Google.
We have been active [talking] to them, saying there are certain things that need to be changed on the platforms '' for example, [policing] comments and it has been changed.
Rakowitz: When you look at this from the platforms' side, to have the multiplicity of [different] conversations with the [brand] organisations and the [local] markets and the advertising agencies, it does not actually make sense for this to continue [and it is a good idea to work collectively].
We've got to be patient with our [tech platform] partners, but we've got to be impatient with our progress '' that's the key behavioural element that we're trying to drive within this alliance.
Di Como: We, as leaders of the industry, have a moral and business responsibility to drive this and we will never stop doing this. It's not us taking a limited responsibility [for brand and consumer safety]. We have a responsibility to put all of our efforts, all of our energy, to change [the internet for the better].
How much are you trying to increase self-regulation because you fear governments and regulators are coming?
Di Como: This alliance is not about preventing regulation or being pro or against regulation. This alliance is what we as an industry need to do. On regulation '' as an advertiser, we welcome GDPR.
The biggest fear that we have is that our kids are exposed to things that they should not be '' and that is what is driving all of this. In the case of Unilever, we touch 2.5 billion people every day across 190 countries and the fear we have is that we are not serving them and we [as brands] are not acting as leaders of the industry.
Rakowitz: We've got to start taking responsibility, holding ourselves accountable. Regulation can play a part in this and it might need to come into play. But this is not a self-interested play to stave off regulation by any stretch of the imagination. This is about marketers and media leaders taking accountability and responsibility, and making sure the reach that we drive is not just a source for growth but also a force for good.
Brands have been warning for several years about the "digital swamp" and yet more problems keep occuring. What's Group M's perspective given that Google and Facebook are Group M clients and you have many other clients who spend a lot with these platforms?
Montgomery: I started this role nearly three years ago and we're in a much better space now than we were then. Google and Facebook have put in controls and mechanisms, and the conversations with each of us have been extremely constructive.
Yes, Google and Facebook are both clients as well as publisher partners [for Group M]. That puts us in a privileged position because we can both advise them and challenge them. It's a little bit of a delicate balance for us sometimes, but it's much more beneficial than it is a disadvantage.
Think about what they [Google and Facebook] have to deal with: they have a stupefying volume of user-generated content that is just going up and up and up, and making it more difficult for them. They have to deal with trying to control that through artificial intelligence, through policy '' and in some ways they are losing the battle.
The conversation has changed from brand safety to public safety. When I phoned one of my clients about the alliance, he said: "I've got five children '' of course I'm in." What's not safe for brands is not safe for the public as well.
The area has become more complex and nuanced [but AI can help]. Can you imagine if we were able to share an algorithm that recognised the New Zealand shooting and immediately when that was recognised by Facebook there was an amber alert to the other platforms that could have stopped it? It would have stopped it being shared two million times.
Rakowitz: We are going to be demanding [from the tech platforms] a lot of creative thinking, a lot of courage in terms of implementing solutions and collaboration in terms of making sure they are widespread and evenly distributed.
Some people say it's impossible to stay ahead of the pace of technology and bad actors. Is the solution some kind of trusted spaces and kitemarking?
Di Como: At Unilever, we launched the Trusted Publishers Network earlier this year. This has different layers of control in order to ensure our [media] investment ends up in safe environments.
The challenges will always continue to evolve... [and we need] new mechanisms, new procedures, new technologies to shrink the problem. There will be incidents [in future], but there will be zero tolerance. How many controls that we need to put in [such as setting up trusted spaces] is something that we are going to continue to invest in individually and collectively.
Rakowitz: The starting point is creating that foundation that shrinks the problem, allowing advertisers to have more viewability and transparency in terms of where their media investments are going. Ultimately, what we want to do is make sure is that these issues are properly contained and we don't amplify, we don't accelerate, we don't fund, these things '' either ourselves, our agency partners as well as the platforms themselves.
The platforms are struggling with the freedom of publishing and the volume of the content that's out there and making some tough calls.
We want to be part of that solution [with the alliance]. We want to help them think more boldly, take better action, in the interests of themselves, in the interests of consumers, in the interests of society.
We can buy reach elsewhere. This is not about solving the problem so we can just continue to put somebody on the media plan. This is about the future of this industry, the sustainability of media and societal safety.
How big can the alliance be?
Montgomery: The wider the involvement, the better '' from our perspective. We absolutely realise the hard work starts now. We are going to provide an action-orientated plan together. That's why we've not published anything [yet]. It's going to be made public and it's going to be transparent, so we will be able to show the progress that we are making over the coming months. Hopefully, when we're sitting here next year, we will have a very different conversation.
More than YouTube: inside Google's pitch to advertisers in Cannes and beyond | The Drum
Brand safety appeasements aside, Google's game plan for Cannes is all about diversity and integration: as a theme on seaside panels, as an approach to industry relations and, most importantly, within its product offering as it looks to fend off competition from other platforms.
It's all in the name. For only the second time since 2015, Google's activation on La Croisette during Cannes Lions will be named the Google Beach and not the YouTube Beach.
Cynics may say it's because YouTube is still the problematic cash cow of the Alphabet firm, one that rakes in ad dollars but continually gives its PR team a headache with a never-ending stream of brand safety issues. But the more likely reason is that Google is looking to unleash, spotlight and bundle together all aspects of its business as Amazon shimmies ever closer towards its clients.
Pitch list productsFor Tara Walpert Levy, Google's vice-president of agency and brand solutions, the last year has been about helping advertisers and marketers with ''discovery and anticipation''.
Her conversations with clients have been shaped around the wider industry narrative '' YouTube is now posed as the dominant form of over-the-top TV, for instance, rather than a clickbait library of viral content. But they've also widened as the company's ad product portfolio has done the same.
Google will be pushing its new Discovery Ads format at home and at Cannes, highlighting ''really visually rich mobile-first ad experiences that tap into the intentions of people wherever they are''. It will also have conversations pertaining to Showcase Shopping ads, which were described at Google's Marketing Live summit last month as ''a highly visual ad format [incorporating] rich lifestyle imagery''.
The sale of these formats into brands and agencies is somewhat cyclical; both these examples play into what marketers tell Google they want and need.
Discovery Ads are built with machine learning, and thus fall under the category of ''automated tools ... that take out a lot of the manual work and let [agencies] free up time to do more of the strategic work around customer insights, new innovations and new ways to go to market,'' according to Levy.
Meanwhile, a greater focus on shopping plays into the trend of agencies '' usually under a holding company model '' moving into the e-commerce space. WPP, Dentsu Aegis Network and IPG have all recently set up new consultative shops to help clients get to grips with the big retailers, namely Amazon.
Google's building of a stronger product in this arena, despite not having anything to sell, should, in theory, allow it to take slices from advertisers' separate advertising and e-commerce pies simultaneously.
''Beyond shopping, we're seeing a lot of movement on things like platform services, programmatic specialities, higher volumes of content creation and higher levels of production that will let people really get to that personalized creative,'' added Levy. ''We're even thinking about things like how you provide services for clients who are transitioning either in-house or back from in-house. It's fascinating.''
This wide-ranging, integrated offer is one marketers have started to pick up on in their conversations with the search giant this year.
"Google's pitch has shifted from a pure performance story to a more holistic approach," noted Jeremy Hull, senior vice-president of innovation at iProspect. "They want brands to move up the funnel, leveraging the integrated solutions across the Google ecosystem to drive awareness and brand affinity, in addition to the bottom of the funnel conversions.
"Another ongoing part of their pitch involves giving advertisers more advanced measurement solutions, from attribution to integration with offline activities. The tools Google has built are powerful and accurate, but many brands are still resistant to change their approach to measurement, so I expect Google to continue working to drive adoption of the excellent measurement solutions they have built."
Google will arrive in Cannes with its Google Beach activationPitch list servicesGoogle has invested in Levy's team in the last several years, and as it's grown to sell in a more complex portfolio, the way it works with agencies has changed, too. It's developed new capabilities to support agencies on specific pain points, such as mobile creative and measurement attribution, for instance, and has even started placing staff within the agencies.
''Similarly, we do rotations for folks from agencies through our organization and operation,'' Levy said. ''That just gives them a great feeling for all the solutions that are out there.
''I think the difference between today and four or five years ago is we've gone from being arm's length collaborators to truly in-depth partners. I think that is represented by our physical presence in each other's space, the kinds of information sharing that we're doing and the wide range of partnership areas that we're focused on.''
This sense of partnership and openness is reflected in Google's attitude to Cannes Lions itself. Unlike the Facebook beach, notorious for its ''you're not the list'' ambience, the platform's own patch of sand is open to pretty much anyone who wants to meet, work or, in this year's case, ''use Google Translate to order your choice of ice cream''.
Its own conference programming will be more focused this year, concentrating primarily on diversity and inclusion, personalization and the future of marketing. And Hull predicts much of Google's on-beach pitch will be based outside the realm of search advertising.
"I expect Google to heavily focus on YouTube video ads, which over the past few years have matured to offer a pretty spectacular variety of formats, targeting options, and optimization settings," he said ."Sight, sound, and motion are more exciting than text, to be sure, but individuals and groups at Google have been applying machine learning to large swaths of video ads in order to extract fantastic learnings, bringing the insights and measurability of digital fully into the realm of video."
The real conversations will take place offstage, however, and may even veer into territory beyond advertising altogether.
Behind meeting room doorsOne senior media strategist predicts Google will be pitching its Cloud product as a ''bundle' along with Marketing Platform, in a bid to drum up interest in an alternative to Amazon Web Services.
''I think they've recognized that working with media to get to IT '' reversing what other folks do '' is a path that is relatively untrodden and can bring interesting potential synergies and leverage that they didn't have before,'' they said. ''It used to be the Google media and technology teams coming together to talk to us '' now it's going in the other direction with the Google technology and the Google Cloud team coming to us to talk about joint opportunities."
They noted, however that as a Cloud-based infrastructure isn't exactly Cannes-friendly ''cocktail conversation'' (''advertisers literally would rather watch paint dry''), Google will likely use its smaller but still significant YouTube presence to illuminate advertisers about its ambitions to compete in traditional TV '' another place it can challenge Amazon, which is concurrently gearing up compete in the programmatic space with Sizmek.
''I think [Google] will place a stake in the ground and say, look you've been doing TV the same way for ages '' we're going to bring that Google way of thinking to the TV world and you should expect massive disruption,'' they predicted.
''The leverage Amazon has over the broader ecosystem is a much bigger existential problem [for Google than Facebook] because they don't want to be put back in the box of just Search or YouTube. They want to be thinking about the data advantage they have over the entire ecosystem.''
Join The Drum in Cannes at The Drum Arms - find out what's on at the registration page.
Google lands third multibillion euro EU advertising fine in two years | The Week UK
Google has been fined '¬1.5bn (£1.29bn) by the European Union after regulators ruled that the search giant had broken antitrust advertising laws.
The European Commission has accused the Silicon Valley giant of restricting adverts for its rivals between 2006 and 2016.
The case centres around Google's AdSense technology, which allows the firm to advertise on third-party websites ''in exchange for offering them a search box'', The Daily Telegraph reports.
The commission found Google had included ''exclusivity clauses'' in some of its AdSense contracts, where publishers were prevented from placing ads from the tech company's rivals on their search pages, the newspaper adds.
In 2009, Google replaced its exclusivity clauses with ''premium placement'' conditions. These required publishers to keep their most profitable ad spaces for the tech company's products, the BBC says.
Publishers were also required to display a certain number of Google ads and get written permission from the firm before changing the way they displayed adverts, says the broadcaster.
The commission said these clauses allowed Google to control ''how attractive, and therefore clicked on, competing search adverts could be''.
The EC's antitrust chief, Margrethe Vestager, says the search firm has ''cemented its dominance in online search adverts and shielded itself from competitive pressure by imposing anti-competitive contractual restrictions on third-party websites''
''This is illegal under EU antitrust rules'', she concluded.
The news marks Google's third anti-trust fine in just two years.
In June 2017, the commission handed the search giant a fine of '¬2.4bn (£2.07bn) for ''favouring its own shopping service above rivals'', the Financial Times reports.
The company was then hit with a record '¬4.3bn (£3.71bn) fine a year later for forcing third-party smartphone makers using Google's Android mobile operating system to install its Chrome web browser and search app, says the FT.
Google took down 2.3 billion ads in 2018 for violating its advertising policies - Android Authority
According to Google's Bad Ads Report 2018, last year, Google banned six million ads every day. The company banned a total of 2.3 billion misleading ads and took down one million bad accounts, twice as many bad advertiser accounts in 2017.
Google defines bad ads as 'misleading, inappropriate, or harmful ads' that violates its advertising policies and pose a threat to users, Google's partners, and the ''sustainability of the open web itself.''
Google also went after the bad actors behind numerous bad ads and using improved machine learning technology, the company identified and terminated almost one million bad advertiser accounts. Google also terminated about 734,000 publishers and app developers from its ad network and removed ads completely from nearly 1.5 million apps. To tackle the challenge of misinformation and low-quality sites, Google removed approximately 1.2 million pages, over 22,000 apps, and nearly 15,000 sites across its ad network for violations of policies directed at misrepresentative, hateful or, other low-quality content.
Google has flagged over one million apps to date for pre-release security issues Google has implemented several measures over the years to bring peace of mind to Play Store users. One of these initiatives is the Application Security Improvement Program for apps that are submitted to the store '...
The company also introduced 31 new ad policies last year and will launch a new Policy Manager in Google Ads to make it easy for well-meaning advertisers to ensure their creatives are policy compliant and to give tips on common policy mistakes.
To counter fake news and questions about the purchase of political ads, Google launched a new policy for election ads in the U.S. ahead of the 2018 midterm elections for transparency in political advertising. Similarly, an India-specific transparency report will go live before the general elections in the country in April this year.
The brand purpose hypocrisy at Cannes Lions | The Drum
Some things you can see from only 1,700 miles away '' like how the ad executives gathered at Cannes Lions last week talked a lot about brand purpose but completely ignored an actual opportunity to help the world.
I was unable to attend the festival, but I followed the proceedings from Tel Aviv by reading The Drum's full coverage and obtaining in advance the prepared speeches and presentation decks of sessions that had piqued my curiosity.
'Brand purpose' was a popular topic. Maithreyi Jagannathan, P&G's associate marketing director for healthcare, and Ajay Vikram, the chief creative officer of Publicis Singapore, discussed an ad campaign featuring a transgender Indian mother and a girl with a rare skin condition.
Jimmie Stone, Edelman's chief creative officer for New York and Latin America, unveiled a five-step guide to building a brand with purpose. The Body Shop's global head of activism, Jessie Macneil-Brown, joined a Unilever global sustainability lead, Dorothy Shaver, and Tony's Chocolonely's head of marketing, Pascal Van Ham, to talk about the future of brand activism.
Netflix writer and producer Kenya Barris, Wieden+Kennedy chief creative officer Colleen DeCourcy and TBWA chief executive officer Troy Ruhanen touched on brand activism in a hyper-charged society.
At AdConnect's beach, the ACT Responsible association (Advertising Community Together) presented 'tributes' to the best in advertising around themes such as the environment.
No money where their mouths were
But see what happened when someone actually wanted to do something real about the environment. An activist group named Extinction Rebellion exposed the feel-good sentiments as utterly hypocritical.
The organisation '' many of whose members are reportedly ad industry veterans '' issued an open letter last month calling for marketers to use their communications expertise to prevent environmental disaster by fighting climate change on behalf of brands, driving sustainable efforts and cutting waste.
Then, on Wednesday afternoon, Extinction Rebellion crashed Cannes Lions and demonstrated at Facebook's beach the following day.
William Skeaping, a former creative strategist at McCann London and a reported prominent player in the organisation, had also been meeting festival attendees to persuade them to join its sustainability agenda.
The marketing elite at Cannes Lions had a real opportunity to help the world significantly. And what happened? Fourteen Extinction Rebellion activists were arrested. So much for putting their company dollars where their mouths were.
No one Skeaping met was reportedly interested. He tweeted: "Came hoping we could get the advertising industry to help tell the truth about the climate and ecological emergency but now have a sinking feeling that we're totally fucked."
Brand purpose is actually a myth
It is not just the hypocrisy. It is not just advocates of brand purpose not wanting to save the world when a lot of actual money is on the line. 'Brand purpose' is a myth based on bad analysis '' and rarely helps to sell stuff anyway.
As The Choice Factory author Richard Shotton has noted, the brand purpose craze started with former P&G chief marketing officer Jim Stengel's 2011 book Grow.
Stengel selected the 50 brands with the highest loyalty or bonding scores in Millward Brown's database and found that they all had a desire to improve people's lives. Their stock prices together '' if collected as an index '' would have also grown by 393% over the prior decade compared to a 7% loss for the S&P 500.
But Shotton correctly pointed out that some of the selected brands are private companies or do not have a share price. Stengel's logic was also a perfect example of survivorship bias '' he pre-selected brands that had already been successful and did not research whether all uses of 'brand purpose' had been successful.
''Stengel's finding, if you restate it at its most basic, is that brands that feature in the top 0.1% of companies have performed well in the stock market. That's circular logic,'' Shotton wrote. ''Because advertisers fervently hoped that the theory was true, they forgot to check whether it was. They have succumbed to a collective bout of wishful seeing.''
Is it any surprise, then, that US social impact consultancy DoSomething Strategic found in May that only 12% of people aged 13-25 had correct top of mind associations between brands and their individual social causes?
Location intelligence company Gravy Analytics also reported that public stances had not led to increased store visits, and other findings were counterintuitive. Conservatives were 13% more likely than liberals to visit pro-environment outlet Patagonia. Liberals were only 3% more likely than conservatives to visit Ben & Jerry's. Conservatives were 8% more likely than liberals to visit Starbucks.
The problem is that people tell pollsters they want brands to join causes to help the world. (Who would say 'no' to that?) But that sentiment rarely translates into those people buying more stuff. (Remember David Ogilvy: ''People don't think how they feel, they don't say what they think and they don't do what they say.'')
Paddle Consulting co-founder Brian Millar once put it perfectly: ''Purpose is something you believe, not something you make up one day as a marketing strategy.''
Still, there is one effective use of brand purpose: recruitment, not marcom. Warby Parker originally advertised it would donate a pair of eyeglasses to someone in need for every sale. But no one really cared. Then, the company changed direction.
''For our 1,800 current employees and for people that we're recruiting, we lead with social mission,'' co-founder Neil Blumenthal told Inc. ''That's the number one reason people want to come work for Warby Parker.''
Every time I have talked with Facebook employees, their faces light up whenever they discuss the company's stated goal of 'connecting the world'. Say what you will about the social platform, but the mission has indeed inspired people.
Here are real brand purposes
Now, I do have a few suggestions for companies that want to help the world with a real brand purpose.
Agencies, stop being glorified sweatshops. US companies, give as much paid vacation time and parental leave as the rest of the world. Employers, stop cramming workers into soul-destroying open office plans.
YouTube, stop your algorithm's spreading of far-right propaganda. Facebook, stop polarising society before it is too late for your company. Men, stop treating your own female employees terribly while producing hypocritical pro-woman advertisements.
And above all: tech companies, pay your fucking taxes.
After all, Unilever's new chief executive, Alan Jope, was right at Cannes Lions when he encouraged the industry to stop rewarding hypocrisy. He said marketers should avoid 'woke-washing' and reject campaign briefs from brands that do not 'walk the talk'.
On LinkedIn Pulse last week, Boston Content executive director Katie Martell also separately criticised brands for 'rainbow-pandering' during LGBT Pride Month every June. She said they ''exploit LGBTQ rights in their marketing without meaningful action at their organizations or in the greater world.''
If the ad world at Cannes Lions truly cared about brand purpose, it would have sided with the Extinction Rebellion protesters '' at whatever the cost to their profits. As one activist said during a panel at The Drum Arms: ''If there's no planet, there's no profit.''
I have a challenge for all chief executive and chief marketing officers. If you truly believe in brand purpose, share this column from both your company and personal social media accounts, tag me and The Drum, state that you will join Extinction Rebellion, implement the group's recommendations in your companies and refuse to take on clients or partners that will not do the same.
The good stuff at Cannes Lions
But not all at Cannes Lions was hypocritical or otherwise useless.
For a few years, the online group Sleeping Giants has been targeting companies whose ads appear in far-right news outlets to encourage them to stop sponsoring hate.
I once encouraged Amazon, Facebook, Google and Taboola to do the same, so I was proud that they won a Gold Lion in the new Social and Influencer category. But Sleeping Giants founder Matt Rivitz was not entirely happy at Cannes Lions.
''There must have been a thousand talks on diversity and inclusion but not a lot of action,'' he wrote in a thread on the group's Twitter account. ''Brands and agencies are still woefully behind in this regard. If they truly believe it, they will stop advertising on racist, sexist shows and websites while adjusting their hiring.''
''The mere fact that Cannes allowed me to speak about the issues of ad responsibility and actually awarded Sleeping Giants with a Gold Lion (that's good) means that the industry is waking up to its problems and understands there needs to be a larger discussion around it.''
McKinsey wants to help CMOs increase their clout
McKinsey & Company presented how chief marketing officers can increase their influence among other top executives. The study found that the solution is to have a CMO who is a 'unifier' rather than a 'loner' or 'friend'.
''These CMOs are masters at fostering cross-functional collaboration,'' Jason Heller, partner and global lead of digital marketing operations and technology practice at the firm, said in prepared remarks. ''They ensure that marketing has a clearly defined role in the eyes of C-suite peers. They adopt the language and mindset of other C-suite executives, and they articulate how marketing can help meet the C-suite's needs.
''They also establish mutual accountability and a shared vision with other executives. They have a seat at the table when critical decisions are made, have broad P&L responsibility and are often involved in defining the company's strategy.''
McKinsey released the major findings in a detailed report. Elsewhere, British marketing consultant Samuel Brealey recently wrote a related and thoughtful essay on how marketers need to 'grow up and talk to finance'.
The IPA issued two new important studies
The UK's Institute of Practitioners in Advertising (IPA) unveiled a new study on 'the crisis in creative effectiveness' stating that the campaigns winning creative awards have also become increasingly less effective at selling. I'll leave it to The Drum's readers to think about the implications.
Further, the IPA also reported on a 'board-brand rift' that stems from most business leaders rating themselves as average to poor specifically in brand building. These two new findings follow my recent, exclusive publication in The Drum of Les Binet and Peter Field's IPA-based research on the most effective practices in B2B marketing.
How influencer marketing can be more effective
Ben Jeffries, chief executive officer of the platform Influencer, discussed his view that many in the industry have become sceptical of the practice because they are 'doing influencer marketing wrong'.
''Advertisers are understanding the importance of social media for raising awareness and promoting products and services,'' he said in prepared remarks. ''But it's only the minority who are using data properly and are adopting techniques that trigger emotional connections.''
Jefferies explained that many influencer marketing companies sell with focuses on high levels of reach without much consideration into whether that quantity also brings quality. Specifically, he said influencer marketers need to move away from thinking about followers, engagement, and shares.
''Stop looking at the numbers based on volume, and flip the model to note that the smallest numbers are actually the most important as these show the values of the next stages in the marketing funnel around consideration and intent,'' he said.
Based on my prior in-depth research into influencer marketing, I agree.
The Promotion Fix is an exclusive biweekly column for The Drum contributed by global keynote marketing speaker Samuel Scott, a former newspaper editor and director of marketing in the high-tech industry. Follow him on Twitter. Scott is based out of Tel Aviv, Israel.
Some friendly advice that Indian brands received from jury members at Cannes Lions was to use a social angle. ''Ads from India have a higher chance of winning at Cannes Lions if your story has a social angle. Juries love ideas that talk to the heart. Let the West build campaigns like Nike and McDonald's that may be purely brand building exercises,'' they said.
Going beyond the awards ceremony, these six industry experts tell us how the landscape of advertising is changing thanks to technologies, and a focus on doing good.
Brands as a force of good -'-- Lyndon Louis, Sr Creative Director, Havas Life Sorento
In the past few years, we are seeing a welcome shift from monologues to dialogues. A shift in tone from 'selling' to 'conversing' '-- from the 'I, Me, Myself' syndrome to listening to people and understanding how a brand can serve a purpose in their life. This 'humanising' of the brand is an attempt at relevance, and at differentiation. The intent and efforts are encouraging; it pushes brand communication, as an industry, forward, and uses its influence positively. In this process, it also ends up shining the light on relevant topics, driving much-needed conversations.
Ideating in the age of memes '-- Ashish Bhasin, CEO Greater South, Dentsu Aegis Network and Chairman & CEO India
In recent times, there is a lot more data and facts which can act as insights. These are not substitutes for ideation, but are aids. Marketing is more real-time and focussed to an audience of one as much as possible. The one thing that has remained constant is the value of a big idea. We want to be digitally ahead, but creatively led. Ultimately, whatever form of advertising you do has to have creativity at the heart of it. When a viral meme (like the recent one about Nesamani) is used for marketing, it is about being agile. However, tactical advertising '-- when you are responding to something topical or you have a promotion '-- is different from brand building, where your message has to be consistent.
Beyond social media '-- Prathap Suthan, Managing Partner and CCO, Bang in the Middle
It's not that mainline media is completely dead: more than 50% of the money is spent in TV, radio and outdoor advertising. Increasingly, people are getting more fluent on mobile, it being a platform that hosts multiple avenues to watch, listen and do. People who have left social media are negligible: for every person dropping off the platform, there are 10 or 20 more who join. As long as they are still using the Internet, they can be reached through different avenues. Ad spend on social media is increasing every day; currently, it stands at around 40%. These result in action. For instance, a client like Vivo Mobiles is clear about where they want to reach their clientele. We recently did an ad for a new phone that is set to launch, and in two days, the reach has been 21 million.
Does a rural formula work? '-- Raj Nair, CEO & Chief Creative Officer, Madison BMB
Last year Blink to Speak, TOI's Sindoor Khela and SC Johnson's Stand by Tough Moms won. None of them were rural in nature or setting. This year, Barbershop Girls has won for breaking gender stereotypes. But so have Uri Surgical Strike and Swiggy Voice of Hunger. There is no ''rural formula'' at work here. Just great work that deserves to win. And let's not forget one thing: judges from the West are going to be enamoured by Indian work that is uniquely Indian, not something that apes the West.
Political advertising '-- PG Aditiya, Executive Creative Director, Dentsu Webchutney
In the recent General Elections, we saw what happens when political parties take lessons from advertising. With the BJP, here was a client who applied a lot of rules traditionally applied to brands, to themselves, and it absolutely worked. Influencer marketing and its science was applied to orchestrate the dominant Twitter trends of the day at scale, as was Instant Messenger-centric marketing through storytelling, which most brands haven't cracked at scale yet!
Tech tools to engage target audience '-- Pradyumn Tandon, Founder and Managing Director, The Brand Brewery
Through experiential marketing, we can bring the consumer one step closer through a virtual experience '-- we're currently working on a VR launch for a brand. It's about making them feel included and it's a personal touch. Technology supports other advertising mediums, to convert the target audience into a consumer. Even on-ground engagements, like the Kumbh Kay Shravan by Tata Salt, where the elderly and differently-abled were carried in palkis for the final stretch to the Ganges, is getting recognition for how well it's doing on social media.
Last week, more than 15,000 marketers, ad agencies, media and tech companies gathered in Cannes on the French Riviera to court each other, do business and try to win a coveted Lion award - the ad industry's version of an Oscar.
Google, Facebook, Spotify, Pinterest and Twitter all took large beach areas at the Cannes Lions International Festival of Creativity, while super yachts lined up the marina, hired for the week by ad tech companies and consultancies like Accenture Interactive. The New York Post and Wall Street Journal handed out free newspapers to delegates and the Journal held meetings in a two-story temporary "house" at the end of the marina, while Snap took over La Malmaison art gallery and had 25 executives, including CEO Evan Spiegel, networking at the event.
Inside the Palais des Festivals, home to the main conference, delegates could watch John Legend perform in a session hosted by Procter & Gamble (Legend has starred in ads for Pampers), hear Apple's chief marketing officer (CMO) Tor Myhren give a talk called "Simple is Hard" or learn about video-sharing platform TikTok, the U.S.'s third most-downloaded app in the first-quarter of the year. It was TikTok's first time at Cannes and it was also the debut appearance for Twitch, the streaming platform for gamers owned by Amazon, which took over a penthouse suite to host meetings.
As well as expected themes, such as diversity (Facebook's CMO Antonio Lucio spearheaded an initiative to get more ads and movies made by women) and purpose (Unilever's CEO Alan Jope made the case for the company's brands to do more than just provide a functional benefit), the two major digital advertising platforms, Google and Facebook, came under scrutiny from the industry.
Alternatives to the duopoly
While Facebook and Google are part of a new alliance to create standards for what's considered appropriate content online, set up by the World Federation of Advertisers, other media and content platforms like Conde Nast, Snap and Activision Blizzard's Overwatch League are pushing themselves as alternative places for ad dollars.
Direct-to-consumer (DTC) brands, those that sell online and bypass traditional retailers, are looking for alternative ways to reach people through advertising. "Everybody wants to pull dollars away from Google and Facebook," said David Spector, co-CEO and co-founder of bra company ThirdLove, speaking on a panel Wednesday.
There is "probably or potentially a limit on how much we should spend on some of those digital channels," he told CNBC. "We want to be able to tell our story on other channels in just as efficient of a way." Spector would like to be able to reach people via targeted TV advertising, which is in its infancy, but is also leaning more on traditional marketing after a ThirdLove press ad criticizing rival Victoria's Secret went viral.
A return to traditional media
Bobby Ghoshal, co-founder of teeth-straightening company Candid, which sells dental aligners online, said Facebook ads did great for selling $95 starter kits to people, but not so well in terms of upselling them to the full, $1900 product. Ghosal said the company spent about 85 percent of its marketing budget on Facebook in 2018 but in the past eight weeks had hit a "bump" in the road with Facebook ads.
He is pushing the company toward more traditional media such as radio and TV, because "that's where all the trust is built," and is investing in long-form articles and videos providing information about how the product works. Candid has also put a "ton" of money into TV advertising and has run billboards in major U.S. cities, Ghosal said.
Jesse Horowitz, co-founder of DTC contact lens company Hubble, said it had heavily advertised on TV and was "diversifying" its ad spend. "You know that's what gives us the comfort, if Facebook were to crap out for us tomorrow, we know there are other channels that we can diversify back into," he said during a panel discussion.
Brands and political stands
Politics, and whether brands should take a stance, also featured at Cannes. Earlier this month, Pinterest found itself in the spotlight for banning content from anti-abortion group Live Action, which some suggested was a form of censorship. But Pinterest CMO Andrea Mallard said it was a case of suspending the group for spreading misinformation, during a panel discussion hosted by the Economist.
"I do think great brands need to have a perspective in general and be unequivocal about taking that stand '... Our perspective is about the misinformation in which we're unequivocal," she said.
Meanwhile, Marriott's global marketing officer Karin Timpone spoke about how the company dealt with a backlash from China after a survey went out listing Hong Kong as a separate country, rather than a territory, resulting in a Chinese regulator suspending the website for a week in January 2018.
"Things travel around on social media without necessarily the same sort of completeness that you might see in a longer form article about it," she said. The company has newsrooms in Washington DC, Miami, London, Dubai and Hong Kong monitoring mentions of Marriott on social media, Timpone added.
Cannes also saw a political frisson of its own when Cambridge Analytica founder Alexander Nix was forced to cancel an appearance at the conference, while climate action group Extinction Rebellion protested on Facebook's private beach area and at the Palais, where 14 arrests were made.
While those who speak about diversity often include gender, race or sexuality, age is not always part of the conversation. Maye Musk, a model of 71 (and mother of Elon Musk), took part in a panel that pushed employers to hire people over the age of 50 and questioned why businesses were so keen on millennials, when they were likely to be poorer than other generations.
At the other end of the scale, comic publisher Beano launched a consultancy to help brands understand children under 10, known as Generation Alpha, and Snap touted its understanding of Generation Z (those born from the mid-1990s). Snap published research claiming Snapchat is the top app for sharing videos and pictures, with its International Vice President Claire Valoti telling CNBC it considers itself a "camera company" not a social network.
Delegates wait in line at Cannes Lions International Festival of Creativity, Cannes, France, June 2019
Alie Jade - Official NA Producer experiencing transgender is helping to train the Algo's
I signed up for Google rewards, they pay cents to get short
quick answers on what you do or what they do. I have recently gotten reviews on
YouTube videos I have seen or some what watched then they provide a suggestion
video and ask how close they got it and what I want to watch it next. Included
are the screenshots
The images have the order. Again I have done this as a loyal slave
for years and these are new questions.
ITM from NC
Insurance report from te Social Media Spy
I write you to fill you in on somethings I thought both of you might find
informative from an industry and part of the country you don't hear much from
on the news. Should you choose to mention any of this on the show please keep
me anonymous or call me the social media spy. I also apologize for the length
of this email. I have been meaning to write in for years.
I have worked in the insurance industry for over a decade, about five or six
years ago the company I work for started a program based on a product being
offered by the private investigation companies we use to find fraudulent
claims. Companies started offering a social media search on our claimants.
These searches cost 300 to 500 bucks per search. Some bigwigs tried out the
service but it was quite clear PI's were using interns with 5 minutes to type a
few names into Google then send the search results. It was clearly a fucking
joke to charge us extra. A manager where I work came up with the idea of us
doing this sort of research in house. We have lists of people's names,
dependants, addresses as well as medical info, all legally received with HIPPA
authorization. They figured we might find fraudulent claims without needing
PIs. The program was a hit. The first year we save the company over 10 million
in fraudulent payouts.
So for the last 5 or 6 years I have been, what my wife jokes, a "professional
Facebook stalker." There is not a huge amount of fraudulent claims but
when the happen the money in them is usually significant. We estimate about a half
to one percent of claims are fraud.
We do all this legally with publicly posted info online. I have caught doctors
selling drugs illegally, people claiming they are sick but opening businesses,
all the way to people having their wives or husbands calling us and sending
fake medical records.
Over this time, I have seen some stuff with social media you might not be aware of
from the outside. First of all, Twitter is useless and serves no one anything
really useful. For all the millions of people on Twitter only about five
percent of users actually use their accounts. We discovered this very early on
in our research. People create accounts to just follow celebs or politicians.
They don't actually tweet anything just retweet their favorite people, if they
use it at all. It is really just a big echo chamber that goes nowhere.
Second, YouTube used to let us pull videos that claimants posted publicly of them doing
things they clearly shouldn't be able to do. Example, someone claims they have
a bad back but has several videos of themselves water skiing or lifting 50
pound bags of dirt. In the past year we had to stop doing that, YouTube
actually threatened to block us and possibly Sue us because they claim that
violates a recent update in their terms of service. We can get away with
screenshots and links back to video if nessesary.
Third, Facebook is in more trouble than the public knows or is being reported. Try
searching for your friends and family on Facebook recently. It is almost
impossible to narrow down to someone in a large city or has a common name.
Facebook used to have something called Graph Search. It was a back end hidden
thing that would let you find useful info on just about anyone using the
service. Lots of outside companies, Pipl, Social Technology Corp, and others
were using this public info as a business model but Graph Search was taken away
in the past month under privacy concerns. Several years ago we used to also
find people using just an email address or a phone numbers but Facebook got rid
of that too for privacy concerns. Facebook has a real image problem both
publicly and business wise. As we do research on people, we are finding only
older folks are using Facebook, usually 45 to 65 to be exact. Usually people
that are not tech savvy. Younger people may have accounts and occasionally post
but the older people are the everyday users. Like Twitter everything is just an
echo chamber of reposts and politics. People are not using these services to
communicate anymore. They are quickly becoming the new AOL.
From industry articles I have read this graph Search being removed has some big
problems. Facebook sold itself to college researchers, businesses, medical
companies as giving them publicly available data so they could do studies as other
papers. With it now gone people a scattering like cockroaches to find other
vendors of this data. The thought is that Facebook will come back with the
service again in a few months but now charge for entry. It won't make them any
money, I can guarantee that right now.
Everyone's Got A "Surveillance Score" And It Can Cost You Big Money | Zero Hedge
Authored by Dagny Taggart via Our Organic Prepper blog,
In these Orwellian times, when it is revealed that yet another government agency is spying on us in yet another way, most of us aren't one bit surprised. Being surveilled nearly everywhere we go (and even in our own homes) has become the norm, unfortunately.
Yesterday, it was revealed that the NSA improperly collected Americans' call and text logs in November 2017 and in February and October 2018 '' just months after the agency claimed it was going to delete the 620 million-plus call detail records it already had stockpiled.
But this article isn't about that.
It is about something far more insidious.
When it comes to spying on people, the government has competition.The Chinese government is currently implementing a social credit system to monitor its 1.3 billion citizens (China already has 200 million public surveillance cameras). Facial recognition technology and personal data from cell phones and digital transactions are being used to collect intimate details about people's lives, including their purchasing habits and whom they socialize with.
The gathered data is used to create mandatory social credit ratings for every citizen. These ratings will score citizens' ''general worthiness'' and provide those with higher scores opportunities like access to jobs, loans, and travel. Those with lower scores will not have access to those opportunities.
While the United States government has yet to implement such a system, companies in the country are, reports The Hill:
Consumer advocates are pushing regulators to investigate what they paint as a shadowy online practice where retailers use consumer information collected by data brokers to decide how much to charge individual customers or the quality of service they'll offer.
#REPRESENT, a public interest group run by the Consumer Education Foundation in California, filed a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) on Monday asking the agency to investigate what the group is calling ''surveillance scoring'' of customers' financial status or creditworthiness. (source)
Companies are using Secret Surveillance Scores to evaluate you.The opening paragraphs of the 38-page complaint are chilling:
Major American corporations, including online and retail businesses, employers and landlords are using Secret Surveillance Scores to charge some people higher prices for the same product than others, to provide some people with better customer services than others, to deny some consumers the right to purchase services or buy or return products while allowing others to do so and even to deny people housing and jobs.
The Secret Surveillance Scores are generated by a shadowy group of privacy-busting firms that operate in dark recesses of the American marketplace. They collect thousands or even tens of thousands of intimate details of each person's life '' enough information, it is thought, to literally predetermine a person's behavior '' either directly or through data brokers. Then, in what is euphemistically referred to as ''data analytics,'' the firms' engineers write software algorithms that instruct computers to parse a person's data trail and develop a digital ''mug shot.'' Eventually, that individual profile is reduced to a number '' the score '' and transmitted to corporate clients looking for ways to take advantage of, or even avoid, the consumer. The scoring system is automatic and instantaneous. None of this is disclosed to the consumer: the existence of the algorithm, the application of the Surveillance Score or even that they have become the victim of a technological scheme that just a few years ago would appear only in a dystopian science fiction novel. (source)
These scores are used to discriminate based on income.Written by lawyers Laura Antonini, the policy director of the Consumer Education Foundation, and Harvey Rosenfield, who leads the foundation, the complaint highlights four areas in which companies are using surveillance scoring: pricing, customer service, fraud prevention, and housing and employment.
''This is a way for companies to discriminate against users based on income and wealth,'' Antonini told The Hill.
''It can range from monetary harm or basic necessities of life that you're not getting.''
Antonini and Rosenfield argue that the practices outlined in the complaint are illegal '' and that consumers are largely unaware that they're being secretly evaluated in ways that can influence how much they pay online.
''The ability of corporations to target, manipulate and discriminate against Americans is unprecedented and inconsistent with the principles of competition and free markets,'' the complaint reads. ''Surveillance scoring promotes inequality by empowering companies to decide which consumers they want to do business with and on what terms, weeding out the people who they deem less valuable. Such discrimination is as much a threat to democracy as it is to a free market.''
Stores are using this scoring system to charge you higher prices.Here's more detail, from The Hill:
The filing points to a 2014 Northeastern University study exploring the ways that companies like Home Depot and Walmart use consumer data to customize prices for different customers. Rosenfield and Antonini replicated the study using an online tool that compares prices that they're charged on their own computers with their own data profiles versus the prices charged to a user browsing sites through an anonymized computer server with no data history.
What they found was that Walmart and Home Depot were offering lower prices on a number of products to the anonymous computer. In the search results for ''white paint'' on Home Depot's website, Rosenfield and Antonini were seeing higher prices for six of the first 24 items that popped up.
In one example, a five-gallon tub of Glidden premium exterior paint would have cost them $119 compared with $101 for the anonymous computer.
A similar pattern emerged on Walmart's website. The two lawyers found the site was charging them more on a variety of items compared with the anonymous web tool, including paper towels, highlighters, pens and paint.
One paper towel holder cost $10 less for the blank web user. (source)
To see screenshots of different ''personalized'' prices shown for items from Home Depot and Walmart, please see pages 12-16 of the complaint. The examples presented demonstrate just how much these inflated prices for common household goods can really add up.
The travel industry is particularly sneaky.A few days ago, we reported on hidden fees that could be costing you big bucks. The travel industry is a particularly large offender when it comes to sneaky fees, and they are also implicated in this scheme:
Travelocity. Software developer Christian Bennefeld, founder of etracker.com and eBlocker.com, did a sample search for hotel rooms in Paris on Travelocity in 2017 using his eBlocker device, which ''allows him to act as if he were searching from two different'' computers. Bennefeld found that when he performed the two searches at the same time, there was a $23 difference in Travelocity's prices for the Hotel Le Six in Paris.
CheapTickets. The Northeastern Price Discrimination Study found that the online bargain travel site CheapTickets offers reduced prices on hotels to consumers who are logged into an account with CheapTickets, compared to those who proceed as ''guests.'' We performed our own search of airfares on CheapTickets without being logged in. We searched for flights from LAX to Las Vegas for April 5 through April 8, 2019. Our searches produced identical flight results in the same order, but Mr. Rosenfield's prices were all quoted at three dollars higher than Ms. Antonini's.
Other travel websites. The Northeastern Price Discrimination Study found that Orbitz also offers reduced prices on hotels to consumers who were logged into an account (Orbitz has been accused of quoting higher prices to Mac users versus PC users because Mac users have a higher household income); Expedia and Hotels.com steer a subset of users toward more expensive hotels; and Priceline acknowledges it ''personalizes search results based on a user's history of clicks and purchases. (source)
There is an industry that exists to evaluate you and sell your data to companies.The complaint also describes an industry that offers retailers evaluations of their customers' ''trustworthiness'' to determine whether they are a potential risk for fraudulent returns. One such firm '' called Sift '' offers these evaluations to major companies like Starbucks and Airbnb. Sift boasts on its website that it can tailor ''user experiences based on 16,000+ real-time signals '' putting good customers in the express lane and stopping bad customers from reaching the checkout.''
The Hill contacted Sift for comment, and the company was not able to respond. But, back in April, a Sift spokesperson told The Wall Street Journal that it rates customers on a scale of 0 to 100, likening it to a credit score for trustworthiness.
While credit scores can wreak havoc on a person's ability to make big purchases (and sometimes, gain employment), they at least are transparent. Surveillance scoring is not. There is NO transparency for consumers, and Rosenfield and Antonini argue that companies are using them to engage in illegal discrimination while users have little recourse to correct false information about them or challenge their ratings.
We are being spied on and scored on a wide variety of factors.''In the World Privacy Forum's landmark study ''The Scoring of America: How Secret Consumer Scores Threaten Your Privacy and Future,'' authors Pam Dixon and Bob Gellman identified approximately 44 scores currently used to predict the actions of consumers,'' the complaint explains:
The Medication Adherence Score, which predicts whether a consumer is likely to follow a medication regimen;
The Health Risk Score, which predicts how much a specific patient will cost an insurance company;
The Consumer Profitability Score, which predicts which households may be profitable for a company and hence desirable customers;
The Job Security score, which predicts a person's future income and ability to pay for things;
The Churn Score, which predicts whether a consumer is likely to move her business to another company;
The Discretionary Spending Index, which scores how much extra cash a particular consumer might be able to spend on non-necessities;
The Invitation to Apply Score, which predicts how likely a consumer is to respond to a sales offer;
The Charitable Donor Score, which predicts how likely a household is to make significant charitable donations;
The Pregnancy Predictor Score, which predicts the likelihood of someone getting pregnant. (source)
The government isn't doing anything to stop these practices.Back in 2014, the Federal Trade Commission held a workshop on a practice they call ''predictive scoring'' but the agency has done little since to reign in the practice. Antonini said that their complaint is pushing the agency to reexamine the industry and investigate whether it violates laws against unfair and deceptive business practices, according to The Hill:
''It's far, far worse than when they looked at it in 2014,'' she said. ''There's an exponentially larger amount of data that's being collected about the American public that's in the hands of data brokers and companies. Their ability to process that data and write algorithms have also improved exponentially.'' (source)
We seem to be past the point of expecting our data to remain private, The Introduction to the complaint begins with a passage that sums up reality for us now:
This Petition does not ask the Commission to investigate the collection of Americans' personal information. The battle over whether Americans' personal data can be collected is over, and, as of this moment at least, consumers have lost. Consumers are now victims of an unavoidable corporate surveillance capitalism.
Rather, this Petition highlights a disturbing evolution in how consumers' data is deployed against them. (source)
We can't go anywhere without being surveilled now.It is now impossible to shop in any large chain stores without being spied on. Stores are starting to use ''smart coolers'', which are refrigerators equipped with cameras that scan shoppers' faces and make inferences on their age and gender. And, a recent article from Futurism describes how security cameras are no longer being used solely to reduce theft:
''Instead of just keeping track of who's in a store, surveillance systems could use facial recognition to determine peoples' identities and gathering even more information about them. That data would then be out there, with no opportunity to opt out. (source)
A new ACLU report titled ''The Dawn of Robot Surveillance'' describes how emerging AI technology enables security companies to constantly monitor and collect data about people.
''Growth in the use and effectiveness of artificial intelligence techniques has been so rapid that people haven't had time to assimilate a new understanding of what is being done, and what the consequences of data collection and privacy invasions can be,'' the report concludes.
''The Uninhabitable Earth: Life After Warming'' earlier this year, followed by some deep discussions on the issue of climate change with my friend and colleague
Adam Aron from UCSD, I no longer feel we can just sit back and hope someone else will fix the problem. And it's becoming increasingly clear that if we as individuals want to do something about climate change, changing our travel habits is probably the single most effective action we can take. Jack Miles made this case in his recent Washington Post article, "
For the love of Earth, stop traveling'':
According to former U.N. climate chief Christiana Figueres, we have only three years left in which to ''bend the emissions curve downward'' and forestall a terrifying cascade of climate-related catastrophes, much worse than what we're already experiencing. Realistically, is there anything that you or I can do as individuals to make a significant difference in the short time remaining?The answer is yes, and the good news is it won't cost us a penny. It will actually save us money, and we won't have to leave home to do it. Staying home, in fact, is the essence of making a big difference in a big hurry. That's because nothing that we do pumps carbon dioxide into the atmosphere faster than air travel. Cancel a couple long flights, and you can halve your carbon footprint. Schedule a couple, and you can double or triple it.I travel a lot - I have almost 1.3 million lifetime miles on United Airlines, and in the last few years have regularly flown over 100,000 miles per year. This travel has definitely helped advance my scientific career, and has been in many ways deeply fulfilling and enlightening. However, the toll has been weighing on me and Miles' article really pushed me over the edge towards action. I used the
Myclimate.org carbon footprint calculator to compute the environmental impact of my flights just for the first half of 2019, and it was mind-boggling: more than 23 tons of CO2. For comparison, my entire household's yearly carbon footprint (estimated using
https://www3.epa.gov/carbon-footprint-calculator/) is just over 10 tons!
For these reasons, I am committing to eliminate (to the greatest degree possible) academic air travel for the foreseeable future. That means no air travel for talks, conferences, or meetings -- instead participating by telepresence whenever possible. I am in a fortunate position, as a tenured faculty member who is already well connected within my field. By taking this action, I hope to help offset the travel impact of early career researchers and researchers from the developing world for whom air travel remains essential in order to get their research known and meet fellow researchers in their field. I wish that there was a better way to help early career researchers network without air travel, but I just haven't seen anything that works well without in-person contact. Hopefully the growing concern about conference travel will also help spur the development of more effective tools for virtual meetings.
Building the Wind Turbines Was Easy. The Hard Part Was Plugging Them In - WSJ
Adapted from ''SUPERPOWER: One Man's Quest to Transform American Energy'' by Wall Street Journal reporter Russell Gold, to be published by Simon & Schuster, Inc., on June 25.
When Michael Skelly first visited the Oklahoma panhandle in 2009, he gazed at a giant grid with squares of corn and grassland. There were few houses, one every mile or so. Half had been abandoned decades ago by homesteaders who gave up to the elements. This pancake-flat landscape, he thought, held the key to overturning one of the greatest misconceptions of the climate-change crisis.
For years, the wind and the sun were widely dismissed as niche sources of power that could never fill America's vast need for energy. But now the cost of solar and wind power had fallen so much that the U.S. could substantially reduce harmful emissions while also lowering the price of electricity. Put it all on a big enough grid, one that could use the ample sunshine from the desert Southwest to keep Atlanta's office towers cool, or the persistent wind in the Great Plains to run Midwestern factories, and you'd address the often-repeated critique of renewable energy: The sun isn't always shining and the wind isn't always blowing. On a big enough grid, that's not an issue. There is wind somewhere and the clouds don't cover the entire U.S.
In Oklahoma, Skelly knew the wind rarely stopped blowing. A midcentury travelogue joked that homes had a ''crowbar hole'...designed to check on the weather. You shove a crowbar through the hole: if it bends, the wind velocity outside is normal; if the bar breaks off, 'it is better to stay in the house.' ''
You could build renewable energy here, he thought, on a scale that could change the country and maybe even the planet.
There was a snag and it was a big one. We have 21st-century technology to produce the power, but we still have a 20th-century power grid that can't move it from the windy and sunny parts of the country to the urban markets. The American power grid isn't set up for it. It's old-fashioned and parochial when it needs to be continental and forward-looking. It's like the nation's roads before President Dwight D. Eisenhower championed the construction of the Interstate Highway System seven decades ago.
Like Eisenhower, Skelly had a plan: He wanted to begin building a new power grid that could carry inexpensive renewable electricity from places such as the Oklahoma panhandle to the east and west. An electricity superhighway that would save customers money while reducing pollution and carbon emissions. An interstate system for electrons.
Skelly had a history of getting things done. When he was in the Peace Corps in Costa Rica in the mid-1980s, he helped set up a microcredit program to let fishermen develop new markets for their catch. One lesson Skelly took from the project was the importance and influence of money. After getting a degree from Harvard Business School, he returned to Costa Rica in 1992, this time to build a tram to take tourists into the rain-forest canopy. He had never built anything before.
When he needed a heavy-lift helicopter to move the towers for the rain-forest tram, Skelly flew to neighboring Nicaragua and looked up a friend from Harvard, a former Sandinista guerrilla with connections to the head of the country's air force, Col. Manuel Salvatierra. Skelly parked himself in Salvatierra's office for a week until he had a deal to rent a military helicopter. It delivered the towers into the rain forest and the tram got built.
Renewables on the Grid
In 2000, Skelly moved to Houston for his first job in the wind industry, developing wind farms for what became Zilkha Renewable Energy. The industry was at the tail end of a lengthy metamorphosis. It went through decades of debacles'--wind turbines that broke down constantly and solar panels that produced ridiculously expensive electrons. But wind turbines had grown larger and more durable'--and their costs were falling. The solar industry had begun an era of globalized production that was driving down costs. Renewable energy was not just for dreamers who wore sandals. It was starting to attract Wall Street capital and be taken seriously.
At the same time, the operators of the nation's regional grids were moving cautiously. They worried that a sudden drop in wind could destabilize the grid. Slowly, they grew comfortable adding more renewable energy. In 2003, there were 1.2 gigawatts of wind power on the Texas power grid, offering roughly the equivalent amount of power as one of the two units at the South Texas Project, a nuclear plant near the Gulf of Mexico.
''I remember folks saying, at that point in time, that we would have to do some things radically different if we got about 15 gigawatts,'' said Dan Woodfin, the grid's senior director of system operations. But Texas reached 15 gigawatts, or 15,000 megawatts, in 2015, and the sky didn't fall. There are now more than 22,000 megawatts of wind and nearly 2,000 megawatts of solar on the Texas grid'--and the number keeps growing.
Other grid operators had similar experiences. Nick Brown, president of the Southwest Power Pool, the grid operator for several Great Plains states, testified before Congress a couple of years ago that his organization was handling 17,000 megawatts of wind without any issues. ''I will tell you as an engineer, with training in operations and planning, if you had asked me 10 years ago if we would have been able to reliably accommodate even half of that, I would have said no. Period. End of discussion,'' he said.
In the early 2000s, as chief development officer for Zilkha Renewable, Skelly helped plan and build wind farms from New York to Washington state. Zilkha Renewable grew quickly. In 2005, it was bought by Goldman Sachs , which sold it a couple of years later to Energias de Portugal SA for $2.15 billion, a handsome profit.
It was becoming clear that there was no shortage of wind, and that it was the grid that was the barrier to the dream of alternative energy. There was plenty of wind in the Great Plains and solar in the southwestern U.S., but that's not where demand for power was located. That power needed to be moved from one part of the country to another. For Skelly, the next adventure was tackling the grid itself.
He essentially wanted to build several long extension cords. One end would be plugged into the Oklahoma panhandle; the other end would reach east until it crossed the Mississippi River. As his plan took shape, the price of wind and solar generation kept falling to the point where it cost less than power generated by conventional coal or natural gas.
Academics were starting to ask what would happen if the U.S. added lots of low-cost renewable energy and managed to move it around. One 2016 study by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's research laboratory concluded that by 2030, the U.S. could cut its carbon-dioxide emissions by 80%, using only existing technologies. And the cost of power wouldn't rise. In fact, it would be cheaper. That scenario didn't rely on some hoped-for storage breakthrough, just the construction of a network of transmission lines similar to Skelly's plans.
A different group of researchers, at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, examined whether it was even possible to run the U.S. on 30% renewable energy. (In 2016, wind and solar generated about 8% of electricity; now it's about 10.5%.) They built the largest and most sophisticated model of the U.S. electricity system on a supercomputer called Peregrine to find out. Their answer? It was both doable and wouldn't raise power prices or destabilize the grid. But to get the biggest carbon reduction and lowest generating cost, they, too, found that the U.S. needed to build a new overlay of transmission lines'--a system of moving large amounts of power from one point of the existing grid to another.
''We have put to bed the 'Is this possible?' question,'' said Aaron Bloom, who led the NREL researchers. Thirty percent was doable, they concluded. ''The question is 50% and beyond.''
Skelly figured that if he could build an Oklahoma-to-Tennessee line, the proof of concept would unlock more private investment. He co-founded Clean Line Energy Partners, secured institutional funding and set out to realize his vision.
Chickens and Eggs
He soon discovered hidden booby traps. One had been set all the way back in 1935 by a company then called Arkansas Power & Light . Back then, it found inexpensive sources of power'--waste steam from a lumber mill, for instance, or a seam of coal'--and constructed transmission lines to spread the electricity to nearby cities. As it expanded, Arkansas Power agreed to electrify the state's farming communities in exchange for a state-regulated monopoly franchise. Once secure, the company pushed for rules to ensure no one else could follow.
Skelly wanted to build a transmission line across Arkansas, but the rules required Clean Line to be a utility. However, to be a utility, it needed to own or operate power equipment. It was a Catch-22 of Arkansas Power's devising. The state had successfully dug a moat around the utility, and hadn't built a drawbridge. It was a ''chicken-and-egg paradox,'' in the words of a state regulator, one that would haunt Skelly and his colleagues for years.
Then there was the land issue. In a few places, Clean Line might need the federal government to use eminent domain to be able to build the transmission line. Some Arkansans weren't happy with that. Julie Morton, a former television weather reporter, wasn't interested in Skelly's arguments about national grids, reduced carbon emissions and low power prices. ''Arkies,'' she said, ''we're as poor as dirt, but we have land, and that is our core. When you start messing with that, you are messing with our heart and soul.'' She didn't want Skelly and Clean Line acquiring any right-of-way easements.
What started as an idea, with Skelly and a couple of others hunched over a kitchen table, soon grew into a company with dozens of employees. Skelly told them never to refer to the company as a startup. They would encounter powerful utilities and politicians in coming years, he said, and as Clean Line employees they needed to take themselves seriously.
The company made good progress. Clean Line gathered state approvals and prepared to file for a federal blessing. Fifteen wind developers expressed interest in building in the Oklahoma panhandle to deliver power on the proposed extension cord. Skelly approached the Tennessee Valley Authority, a federal power agency. In 2009, he told them he could deliver electricity at $70 a megawatt-hour. By 2014, wind technology had improved so quickly that he was talking to the TVA about $40. His offer price would soon be significantly cut again, to below what the TVA paid for coal power.
Skelly was regularly visiting TVA's headquarters and received a warm reception from the TVA head. Negotiations seemed to be going well. But the TVA was getting a decidedly different message from Tennessee Sen. Lamar Alexander, a Republican who had a longstanding dislike for wind turbines. He had bought a vacation property on Nantucket Island, off the Massachusetts coast, in 2001. The week he closed on the property, news broke about Cape Wind, a plan to build 170 wind turbines in the middle of Nantucket Sound. A year later, after being elected to the U.S. Senate, he introduced a bill that would make life difficult for offshore wind developers. Over the next few years, he kept up his campaign against them. ''The windmills we are talking about today are not our grandmother's windmills,'' he warned. Sen. Alexander would make sure that Skelly and Clean Line didn't have it easy.
But as the months passed, Skelly and Clean Line made huge progress. The audacious plan to build the largest renewable-energy project in North America, and deliver it power-hungry customers in the southeast, was coming together.
The Week From Hell
Then, in February 2015, Arkansas's two Republican senators mounted an attack, initiating what came to be known around the Clean Line offices as ''the week from hell.''
Sens. John Boozman and Tom Cotton introduced a bill designed to make it impossible for Skelly to build a single transmission line. The senators said that while decisions of eminent domain were sometimes unavoidable when building power lines, they should be in the hands of local officials, not Washington bureaucrats. Sen. Boozman said he was hearing from constituents opposed to the line and wanted to give state officials a veto over it. ''We felt like it was important that they had a say in it,'' he said.
Skelly was trying to connect different grids and share power in a way that created stability and enabled clean, inexpensive power to flow across state lines. But while he was envisioning an interstate, the senators wanted to allow every state to put up roadblocks. Their legislation would require the federal government to get approval from the governor or public-service commission of each affected state before it could use eminent domain to build a transmission line with a private company.
A few days later, the Arkansas senators' proposed bill scared off a needed Clean Line investor. A couple of managers at New York private fund Global Infrastructure Partners called Skelly. ''They said to put the pencils down. We are done. This isn't going to work out,'' Skelly said. ''Investors hate regulatory risk. And we served up a plateful that week.''
Back in 1954, when President Eisenhower laid out his interstate plan in Detroit's Cadillac Square, he took off his hat and waved it. ''We are pushing ahead with a great road program,'' he told the crowd, ''a road program that will take this nation out of its antiquated shackles of secondary roads all over this country and give us the types of highways that we need.'' Within a few years, cars and trucks zipped without stop from state to state.
For Michael Skelly, it wouldn't quite turn out that way. He wasn't the president; he just had a big, bold idea. It was the type of infrastructure project that the U.S. struggles with, even when privately financed. Along the way, he found that the obstacles to a cleaner, cheaper electricity future have more to do with politics than technological limits.
With three senators speaking out against it, the project had a whiff that repelled investors. Another setback came in Missouri, where regulators blocked needed approvals to proceed with a separate transmission line there. But then a major victory in Washington: The Energy Department decided to participate in the project after years of deliberation.
Skelly expected to come to terms with landowners for at least 95% of the parcels. Eminent domain would be required for the rest. If he had been building a natural-gas pipeline, he would have finished the process in a matter of months.
He still needed the TVA to buy a portion of his wind power. Clean Line offered a 20-year deal at record-low prices. Bill Johnson, then the TVA's president, didn't show the deal to his board and said TVA's analysis showed that Clean Line didn't save the utility any money over the proposed contract. He declined to make the analysis available.
In the end, tantalizingly close to being built, Skelly's project stalled. In late 2017, Clean Line agreed to sell the Oklahoma portion of its project to Florida utility and power developer NextEra Energy. Other buyers snapped up other projects, which look likely to be built. The company Skelly had helped build would be stripped for parts like a car in a junkyard.
His vision of a supergrid of direct-current power lines zipping cheap energy around had faltered. Someone else would have to carry that project over the finish line.
In the months after the company folded, Skelly talked to various people about what he would do next. ''I am feeling a little heartbroken,'' he said.
'-- ''Superpower: One Man's Quest to Transform American Energy'' is based on more than 100 interviews and thousands of pages of documents.
Write to Russell Gold at firstname.lastname@example.org
Trump To Unleash Hell On Europe: EU Announces Channel To Circumvent SWIFT And Iran Sanctions Is Now Operational | Zero Hedge
With the world waiting for the first headlines from the Trump-Xi meeting, the most important and unexpected news of the day hit moments ago, when Europe announced that the special trade channel, Instex, that will allow European firms to avoid SWIFT and bypass American sanctions on Iran, is now operational.
Following a meeting between the countries who singed the Iran nuclear deal, also known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which was ditched by US, French, British and German officials said the trade mechanism which was proposed last summer and called Instex, is now operational.
As a reminder, last September, in order to maintain a financial relationship with Iran that can not be vetoed by the US, Europe unveiled a "Special Purpose Vehicle" to bypass SWIFT. The mechanism would facilitate transactions between European and Iranian companies, while preventing the US from vetoing the transactions and pursuing punitive measures on those companies and states that defied Trump. The payment balancing system will allow companies in Europe to buy Iranian goods, and vice-versa, without actual money-transfers between European and Iranian banks.
The statement came after the remaining signatures of JCPOA gathered in Vienna for a meeting that Iranian ministry spokesman Abbas Mousavi called "the last chance for the remaining parties...to gather and see how they can meet their commitments towards Iran."
European and Iranian officials attend a meeting of the JCPOA Joint Commission in Vienna, Austria, June 28, 2019 Until today, Tehran was skeptical about EU's commitment to the deal and threatened to exceed the maximum amount of enriched uranium allowed it by the deal after US had imposed a series of sanctions on the country.
Meanwhile, opponents of Instex - almost exclusively the US - have argued that the mechanism is flawed because the Iranian institution designated to work with Instex, the Special Trade and Finance Instrument, has shareholders with links to entities already facing sanctions from the U.S.
The announcement sent oil sharply lower, with crude futures falling about $1/bbl in closing minutes before settlement, extending daily loss, as it means Iran now has a fully functioning pathway to receive payment for oil it exports to anyone it chooses.
The announcement will likely send president Trump off the rails, because in late May Bloomberg reported that as part of Trump's escalating battle with "European allies" over the fate of the Iran nuclear accord, he was "threatening penalties against the financial body created by Germany, the U.K. and France to shield trade with the Islamic Republic from U.S. sanctions" including the loss of access to the US financial system.
According to Bloomberg, the Treasury Department's undersecretary for terrorism and financial intelligence, Sigal Mandelker, sent a letter on May 7 warning that Instex, the European SPV to sustain trade with Tehran, and anyone associated with it could be barred from the U.S. financial system if it goes into effect.
''I urge you to carefully consider the potential sanctions exposure of Instex,'' Mandelker wrote in an ominous letter to Instex President Per Fischer. "Engaging in activities that run afoul of U.S. sanctions can result in severe consequences, including a loss of access to the U.S. financial system."
Germany, France and the U.K. finalized the Instex system in January, allowing companies to trade with Iran without the use of U.S. dollars or American banks, allowing them to get around wide-ranging U.S. sanctions that were imposed after the Trump administration abandoned the 2015 Iran nuclear deal last year.
''This is a shot across the bow of a European political establishment committed to using Instex and its sanctions-connected Iranian counterpart to circumvent U.S. measures,'' said Mark Dubowitz, the chief executive officer of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies in Washington.
Here is a simpler summary of what just happened: this was the first official shot across the bow of the USD status as a global reserve currency, and not by America's adversaries but by its closest allies. And once those who benefit the most from the status quo openly revolt against it, the countdown to the end of the USD reserve status officially begins.
* * *
When asked to comment on the letter, the Treasury Department issued a statement saying ''entities that transact in trade with the Iranian regime through any means may expose themselves to considerable sanctions risk, and Treasury intends to aggressively enforce our authorities.''
The US ire was sparked by the realization - and alarm - that cracks are appearing in the dollar's reserve status, opponents of Instex argue - at least for public consumption purposes - that the mechanism is flawed because the Iranian institution designated to work with Instex, the Special Trade and Finance Instrument, has shareholders with links to entities already facing sanctions from the U.S.
Separately, during a visit to London on May 8, Mike Pompeo also warned that there was no need for Instex because the U.S. allows for humanitarian and medical products to get into Iran without sanction.
''When transactions move beyond that, it doesn't matter what vehicle's out there, if the transaction is sanctionable, we will evaluate it, review it, and if appropriate, levy sanctions against those that were involved in that transaction,'' Pompeo said. ''It's very straightforward.''
In conclusion, one month ago we said that "In 2018, Europe made a huge stink about not being bound by Trump's unilateral breach of the Iranian deal, and said it would continue regardless of US threats. But now that the threats have clearly escalated, and Washington has made it clear it won't take no for an answer, it will be interesting to see if Europe's resolve to take on Trump - especially in light of the trade war with China - has fizzled. "
The answer, it appears is that Europe felt unexpectedly emboldened, just hours before Trump's meeting with Xi, and that it is ready and willing to call Trump's bluff; it goes without saying, that if the US does indeed retaliate and proceed with sanctions against European banks, than the global trade war is about to turn far, far uglier.
Europe says Iran trade channel operational -statement
BRUSSELS, June 28 (Reuters) - Britain, France and Germany have a special trade channel up and running with Iran that aims to circumvent U.S. economic sanctions, the EU said in a statement.
"France, Germany and the United Kingdom informed participants that INSTEX had been made operational and available to all EU Member States and that the first transactions are being processed," the EU said in a statement, referring to the channel's formal name.
Iran has also established an entity to trade with Europe, while some more EU countries are joining INSTEX as shareholders, the statement said, following talks between the remaining signatories to the Iran nuclear deal - Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany - after the United States pulled out.
(Reporting by Robin Emmott)
Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.
Instrument in Support of Trade Exchanges - Wikipedia
The Instrument in Support of Trade Exchanges (INSTEX) is a special-purpose vehicle (SPV) established in January 2019 by France, Germany and the United Kingdom to facilitate non-dollar trade with Iran. The SPV is headquartered in Paris, France, and is headed by German national Per Fischer, who formerly served as Head of Financial Institutions at Commerzbank, between 2003 and 2014.. As of May 2019, the use of the SPV is limited to humanitarian purposes; for example, the purchase of otherwise embargoed foods or medicines.
On 11 February 2019, Russian deputy foreign minister Sergei Ryabkov said that Russia will seek to participate in INSTEX.
On June 28, 2019, the EU released a statement stating that INSTEX has been made operational and that the first transactions are being processed.
See also [ edit ] Central Bank of IranReferences [ edit ]
Boeing's 737 Max Software Outsourced to $9-an-Hour Engineers - Bloomberg
Need help? Contact us We've detected unusual activity from your computer networkTo continue, please click the box below to let us know you're not a robot.
Need Help?For inquiries related to this message please contact our support team and provide the reference ID below.
Block reference ID:
The Downside of 5G: Overwhelmed Cities, Torn-Up Streets, a Decade Until Completion - WSJ
In every major city in America where carriers are rolling out 5G, there's someone like Keith Hubbard, manager of a 16-person fiber technician team for AT&T . His job: to set up shop in a trailer in the middle of a busy street, after other teams have already dug up the street or sidewalk and laid fiber-optic cable under it. On sweltering summer days in Atlanta, where his team is based, his technicians must perform surgery on a 1¼- inch bundle of glass fibers. In a typical cable there are 864 insulated strands, splayed out like a head of hair, and each is a high-bandwidth conduit to some business, home or cell tower. Cut the wrong strand, and people lose internet access.
Thousands of engineers and planners like Mr. Hubbard, along with diggers of trenches and installers of antennas, must coordinate to link more fiber-optic cable, in more places in the U.S. than ever before. All so we can do more stuff on mobile devices.
This is the paradox of 5G, the collection of technologies behind next-generation wireless networks: They require a gargantuan quantity of wires. This is because 5G requires many more small towers, all of which must be wired to the internet. The consequences of this unavoidable reality are myriad. The 5G build-out, which could take more than a decade, could disrupt our commutes, festoon nearly every city block with antennas, limit what cities can charge for renting spots on their infrastructure to carriers on which to place their antennas, and result in an unequal distribution of access to high-speed wireless, at least at first.
Of course, it's also a bonanza for the companies that supply this fiber-optic cable. Verizon announced a $1 billion purchase of fiber from Corning Inc. in spring 2017. This amounts to 12.5 million miles of cable a year'--enough to circle the Earth 500 times'--for three years, says a Verizon spokeswoman. And that's just Verizon's biggest fiber deal.
Buying the fiber is the easy part for the carriers. ''The secret nobody likes to talk about is when you're deploying a network, the equipment'--fiber, cable'--is actually a small cost compared to the cost of digging holes,'' says Claudio Mazzali, senior vice president of technology at Corning Optical Communications, a subsidiary of Corning. That high cost also includes getting city permits, striking deals with landowners and installing the antennas themselves.
In a 2017 report, Deloitte Consulting LLP principal Dan Littmann estimated that it will take combined carrier spending of between $130 billion and $150 billion in order for most Americans'--including those in rural areas'--to have a choice of providers of high-speed broadband and 5G wireless.
The level of investment required to achieve widespread 5G has also been used, by Federal Communications Commission chief Ajit Pai and others, to argue for the necessity of a merger between Sprint and T-Mobile. (Sprint's CEO, meanwhile, has argued that the company's 5G technology and rollout is perfectly fine on its own, while T-Mobile's CEO insists the two companies will be stronger together.)
Marachel Knight, the senior vice president in charge of rolling out 5G at AT&T, says her company estimates it will take a decade to completely build out its 5G network.
The Long RolloutSome analysts and industry insiders think even a decade isn't long enough, warning that a lack of cash and local cooperation could slow 5G rollout or even stall it completely outside the richest, densest cities.
Meanwhile, local municipalities are suing the FCC to overturn rules designed to make it easier for carriers to install new, smaller cellular antennas of the sort required to make 5G happen. Some in Congress are also working on legislation that could overturn the rules, which are seen by many as favoring telecoms to the point that cities will essentially be subsidizing the 5G build-out.
The driving force behind this enormous build-out is that 5G networks don't work like previous wireless cellular networks. Where 2G, 3G and even 4G rely on large towers with powerful antennas that can cover many square miles, the shorter-range, higher-frequency radio waves used by 5G networks'--essential to their ability to deliver the 10- to 100-times faster speeds they promise'--mean that 5G networks must have small cells placed much closer together.
Typically these small cells must be placed about 800 to 1,000 feet apart, says AT&T's Ms. Knight. Small-cell antennas are typically the size of a pizza box, but can be much larger, and require both a fiber-optic connection to the internet and access to power. They go wherever there's space: on buildings, new 5G-ready telephone poles and, often, retrofitted lampposts.
In 2018, the U.S. had 349,344 cell sites, according to CTIA, a wireless industry trade organization. The organization estimates that'--to achieve full 5G coverage'--carriers will have to roll out an additional 769,000 small cells by 2026.
Battling CitiesThis rollout could mean three or four different carriers will be arriving at your street, each trying separately to dig to bury fiber. (And yes, fiber-optic cable almost always has to be buried.)
These companies acknowledge there might be less disruption if they coordinated, laying fiber at the same time, in the same trenches. But so far, that happens on an ad-hoc basis, when crews on the ground notice crews from a competing company digging on the same day, or when local'--and overtaxed'--permitting offices notice a coincidence in dig requests, say representatives from both AT&T and Verizon.
Some states and cities are enacting ''dig once'' policies'--in other words, all the fiber goes into one trench or pipe'--says Mr. Littmann. In some cases, this means that new roads must include underground conduits suitable for future fiber cable installation, so they needn't be dug up every time.
City leaders across the country complain they don't have the staff to handle all these permits, and it's hard for them to charge more to support the added strain: The FCC limited how much cities can charge companies to install small cells and dictates that they must decide whether to allow or disallow them within 60 days.
In response to these new FCC rules, the Conference of Mayors issued a statement saying the agency ''has embarked on an unprecedented federal intrusion into local (and state) government property rights that will have substantial and continuing adverse impacts.''
Gerard Lavery Lederer, an attorney representing municipalities that are attempting to overturn the new FCC rules, agrees that some communities are having a hard time keeping up with all the permits, and are prevented by state laws from charging enough to be able to afford to hire more people to handle them, even though most of the 5G build-out is only at the planning stage. ''The real onslaught has not yet begun,'' he says.
Costly DecisionsMeanwhile, the time and expense of covering an entire city mean Corning's customers are deploying in parts of cities where they can recoup their expenses fastest, says Mr. Mazzali. A Wall Street Journal analysis of where small cells are going up in New York City found companies prioritizing the wealthiest neighborhoods, threatening to widen the digital divide between those who do and do not have access to high-speed wireless internet.
''We deploy based on many things, including density of people, usage and strategic locations,'' says Mike Haberman, vice president of technology and planning at Verizon. ''Then there are other things that dictate deployments such as local rules and the ability to access locations.'' AT&T also starts with capacity needs and customer demand in deciding where to roll out 5G first, says a company spokesman.
But for a technician like Mr. Hubbard, America's next-generation ''wireless'' network is history's most expensive, elaborate and dense network of fiber-optic cables.
''We connect so many different ways underground and from each office, it's like a big spider web of different routes and different cables,'' says Mr. Hubbard.
For more WSJ Technology analysis, reviews, advice and headlines, sign up for our weekly newsletter. And don't forget to subscribe to our Instant Message podcast.
Write to Christopher Mims at email@example.com
Willamette Valley escooters make the wine taste so good.
HPV vaccine benefits 'exceed expectations,' may lead to elimination of cervical cancer
The HPV vaccine is far more effective than expected, with benefits extending beyond those who receive the vaccine, a study published Wednesday finds.
The new study, published in The Lancet, suggests that the more people who receive the vaccine, the better. That's because vaccination not only reduces rates of HPV infection and the presence of precancerous cells in the cervix in people who receive the vaccine, it also reduces rates of HPV-related diseases in people who were not vaccinated.
The findings come as a U.S. federal advisory panel recommended Wednesday that the HPV vaccine be given to both men and women up to age 26.
HPV, or human papillomavirus, is the leading cause of cervical cancer. The virus can also cause other cancers, including cancers of the penis, head and neck, as well as conditions like genital warts.
The HPV vaccine was first introduced in 2006. Since then, more than 115 countries and territories have implemented it in their vaccination programs. The World Health Organization recommends that girls ages 9 to 13 receive two doses of the vaccine.
''The impact of the HPV vaccination has actually exceeded expectations,'' said Lauri Markowitz, associate director of science for HPV at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, who worked on the study. "The trials showed that HPV vaccines are very effective, and data from the real world has confirmed that.''
Indeed, the reductions in HPV infections and precancerous cells ''are a first sign that vaccination could eventually lead to the elimination of cervical cancer as a public health problem,'' the study's lead author, M(C)lanie Drolet, an epidemiologist at Laval University in Canada, said in a statement.
The Lancet study expanded upon a 2015 meta-analysis that had looked at the real-world effects of the vaccine. The new analysis was updated to include a total of 65 studies, which spanned eight years and included more than 60 million people living in 14 countries. Each study measured either changes in the number of new HPV infections, genital warts diagnoses or cases of abnormal cells associated with cervical cancer in countries before and after they adopted routine HPV vaccination in girls. (Two countries included in the analysis, the U.S. and Australia, also recommend the vaccine for boys.)
The impact of the HPV vaccination has actually exceeded expectations.
The researchers found that, in these countries, there was a significant decrease in the prevalence of two strains of HPV that cause 70 percent of cervical cancers, HPV 16 and 18. (There are more than 100 strains of HPV, 14 of which are known to cause cancer. The HPV vaccine protects against up to 9 strains.) In addition, there was a decrease in the prevalence of precancerous cells in the cervix, which can develop into cancer.
What's more, in countries where at least half the population that was targeted for vaccination had actually received the vaccine, researchers saw evidence of herd immunity, meaning there was a decrease in the prevalence of HPV-related diseases even among those who weren't vaccinated. This is because vaccination leads to fewer HPV hosts.
These countries also saw a decrease in genital warts diagnoses among unvaccinated boys and older women. And among girls within the age groups targeted for vaccination, there were fewer diagnoses of three HPV strains that the vaccine does not specifically protect against, a phenomenon called cross-protection. Countries in which people in multiple age groups received the vaccine also saw a greater decrease in HPV-related disease.
"This paper shows that with a broader age range that's targeted, you'll find greater impact in your vaccination program,'' Markowitz told NBC News.
Lagging vaccination ratesDespite the widespread benefits of the vaccine, however, HPV vaccination rates in the U.S. are still lagging behind those of other adolescent immunizations. The U.S. was the first country to implement HPV vaccination for both genders, but the CDC has found that many parents and health care providers don't yet see a need to vaccinate boys. Parents have also expressed concerns about the vaccine and its costs, the CDC found.
According to Debbie Saslow, managing director of HPV and gynecological cancers at the American Cancer Society, the lagging rates are not entirely because parents are against vaccinating their kids; rather, the way some doctors are presenting the vaccine also plays a role.
Two required vaccinations, for tetanus and meningitis, are administered at the same time as HPV, around age 12. Saslow said HPV is usually presented as an optional third vaccine at that time, and one that patients can delay another year.
''Providers often think they're recommending all three vaccines, but they're actually making the third, the HPV vaccine, optional,'' Saslow told NBC News. ''They're just suggesting it or doctors are setting it apart from the other two in some way.''
The fact that HPV is a sexually transmitted infection could also be a hard concept for parents to come to terms with. Saslow said beliefs about sex may be a factor that deters parents from opting to have their children vaccinated against HPV.
''Despite all that, vaccination rates are continuing to grow,'' she said.
Indeed, the number of adolescents in the U.S. who received at least one dose of the HPV vaccine has increased by 5 percent each year since 2013. The CDC recommends everyone receive the first dose by age 12. Though adults up to age 45 can still be vaccinated, the vaccine may be less effective. And while the WHO does recommend that girls 9 to 13 get vaccinated against HPV, it does not yet recommend that all genders receive the vaccination. That could change in response to study results that continue to show the vaccine has substantial impact on public health.
Cancer preventionThat impact on public health is cancer prevention. Ultimately, that's the ''main goal of the HPV vaccination program," Markowitz said. "We're seeing an impact on one of the HPV outcomes that is close to a cancer outcome.'' (Because cervical cancer can take decades to develop, it's not yet possible to study the effects of the vaccine on cervical cancer rates, Drolet noted in the statement.)
In particular, the study found the HPV vaccine led to a reduction in the rates of abnormal pap smear findings. Pap smears are used to detect abnormal cells in the cervix that can sometimes develop into cancer. Five to nine years after a population was vaccinated against HPV, the researchers found a more than 50 percent reduction in cases of these pre-cancerous cells in girls 15 to 19. In vaccinated women 20 to 24, there were one-third fewer cases of these cells.
A separate study, published in April in The BMJ, found a 90 percent reduction in cases of pre-cancerous cells in young women in Scotland within the first decade of introducing the HPV vaccine.
But vaccination is only one piece of cervical cancer prevention; screening is also necessary.
Whether or not a person has received the HPV vaccine, getting cervical cells regularly tested '-- through Pap tests and HPV screening '-- is still a crucial to reducing cases of cervical cancer and early detection, said Diane Harper, senior associate director of the Michigan Institute for Clinical and Health Research. Rates of invasive cervical cancer dropped significantly in the U.S. when cancer screening was introduced in the 1940s, and there were less than half the number of cases in 2007 that there were in 1973, largely due to screening.
''Vaccination and screening together make a program,'' Harper told NBC News. ''Very few HPV cases progress into cancer, but the only way we're going to find those that do is through the screening program.''
FOLLOW NBC HEALTH ON TWITTER & FACEBOOK
Abedin Forwarded State Passwords To Yahoo Before It Was Hacked By Foreign Agents | The Daily Caller
Politics Comments January 01, 2018 9:23 PM ETHuma Abedin forwarded sensitive State Department emails, including passwords to government systems, to her personal Yahoo email account before every single Yahoo account was hacked, a Daily Caller News Foundation analysis of emails released as part of a lawsuit brought by Judicial Watch shows.
Abedin, the top aide to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, used her insecure personal email provider to conduct sensitive work. This guarantees that an account with high-level correspondence in Clinton's State Department was impacted by one or more of a series of breaches '-- at least one of which was perpetrated by a ''state-sponsored actor.''
The U.S. later charged Russian intelligence agent Igor Sushchin with hacking 500 million Yahoo email accounts. The initial hack occurred in 2014 and allowed his associates to access accounts into 2015 and 2016 by using forged cookies. Sushchin also worked for the Russian investment bank Renaissance Capital, which paid former President Bill Clinton $500,000 for a June 2010 speech in Moscow.
A separate hack in 2013 compromised three billion accounts across multiple Yahoo properties, and the culprit is still unclear. ''All Yahoo user accounts were affected by the August 2013 theft,'' the company said in a statement.
Abedin, Clinton's deputy chief of staff, regularly forwarded work emails to her personal firstname.lastname@example.org address. ''She would use these accounts if her (State) account was down or if she needed to print an email or document. Abedin further explained that it was difficult to print from the DoS system so she routinely forwarded emails to her non-DoS accounts so she could more easily print,'' an FBI report says.
Abedin sent passwords for her government laptop to her Yahoo account on Aug. 24, 2009, an email released by the State Department in September 2017 shows.
Long-time Clinton confidante Sid Blumenthal sent Clinton an email in July 2009 with the subject line: ''Important. Not for circulation. You only. Sid.'' The message began ''CONFIDENTIAL'... Re: Moscow Summit.'' Abedin forwarded the email to her Yahoo address, potentially making it visible to hackers.
The email was deemed too sensitive to release to the public and was redacted before being published pursuant to the Judicial Watch lawsuit. The released copy says ''Classified by DAS/ A/GIS, DoS on 10/30/2015 Class: Confidential.'' The unredacted portion reads: ''I have heard authoritatively from Bill Drozdiak, who is in Berlin'.... We should expect that the Germans and Russians will now cut their own separate deals on energy, regional security, etc.''
The three email accounts Abedin used were email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, and email@example.com. Though the emails released by the State Department partially redact personal email addresses, the Yahoo emails are displayed as humamabedin[redacted].
Clinton forwarded Abedin an email titled ''Ambassadors'' in March 2009 from Denis McDonough, who served as foreign policy adviser to former President Barack Obama's campaign and later as White House chief of staff. The email was heavily redacted before being released to the public.
Stuart Delery, chief of staff to the deputy attorney general, sent a draft memo titled ''PA/PLO Memo'' in May 2009, seemingly referring to two Palestinian groups. The content was withheld from the public with large letters spelling ''Page Denied.'' Abedin forwarded it to her Yahoo account.
Abedin routed sensitive information through Yahoo multiple times, such as notes on a call with the U.N. secretary-general, according to messages released under the lawsuit.
Contemporaneous news reports documented the security weaknesses of Yahoo while Abedin continued to use it. Credentials to 450,000 Yahoo accounts had been posted online, a July 2012 CNN article reported. Five days later, Abedin forwarded sensitive information to her personal Yahoo email.
Abedin received an email ''with the subject 'Re: your yahoo acct.' Abedin did not recall the email and provided that despite the content of the email she was not sure that her email account had ever been compromised,'' on Aug. 16, 2010, an FBI report says.
The FBI also asked her about sending other sensitive information to Yahoo. ''Abedin was shown an email dated October 4, 2009 with the subject 'Fwd: US interest in Pak Paper 10-04' which Abedin received from [redacted] and then forwarded to her Yahoo email account'.... At the time of the email, [redacted] worked for Richard Holbrooke who was the Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan (SRAP). Abedin was unaware of the classification of the document and stated that she did not make judgments on the classification of materials that she received,'' the report said.
The U.S. charged Sushchin with hacking half a billion Yahoo accounts in March 2017, in one of the largest cyber-breaches in history, the Associated Press reported. Sushchin was an intelligence agent with Russia's Federal Security Service '-- the successor to the KGB '-- and was also working as security director for Renaissance Capital, Russian media said.
''It is unknown to the grand jury whether [Renaissance] knew of his FSB affiliation,'' the indictment says.
Renaissance Capital paid Bill Clinton $500,000 for a speech in 2010 that was attended by Russian officials and corporate leaders. The speech received a thank-you note from Russian President Vladimir Putin. Renaissance Capital is owned by Russian oligarch Mikhail Prokhorov, who also owned the Brooklyn Nets basketball team. He unsuccessfully ran for Russian president against Putin in 2012.
Sushchin's indictment says ''the conspirators sought access to the Yahoo, Inc. email accounts of Russian journalists; Russian and U.S. government officials,'' and others. Information about the accounts such as usernames and password challenge questions and answers were stolen for 500 million accounts, the indictment says. The indictment does not mention Abedin's account.
A hacker called ''Peace'' claimed to be selling data from 200 million Yahoo users.
The user data also included people's alternate email addresses, that were often work accounts tying a Yahoo user to an organization of interest. The hackers were able to generate ''nonces'' that allowed them to read emails ''via external cookie minting'' for some accounts.
The New York Times reported that in the 2013 hack, which affected all Yahoo accounts, ''Digital thieves made off with names, birth dates, phone numbers and passwords of users that were encrypted with security that was easy to crack. The intruders also obtained the security questions and backup email addressed used to reset lost passwords '-- valuable information for someone trying to break into other accounts owned by the same user, and particularly useful to a hacker seeking to break into government computers around the world.''
Yahoo published a notification on Sept. 22, 2016, saying: ''Yahoo has confirmed that a copy of certain user account information was stolen from the company's network in late 2014 by what it believes is a state-sponsored actor.''
Clinton downplayed the risks of her email use days later, saying it was simply a matter of convenience.
''After a year-long investigation, there is no evidence that anyone hacked the server I was using and there is no evidence that anyone can point to at all, anyone who says otherwise has no basis, that any classified materials ended up in the wrong hands. I take classified materials very seriously and always have,'' Clinton said on Oct. 9, 2016, at the second presidential debate,
Abedin's use of Yahoo email is consistent with the determination by the FBI that Clinton associates' emails were, in fact, compromised. ''We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private email accounts of individuals with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her private account,'' then-FBI director Jim Comey said in 2016.
ALSO WATCH FOR MORE ON CLINTON CORRUPTION:
Follow Luke on Twitter. Send tips to firstname.lastname@example.org. PGP key.
The Daily Caller News Foundation is working hard to balance out the biased American media. For as little as $3, you can help us. Freedom of speech isn't free. Make a one-time donation to support the quality, independent journalism of TheDCNF. We're not dependent on commercial or political support and we do not accept any government funding. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact email@example.com.
Babies in Cows!
Embryo experiments take 'baby steps' toward growing human organs in livestock | Science | AAAS
Successful rodent chimera experiments, such as this mouse embryo harboring rat heart cells (red), have been hard to re-create with human cells.
BELMONTE LAB, SALK INSTITUTE FOR BIOLOGICAL STUDIES By Kelly ServickJun. 26, 2019 , 11:50 AM
The perpetual shortage of human organs for transplant has researchers turning to farm animals. Several biotech companies are genetically engineering pigs to make their organs more compatible with the human body. But some scientists are pursuing a different solution: growing fully human organs in pigs, sheep, or other animals, which could then be harvested for transplants.
The idea is biologically daunting and ethically fraught. But a few teams are chipping away at a key roadblock: getting stem cells of one species to thrive in the embryo of another. Last month, a U.S. group reported in a preprint that it had grown chimpanzee stem cells in monkey embryos. And newly loosened regulations in Japan have encouraged researchers to seek approval for experiments to boost the survival of human cells in the developing embryos of rodents and pigs. Insoo Hyun, a bioethicist at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio, says the work is being done responsibly. Efforts such as the new chimp-monkey chimeras represent "baby steps forward, gathering data as you go," he says. "And I think that's a wise approach."
Ultimately, the researchers envision reprogramming a person's cells to a primitive developmental state that can form most any tissue and injecting these induced pluripotent stem (IPS) cells into another species's embryo. The embryo would be implanted in the uterus of a surrogate, and allowed to grow to full size to serve as an organ donor. The IPS cells could come from the person awaiting transplant or, in a potentially faster and less costly approach, human organs could be grown in advance from cells from other donors, matched for key immune signaling proteins to prevent rejection.
So far, the feat has been modeled only in rodents. In 2010, stem cell biologist Hiromitsu Nakauchi and his team at the University of Tokyo reported growing rat pancreases in mice that couldn't form pancreases of their own. In 2017, Nakauchi and colleagues treated diabetes in mice by giving them transplants of insulin-producing mouse pancreas tissue grown in a rat.
But the success in rodents hasn't held up between larger and more evolutionarily distant animals. In 2017, cell biologist Jun Wu and colleagues in Juan Carlos Izpisua Belmonte's lab at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in San Diego, California, reported that when they injected pig embryos with human IPS cells and implanted the embryos into sows, about half of the resulting fetuses were stunted and slow growing. Those that were normal size had very few human cells after a month of gestation.
Wu, who is now at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, has since explored how human stem cells interact in a lab dish with stem cells from nonhuman primates, rats, mice, sheep, and cows. He's found what he calls "a very exciting phenomenon: a competition between cells of different species." Pitted against cells of distantly related animals, human cells tend to die off, and the team is now trying to understand the mechanism. "I think we are almost there," Wu says.
But competition isn't the only problem. Primate IPS cells are also more developmentally advanced, or "primed," than the "na¯ve" rodent stem cells used in the earlier successful chimera experiments. They are therefore less likely to survive in a chimeric embryo, says Nakauchi, who also has a lab at Stanford University in Palo Alto, California. To help primate IPS cells thrive, his Stanford team and collaborators endowed them with a gene that prevents cell death. In the experiments reported last month, they tested how the modified cells would fare in the embryo of a closely related primate species.
To avoid raising ethical concerns, the team decided not to use human IPS cells. If a nonhuman primate embryo with added human cells were allowed to develop in a surrogate and many human cells survived and proliferated, the result would be an unprecedented primate chimera. "People are concerned that the boundary between humans and animals could become blurred," says Misao Fujita, a bioethicist at Kyoto University in Japan who recently conducted a survey of attitudes toward animal-human chimeras in the Japanese public. Respondents were particularly worried that such animals could have enhanced intelligence or carry human sperm and egg cells.
Nakauchi's team instead modified IPS cells from the closest human relative, the chimpanzee, and put them into rhesus macaque embryos. They found that, compared with unmodified chimpanzee IPS cells, the cells with the survival-promoting gene were more likely to persist in the 2 days after they were inserted into a 5-day-old monkey embryo. It's hard to keep a monkey embryo alive in a dish for much longer than a week, Nakauchi says, but his team plans to grow its chimeras further by implanting them into the uteruses of female macaques "in the near future."
Nakauchi also has submitted proposals to a government committee in Japan to put the survival-promoting gene into human stem cells and inject them into mouse, rat, and pig embryos'--but not nonhuman primates'--that lack a gene critical to pancreas development. The researchers hope that, as in the earlier rodent experiments, the human cells will begin to form the missing pancreas. His team would implant the embryos in surrogate animals but remove them for study before they reach full term. The proposals are an initial test for new legal guidelines in Japan, which in March lifted an outright ban on culturing human-animal chimeras past 14 days or putting them into a uterus.
Other groups are honing different recipes for chimera-friendly stem cells. In January, a team from Yale University and the Axion Research Foundation in Hamden, Connecticut, described culturing monkey IPS cells with chemicals that prompted gene expression patterns like those of mouse embryonic stem cells, which are more likely to survive in a chimera. In April, Yale University stem cell biologist Alejandro De Los Angeles reported that the technique prompted similar gene expression changes in human IPS cells. He's now considering testing how these cells hold up in a mouse or other nonhuman embryo.
Such work faces hurdles in the United States. There is no outright ban, but in 2015 the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) in Bethesda, Maryland, froze its review of grant applications for research that involves putting human pluripotent stem cells'--whether IPS cells or cells from human embryos'--into early embryos of nonhuman vertebrates. After protest from some researchers, the agency in 2016 proposed lifting the broad prohibition while keeping a funding ban on specific chimera experiments, including inserting human stem cells into early nonhuman primate embryos and breeding chimeric animals that may have human egg or sperm cells. The proposal is "still under consideration," according to an NIH spokesperson.
The moratorium "has had a very significant impact on the progress of this field," says Pablo Ross, a reproductive biologist at the University of California, Davis, who does chimera research. "Some of the concerns that are raised are to be taken seriously, but I think we have the tools to do that, and [these concerns] shouldn't prevent us from pursuing this goal."
Because of the slow pace of chimera research, even some of its proponents predict that xenotransplantation'--the use of nonhuman tissue, such as modified pig organs, for transplants'--will beat their approach to the clinic. "Xenotransplantation is close to prime time now," Wu says, and "we are lagging behind." But the possibility of creating organs that are a better match for their human recipients keeps his lab and others poring over stem cells and embryos, hoping to narrow the species divide.
VIDEO - 500,000 SONGS DESTROYED | What UMG Doesn't Want You To Know - YouTube
The Dalai Lama has suggested that any female that succeeds him as Buddhist leader must be attractive, despite receiving backlash for similar comments he made in 2015.
In the wide-ranging interview with the BBC, the guru made a series of additional controversial remarks touching on migration in Europe, the Chinese government and the first two years of President Donald Trump's term.
One of the more troubling comments came while discussing an interview in 2015, in which he stated that if a female was to become the next Dalai Lama, she would have to be "very attractive, otherwise not much use."
The BBC's South Asia correspondent Rajini Vaidyanathan asked the Dalai Lama if he understood why the response had offended women. But rather than apologize, the Buddhist leader replied: "If [a] female Dalai Lama comes then she should be more attractive."
He added, "If [a] female Dalai Lama," then paused and pulled an unattractive face, before continuing, "I think, [people would] prefer not [to] see her, that face."
Challenged that a person's character is more important than their physical appearance, he replied, "Yes, I think both." The Dalai Lama also told the BBC that gender equality was important and that he supported women's rights and equal pay in the workplace.
The Dalai Lama also took the opportunity to hit out at President Donald Trump, lamenting his lack of moral principle and calling on the U.S. to take global responsibility.
The Dalai Lama remains a significant thorn in the side of the Chinese government in Beijing. Living in exile in northern India, he remains a potent symbol of anti-authoritarian resistance and the Tibetan independence movement. China has controlled the region since 1951.
Though he has enjoyed good relationships with past presidents including Barack Obama and George W. Bush, the Dalai Lama has never met nor spoken by phone with Trump. The president's disregard for one of the world's most famous spiritual leaders is evidence of China's growing diplomatic clout.
Though the Dalai Lama said he had "no worries" about a Trump presidency following his election victory in 2016, his opinion of the 45th president has clearly soured in the years since.
He described Trump as having a "lack of moral principle" and stated that the president's "America first" ideology is "wrong." Instead, he argued, America "should take the global responsibility" rather than close its borders and bow out of international agreements like the Paris climate accord.
The Dalai Lama'--himself a refugee'--also doubled down on controversial comments he has made about mass migration to European nations. He has previously argued that while Europe should accept migrants and refugees, it should do so with the goal of educating and training new arrivals with a view to returning them to their countries of origin to promote development there.
He stood by his previous assertion that Europe is for Europeans, though once again said nations should take in migrants in need. Asked whether people should be allowed to stay if they wish to, the Dalai Lama said a "limited number is OK."
"But [for the] whole [of] Europe [to] eventually become [a] Muslim country? Impossible. Or [an] African country, also impossible," he added while laughing.
Tibetan spiritual leader the Dalai Lama is pictured at a book launch in Mcleod Ganj on March 20, 2019 in Dharamshala, India. Pallava Bagla/Corbis/Getty
VIDEO - New sun-driven cooling period of Earth 'not far off' - YouTube
Comedian and talk show host Bill Maher is unorthodox on the left, although he is on the left, and sometimes that results moments of clarity that make his fellow Democrats livid and draw scattered cheers from non-Democrats. It happened last week on the topic of "concentration camps," and it happened on Friday night's show when he brought up 2020 candidate Julian Castro during his monologue for HBO's "Real Time".
In it, he challenged more than one sacred cow on the left, including abortion and transgender identity. That's on top of the mere heresy of challenging one of the few, proud, 2400 Democrats running to defeat Trump next year.
During the Democrat primary debate this week, Castro absurdly said that he supports federal funding for transgender women to have abortions..
"Now if only they had a uterus," said Maher.
"Julin Castro won the 'Woke Olympics' on the first night when he said, 'Trans females should have the right to an abortion.' I agree. Now if only they had a uterus," said Maher, with the crowd laughing along.
"Try selling that in the red states," he said. In a mocking tone he outlined the position, "'If a man identifies as a woman, then we stand with her right not only to imagine that she's pregnant, but to terminate that pregnancy, which is not possible.'"
It may seem obvious to say the pregnancy would be imaginary, but that deference to reality is almost always taken and treated as an attack on transgender issues, where immutable physical and biological truths are not only ignored, but considered hate speech.
On Thursday, Castro clarified in a tweet that while he said "trans female" he actually meant to say "trans men, trans masculine, and non-binary folks" that need federally funded abortions. That type of error, too, is normally treated as hate speech by the militant LGBTQ activist community. The "Twitter mob", as Maher so accurately characterized them.
"They were going nuts that first night," said Maher in his monologue. "They were trying to out-Spanish each other."
He had some great jokes about almost all of the candidates, all of whom richly deserved them after the spectacle Americans witnessed on Wednesday and Thursday.
VIDEO - Democrat Debate Night Recap 2020 Election - YouTube
VIDEO - ðºð¸ Miguelifornia on Twitter: ""We had a very good meeting with China. I would say probably even better than expected. The negotiations are continuing" @realDonaldTrump #QAnon #G20 PRESS CONF at 11:30pm PST'... https://t.co/cwaLvk6ziA"
Reddit is expanding its operation in New York City with increased ad sales teams and additional engineers, the company announced Tuesday.
''We need a hub in New York where our agency partners are and where a lot of leading marketers are,'' Jen Wong, Reddit's Chief Operating Officer, told Cheddar in an interview Wednesday.
The online aggregator and discussion platform also announced this week the hiring of Mary Ann Belliveau as the new senior director of brand partnerships to lead the East Coast sales operations. Belliveau is a major hire for Reddit and brings decades of digital marketing experience from her time at Twitter and Google.
''People are consumers, everybody needs something,'' Belliveau told Cheddar, adding that Reddit is a particularly interesting platform to introduce branded content on because of its often very specific subreddit communities. ''We want an ads platform that is effective for marketers, that finds the right target audience for them."
Reddit, which was founded in 2005, has grown to serve over 330 million monthly active users in nearly 150,000 active communities. The San Francisco based platform saw more than 153 million posts and over 1.2 billion comments in 2018. The site also recorded over 27 billion votes, which is what determines a post's placing within a subreddit '-- the more up-votes a post receives, the higher it is on the page.
''We have a balance between humans and involving users and empowering them to access their ideas as well as giving them tools and technology,'' Wong said.
In improving the site's technology, Reddit is also implementing machine learning software to its ads strategies and consumer experience.
''Machine learning for ads optimization is a new frontier for Reddit, and we're growing the NYC engineering team to take advantage of the deep pool of talent NYC has to offer,'' Shariq Rizvi, Reddit's vice president of ads product and engineering, said in a statement.
Wong added the technology will also help the site's moderators block hateful and harmful content '-- which has long been a controversial aspect of nefarious subreddit groups.
For full interview click here.
VIDEO - CNN on Twitter: ""Did you call them concentration camps...when Obama was President?" @jaketapper asks @AOC, pressing her on the distinction between the colloquial and academic definitions of the term. "I'm here to speak truth to power... I frank
During an exclusive network interview with California Senator Kamala Harris on Friday, CBS This Morning co-host and Democratic donor Gayle King couldn't help sounding like an adoring fan as she gushed over the liberal lawmaker's debate performance. The anchor wondered how Harris would ''capitalize on that momentum.''
''Your performance last night is certainly what people are talking about this morning. I'm hearing words like, 'A star is born'... 'She is fervent but deploys her anger precisely like a flashlight,''' King proclaimed while touting rave reviews of Harris taking on former Vice President Joe Biden during the debate over the issues of segregation and busing. King continued: ''Voters in Iowa and New Hampshire are telling CBS News today that you had a strong performance. How do you intend to capitalize on that momentum?''
Referring to a picture of Harris as a child attending an integrated school in California for the first time, King excitedly touted apparel being sold on Harris's campaign website: ''Clearly the t-shirts is one way, I understand that those are already on sale.'' Apparently the Senator didn't spend as much time shopping on her website as King: ''Oh, I don't know about the t-shirts. I know we've got a little '' visit KamalaHarris.org '' I know we have a shot.''
Other softballs were lobbed to Harris earlier in the exchange from King's co-hosts. Anthony Mason began with: ''You said last night you do not believe Joe Biden is a racist, but do you think that his remarks about segregationist senators and his past policy on bussing effectively disqualify him as a candidate?''
Moments later, Tony Dokoupil provided this open-ended opportunity for her to respond:
Senator Harris, your campaign clearly had an idea that this topic might come up. They had a picture ready, they sent out a tweet. From your perspective, I'm curious to know, what do you hope voters who may have been hearing about you for the first time and hearing from you for the first time, what should voters take away from that exchange with Joe Biden?
King slightly challenged Harris when she noted: ''Senator Harris, we just heard Ed O'Keefe say you're being accused of delivering a low blow last night. What do you say to that?'' The Democrat predictably replied: ''You know, Gayle, it was about just speaking truth.''
The toughest question came from Dokoupil late in the nearly seven-minute segment when he tried to nail down Harris's position on health care:
DOKOUPIL: Senator, another defining moment in the debate was when every candidate was asked to raise their hand if they would abolish private insurance. In that moment you raised your hand, but afterwards, your campaign says actually that's not your position. So what is your position on private insurance?
HARRIS: So the question was would you be willing to give up your private insurance for such a plan.
DOKOUPIL: That's not how it what was asked. That's what you heard, right?
HARRIS: That's certainly what I heard. And in terms of '' I am in support of Medicare-for-all.
Clearly King has found a new 2020 contender to root for after initially urging her pal Oprah Winfrey to jump in the race.
Here is a transcript of the questions to Harris during the June 28 interview:
7:07 AM ET
ANTHONY MASON: And we continue the conversation this morning with Senator Harris. She's with us from Miami in her only network TV interview after the debate. Senator, good morning.
SEN. KAMALA HARRIS [D-CA]: Good morning.
MASON: Let me start, you said last night you do not believe Joe Biden is a racist, but do you think that his remarks about segregationist senators and his past policy on bussing effectively disqualify him as a candidate?
TONY DOKOUPIL: Senator Harris, your campaign clearly had an idea that this topic might come up. They had a picture ready, they sent out a tweet. From your perspective, I'm curious to know, what do you hope voters who may have been hearing about you for the first time and hearing from you for the first time, what should voters take away from that exchange with Joe Biden?
GAYLE KING: Senator Harris, we just heard Ed O'Keefe say you're being accused of delivering a low blow last night. What do you say to that?
HARRIS: You know, Gayle, it was about just speaking truth.
KING: Your performance last night is certainly what people are talking about this morning. I'm hearing words like, ''A star is born,'' ''She is fervent '' she is fervent but deploys her anger precisely like a flashlight.'' Voters in Iowa and New Hampshire are telling CBS News today that you had a strong performance. How do you intend to capitalize on that momentum? Clearly the t-shirts is one way, I understand that those are already on sale.
HARRIS: Oh, I don't know about the t-shirts. I know we've got a little '' visit KamalaHarris.org '' I know we have a shot.
MASON: Senator, Vice President Biden didn't see a change in his polling numbers after his remarks about segregationist senators, even among black voters for that matter, why do you think that is?
DOKOUPIL: Senator, another defining moment in the debate was when every candidate was asked to raise their hand if they would abolish private insurance. In that moment you raised your hand, but afterwards, your campaign says actually that's not your position. So what is your position on private insurance?
HARRIS: So the question was would you be willing to give up your private insurance for such a plan.
DOKOUPIL: That's not how it what was asked. That's what you heard, right?
HARRIS: That's certainly what I heard. And in terms of '' I am in support of Medicare-for-all.
KING: Alright, Senator Harris, we're gonna have to leave it there.
HARRIS: And I'll just add, 91% of the doctors in America today are in Medicare, so you won't lose your doctor.
KING: Alright, Senator Harris. You've had the last word, we thank you very much. I'm sure we'll talk with you a little bit later on as this campaign continues.
HARRIS: I appreciate it, thank you.
KING: Thank you for joining us this morning.
HARRIS: Absolutely, thank you guys. Have a good day.
KING: You too.
VIDEO - Yobel Muchang on Twitter: "@AndrewYang mentions quite literally having his mic turned off, excluding him from the debate airtime..ð¤...ð>>''¸ð¤¬Clipped from @williamlegate stream post-debate. #LetYangSpeak #YangGang #AndrewYang #DemDebate2