This on Roland Martin’s NewsOne show, and especially the piece here by Sports Commentato Dale Hansen is really powerful…
This on Roland Martin’s NewsOne show, and especially the piece here by Sports Commentato Dale Hansen is really powerful…
Funding for Richard Spencer, David Duke and other white-racist hate groups has traditionally been scarce. Your typical white-wing racist is no Rocket Scientist. The Internet provides the alt-right not only the opportunity to spread their message – but through advertising add-ons to make money with each click. Pull up a racist video, and get an Amazon ad in the margins. For each view the advertiser pays Google, who pays the bigots. Google and companies like Facebook have long ignored the content and environment of their streams, allowing hate groups and trolls to fester while taking a position that it is someone else’s fault.
Looks like Google is trying that again.
Perhaps one of the reasons Google has little sensitivity to the issue, is hey hire so few minorities?
Google has been thrown onto the back foot by a mass withdrawal of advertising from YouTube, triggered by concerns about extremist content.
Having apparently failed to realise until now that their ads have been showing up next to hate speech and homophobia, corporations and media agencies have said they plan to pull their entire ad spend from the Google-owned company.
One of the latest to do so is the UK arm of France’s Havas, one of the world’s largest ad agencies, whose clients include Domino’s, Emirates and the BBC. It has pulled all its UK advertising – currently worth around £175 million ($217 million) a year: “@Havas_MGUK has made decision to protect brands it represents in absence of reassurance or change of policy from YT,” tweets CEO and country manager Paul Frampton Calero.
Corporations including the BBC and the Guardian have also pulled their ads, along with L’Oreal, Honda and major supermarket chain Sainsbury’s; and GroupM, part of ad giant WPP, has hinted it could follow suit.
The row really began with a report from The Times that revealed that extremist YouTube videos from the likes of American white nationalist David Duke and Holocaust-denying fundamentalist pastor Steven Anderson were carrying mainstream ads.
The ads are placed by the company’s DoubleClick Ad Exchange Service, AdX, which uses programmatic trading to allocate ads automatically. These ads have been making money for the extremists – around £6 per 1,000 pageviews – as well as for Google itself.
As the row rumbled on, the company was called for talks at the UK Cabinet Office this afternoon, with Home Affairs Select Committee chairwoman Yvette Cooper describing its activities as ‘extremely troubling’.
“It is inexplicable to us that Google can move very fast to remove material from YouTube when it is found to be copyrighted, but that the same prompt action is not taken when the material involves proscribed organisations and hateful and illegal content,” she wrote in a letter to the company.
“The Committee expects to hear from you on how you are using some of YouTube’s very significant revenue to put this problem right by devoting sufficient resources to ensure that vile and illegal material is removed proactively from your platforms, and that neither you nor those that create these videos profit from hatred.”
The government has now pulled all advertising, including military recruitment and blood donation campaigns – and demanded to know whether Google will give it a refund.
“It is totally unacceptable that taxpayer-funded advertising has appeared next to inappropriate internet content – and that message was conveyed very clearly to Google,” a government spokesperson tells Forbes.
“The Cabinet Office has told Google it expects to see a plan and a timetable for work to improve protection of government adverts to ensure this doesn’t happen again. YouTube advertising remains on hold while that work is carried out.”
And, says the spokesperson, Google will be called back next week for a follow-up meeting at which it will be expected to promise further action.
Google is, well, practically grovelling.
“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,” says UK managing director Ronan Harris in a statement.
“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.”
He adds that the company is now reviewing its policies and plans to make changes.
However, the cynic might note that these changes will, he says, ‘give brands more control over where their ads appear across YouTube and the Google Display Network’. In other words, they will put the ball in the advertisers’ court.
Next time this sort of thing happens – and it will – Google will be able to pass on at least some of the blame.
The SS Limbaugh appears to be going in the same direction as the SS Glenn Beck…
A Do run..run…run…
I mean – is there a virus going around that affects right wing talking heads and politicians?
On the politico side – Michelle Bachmann, then Rick Perry, then the King of Beckistan – Herman Cain.
On the talking head side – Glenn Beck, recently followed by the timely demise of Andrew Brietbart, and now Rush Limbaugh.
One has to wonder when they are going to announce Ann Coulter has Prostate cancer.
Advertisers are rushing to the exits of Rush Limbaugh’s radio show after customers inundated the Internet with outrage over the conservative commentator’s widely criticized “slut” comments about Sandra Fluke.
Online media giant AOL and tax attorney group Tax Resolution Services announced today that they were pulling their commercials from Limbaugh’s program, bringing the total number of companies withdrawing their ads to nine.
“At AOL one of our core values is that we act with integrity,” the company said Monday on its Facebook page. “We have monitored the unfolding events and have determined that Mr. Limbaugh’s comments are not in line with our values.”
Limbaugh dubbed Georgetown University law school student Sandra Fluke a “slut” and a “prostitute” for testifying before a congressional committee that birth control should be covered under employee health insurance plans.
Limbaugh has been widely criticized by many Democrats and women’s rights groups, but the Republican response has been measurably more muted. The GOP presidential candidates have stopped short of all-out condemning Limbaugh’s statements. And the pro-Newt Gingrich Super Pac Winning Our Future is running a national radio ad during Limbaugh show.
The Super Pac’s spokesman Rick Tyler said the group had no intention of pulling its pro-Gingrich ads from Limbaugh’s show.
Gingrich has steered clear of criticizing Limbaugh, instead re-ocusing the issue on President Obama, whom he says “opportunistically” interjected himself into the issue by calling Fluke on Friday.
Lear Capital, a gold and silver investment firm, and LifeLock, an identity theft protection service, are both sticking with Limbaugh. LifeLock posted Saturday on Facebook that Limbaugh’s comments “in no way reflect the opinions of LifeLock” but did not say it was considering pulling their ads.
Lear Capital posted on its Facebook page that the company was “evaluating our advertising relationship” with Limbaugh and was “very concerned” about Limbaugh’s comments, which it said “blurred” the lines between “free speech and unnecessary personal attacks.”
While Limbaugh apologized for his “choice of words” on Friday, some advertisers are still fleeing his show.
The web-based flower delivery company ProFlowers withdrew its ads on Sunday. Online document company Legal Zoon and document security group Carbonite pulled their ads on Saturday.
The Internet software maker Citrix, mattress companies Sleep Train and Sleep Number and mortgage lender Quicken Loans suspended their advertising on Friday, before Limbaugh’s apology.
All nine former advertisers cited a conflict of values as the reason for dropping their ads.
The newest group legislation pushed by Republicans across the state legislatures is called Personhood. It is a direct attack on Abortion, by declaring a fetus a person at the moment of conception.
The pushback against this legislation nationwide is just beginning to gain steam… But in Virginia it seems to have gone from zero to 900 MPH in just a few days…
Think maybe Gov McDonnell may be looking at the end of those future political ambitions.
A petition opposing two abortion-related bills winding through the Virginia legislature is spreading like “wildfire.” In just over 24 hours, 17,000 people have signed the measure that says the Virginia government is conducting a “war on women.”
The petition is organized by ProgressVA. Most of the signatories say they are Virginia residents and most are women, and the message they give is clear: The government is overstepping its bounds.
“This war on women has got to stop,” the petition reads. “Virginia may be the butt of jokes for late night comedians, but the bills coming out of the General Assembly this year are no laughing matter.”
Catherine from Richmond wrote next to her name: “I say to you men in the Virginia legislature – Leave our bodies alone. This is not your place; this is not your right. What you’re doing is immoral.”
The online petition through signon.org has been spreading quickly, largely through social media. (In the thirty minutes it took me to write this story, 300 additional people added their name.)
“We’re absolutely pleased and frankly a little overwhelmed,” with petition response, Anna Scholl, Executive Director of ProgressVA, said. “It’s been spreading like wildfire.”
The petition is addressed to The Virginia State Senate, Lieutenant Governor Bill Bolling and Governor Bob McDonnell as they are instrumental in the future of these bills. (McDonnell is considered a rising star in the Republican Party. He has been mentioned as a possible vice presidential candidate.)
The Virginia House of Delegates passed HB 1, also known as the “personhood” bill, this week. It defines a fertilized egg as a person, and according to the legislation, “provides that unborn children at every stage of development enjoy all the rights, privileges, and immunities available to other persons, citizens, and residents of the Commonwealth.”
Virginia would be the first state in the nation to define a fetus – and a fertilized egg – as a person. It passed the General Assembly and the Senate could take it up as early as this week, if it chooses.
The second bill petitioners object to is HB 462, which requires a woman receive a transvaginal ultrasound before an abortion. Both bodies of the legislature have passed this measure and only needs Republican Gov. McDonnell’s signature before it becomes law.
Scholl says they will continue to spread the word and hope to deliver the petitions as early as this week.
“These recent policies turn my stomach. I believe in fiscal conservatism. Stop mixing it with my personal rights,” Lisa Schroeer of Charlottesville, Virginia wrote.
Glad to see at least a few of the local organizations have the cajones to stand up instead of being bent over and used.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is under fire from some local chambers over its hard-hitting $75 million ad campaign to elect a Republican House, with dozens of groups distancing themselves from the effort and a handful even quitting the national group in protest.
“We were getting pounded. We felt here, in central Pennsylvania, that the ads they were running were not professional ads,” said David Wise, president of the Chamber of Business and Industry of Centre County, which is considering dropping its national membership. “This was not a unifying event. It was divisive.”
More than 40 local chambers issued statements during the midterms distancing themselves from the U.S. Chamber’s campaign — including nearly every major local chamber in Iowa and New Hampshire, key states for the presidential campaign.
Other chambers plan to take the extraordinary step of ending their affiliation with the U.S. Chamber.
The Greater Philadelphia Chamber of Commerce in Pennsylvania was seriously considering dropping its affiliation with the national group after its leaders reported being inundated with angry — and sometimes profanity-laced — telephone calls from people objecting to the U.S. Chamber-backed ads, according to an official familiar with the internal discussions. On Wednesday, the Philadelphia group announced that it has decided to maintain its membership.
“We recognize value in that membership, and the services that they offer,” a statement read. “However, our positions are not dictated by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.”
At the Greater Seattle Chamber of Commerce in Washington, officials hope to avoid a similar discussion about nonrenewal of its membership. “What we’d prefer to do at this point is have conversations with the U.S. Chamber representatives, so we can be more respectful of each other’s constituencies,” said George Allen, senior vice president of government relations with the Seattle Chamber.
The U.S. Chamber prides itself on a take-no-prisoners approach to power in Washington. Community-based chambers generally operate in a manner that encourages bipartisanship and consensus while shunning the edgy partisanship that became the hallmark of the national office’s 2010 political strategy.
Dealing with Airport Security can be a royal pain in the ass. The rules are confusing, sometimes seem trite and arbitrary, and the personnel could use some sensitivity training.
Case in point –
New pat-down procedures at airports have prompted a growing backlash among pilots, flight attendants, civil-liberties groups and security-weary passengers who say the touching goes too far.
In the latest escalation of the debate over the balance between security and passenger rights, privacy advocates have enlisted consumer-rights activist and four-time presidential candidate Ralph Nader, who calls the screening techniques “extremely voyeuristic and intrusive.”
The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) calls it the new reality of airport security.
The new TSA pat-down procedure is part of a general tightening of air security that includes new full-body scanners which use X-rays to see through clothing to detect suspicious objects. If a full-body machine — like those now in use at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport — shows something strange or a passenger declines to go through the machine, a TSA officer will perform a more personal search.
The examinations routinely involve the touching of breasts and genitals, invasive searches designed to find weapons and suspicious items. The searches, performed by TSA security officers of the same sex as the passenger, entail a sliding hand motion on parts of the body where a lighter touch was used before, aviation-security analysts say. The areas of the body that are being touched haven’t changed.
“It’s more than just patting you down. It’s very intrusive and very insane. I wouldn’t let anyone touch my daughter like that,” said Marc Moniz, of Poway, Calif., who is planning to accompany his daughter’s eighth-grade class from San Diego to Washington, D.C., in April. “We’re not common criminals.”
Brian Sodergren, of Ashburn, Va., who works in the health-care industry, is organizing an “opt-out” day to encourage passengers to say no to advanced imaging technology, known to industry insiders as a “virtual strip-search.” He’s planning the protest for one of the busiest travel days of the year: Nov. 24, the day before Thanksgiving.
“Many people only fly around the holidays and may not be aware of the security changes,” Sodergren said. “I think once people are made aware of what is happening, they may have reservations about the new procedures.”
An activist group has launched WeWontFly.com, a website, and says it has gotten more than 70,000 hits a day since going online just a week ago. The site asks passengers to say no to scans and pat-downs and for TSA to remove its “porno-scanners” and “gropers.”
“We’re opposed to letting TSA treat us like criminals,” said James Babb, 42, of Eagleville, Pa., who is organizing the We Won’t Fly campaign.
Polls have failed to predict tectonic shifts before – such as in 1994.
Democrats need to put an early order in for a Rose delivery, not for any Democrat having figured out how to win an election…
But to Mr Beck, Mrs. Palin and the Faux News Tea Party for losing one for the Republicans.
I tend to agree with this analyst – what the fruitcake brigade has done is to stir up some pretty deep seated anger, not only among black and Hispanic folks…
But among moderate white folks. And in the case of Moderate white folks, it isn’t the political positions of the Republican Tea Baggers that’s driving that silent anger – it’s the “in your face” way they have attacked anyone with different ideas. Payback is hell.
Here is the issue though – to seal the deal, Democrats are going to have to convince their own base they are willing to govern. No more of this mincing around begging on bended knee for that one Republican vote. The issue isn’t Afghanistan. The issue is Democrats, despite some big successes – are perceived as having pissed away their mandate. The one thing Republicans do well is the mechanics of governing. Unfortunately they combine that with a disastrous, dysfunctional political platform and belief set.
Maybe I’m wrong.
In fact, maybe I’m really, really wrong, which is the reaction I hear when I dare even to broach this notion to commentators and political strategists in both parties. So let me state it plainly: I now think the Democrats will hold the Congress—yes, the House as well as the Senate—and turn back high profile Republican challengers in California and elsewhere.
The GOP strategy of “no” worked to slow the recovery, stoke fears about fictions like death panels in the health reform bill, and persuade voters to strike out in frustration against Democrats. The trend peaked in August, a month Democrats probably wish they could abolish given the dog days they suffered then, in 2009 as well as 2010.
But with the onset of autumn, there are signs that the Republican tide is receding. Karl Rove would understand – the same dynamic was the key to George W. Bush’s narrow re-election in 2004, when the GOP base showed up to vote in numbers that defied the polling models. This time, it’s the Democratic base that’s stirring—and finally engaging—and the survey research is registering the shift. In the new NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, the Republican advantage in the ballot for Congress has declined from nine points to three. The explanation: African-Americans and Hispanics are re-entering the likely electorate.
California is a prime example. The GOP covets a comeback in the state that produced Nixon and Reagan before turning a deep navy blue after the party scapegoated immigrants and scorned Hispanics. But Democrat Jerry Brown has pulled ahead of eBay mogul Meg Whitman, who’s bid $119 million and counting for the governorship (and yes, her paid consultants are counting fast and furious). Whitman never managed to open up a real lead even when she had California’s expensive airwaves to herself; now, after immigrant-baiting during the primary, she can’t afford for the electorate to expand. Read the rest of this entry »