Hot XXX Collection
Present
Hot Girl Take Money In Hand And Cock On Mouth
⬇️
Here is " Hot Girl Take Money In Hand And Cock On Mouth " Video
⬇️
For More Videos Visit
Wednesday, January 27, 2021
Hot Girl Take Money In Hand And Cock On Mouth | Public Agent | Hot XXX Collection |
Here is " Hot Girl Take Money In Hand And Cock On Mouth " Video
Monday, January 25, 2021
Media must reject dehumanizing political language
It’s easier to marginalize or commit violence against someone if that person isn’t really human. That’s why haters deploy dehumanizing language, to make hatred seem logical and even necessary. Tutsis were called cockroaches in Rwanda in 1994; Jews called animals in Nazi Germany; and immigrants called dirty rapists and thieves in the U.S. during the last few years.
In the U.S., dehumanizing rhetoric has been fueled by political partisanship. Partisan dehumanizing rhetoric has only escalated in the wake of the January capitol attack, where some leftist media have vilified all Trump supporters as traitors, terrorists, and insurrectionists, while those on the right, particularly Fox News’ prime time hosts, continue to feed the narrative that all liberals are socialists, snowflakes, and America-haters not deserving of the freedoms inherent in ‘America The Exceptional.”
Researcher Erin Cassese writes on nbcnews.com that use of dehumanizing language is on an upswing in the U.S. ”Years ago, we noticed a rise in rhetoric characterizing a wide range of political and social groups (e.g., Muslims, immigrants) as subhuman, animals, invaders, garbage, pestilence, and monsters, among other things. Our research has shown that voters routinely rate their own party as more human than members of the opposition party, and this tendency was especially pronounced among strongly identified partisans.” (NBC News)
Further, “…Subsequent national YouGov surveys…asked partisans whether their opponents ‘lack the traits to be considered fully human - they behave like animals.’ Between 2017 and 2020, the proportion of partisans who agreed rose from around 18 percent to 35 percent.” (NBC News)
One can guess what surveys about “behaving like animals,” conducted anew after the capitol attack, might reveal.
It’s crucial now, in the wake of the capitol attack, that the press reject inflammatory, dehumanizing rhetoric, and stop conflating the actions of a few on the fringes with much larger groups. 99.9% of liberals and BLM supporters aren’t represented by the few who were violent lawbreakers last summer, just as 99.9% of Trump supporters are not violent racists who stormed the capitol.
Instead of this rhetoric, more responsible journalists, peace journalists, would report stories that can begin to bridge political divides and discuss commonalities rather than just differences. And yes, those commonalities do exist. “A growing body of research suggesting that these perceptions of difference are out of whack with people’s actual positions and beliefs. This research on “false polarization” or “meta polarization” shows conclusively that we perceive ourselves to be more polarized than we actually are… By hearing so much about our differences, we overestimate them. Eventually, our misperceptions of how polarized we are, guide how we behave. This same effect is part of the reason that conspiracy theories like QAnon take root — the more people hear them and the more people they think believe them, the more the outlandish becomes feasible.” The article cites research that shows consensus across the political spectrum on responding to Covid and about the need to address systemic racism.” (WBUR-Boston)
Better stories that emphasize our commonalities, combined with reporting that eschews inflammatory, dehumanizing language and inaccurate generalizations, would be a much-needed salve to begin the political healing process.
Friday, January 22, 2021
Farmers' Protest: Answering Frequently Asked Questions.
Even as the Central government and its acolytes in the media work overtime to sell the benefits of the three new farm laws to the Indian public, the farmers protesting on Delhi’s borders have made it clear that they will not retreat till these laws are repealed. Caught between the crossfire of misinformation and facts, the average urban Indian is somewhat confused about the merits and demerits of the farmers’ protest – which has now crossed the 50-day mark.
If there is one thing that has become increasingly obvious over the least seven weeks, it is that big-city dwellers in India live in a very different universe than their rural counterparts, and have a difficult time understanding why the farmers camped on Delhi’s borders are as determined as they are to have their way. One major reason for that is they do not know the ‘back story’ of the protests.
In order to relieve some of that confusion and shed light on the larger context of this movement, I spoke to journalist, author, and food and trade policy expert, Devinder Sharma, who has spent the last two decades campaigning for income equality for Indian farmers and asked him the five questions that invariably come up most frequently whenever the topic of the farmers’ protests comes up for discussion.
Why are farmers so unhappy with the Central government?
Many think that it is just the three new farm laws that have agitated the farming community and that is why they are at the doorsteps of New Delhi. The way I see it, though, is that this is anger that has compounded over decades and is finally finding an outlet. Three studies show how agriculture has faced huge injustice and inequality and has been deprived of its rights over the last 30 or 40 years.A study by UNCTAD shows that for 20 years, between the mid-1980s and the mid-2000s, the output price or the farm gate price of agriculture remained static across the globe. In other words, farmers’ income in the 2000s (after adjusting for inflation) remained the same as it was in the 1980s. Rich countries, of course, addressed this issue by providing direct income support and a whole lot of other privileges to the farming communities, but the developing countries could not afford it and farmers in these countries have silently suffered the consequences ever since.
Then came a study in 2008 by OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) along with a New Delhi think tank which estimated that between 2010 and 2016-17, Indian farmers lost Rs 45 lakh crores in farm incomes! What was even more extraordinary than this crisis was the lack of discussion around it. And this was for only for a handful of crops, so the total extent of the loss that the farmers have suffered must have been significantly higher. This meant a loss of about Rs. 2.64 lakh crore every year because farmers were denied their rightful income.
Yet another report by the Economic Survey in 2016 tells us that the average income of a farming family in 17 states of India, about half the country, is only Rs. 20,000 a year, or less than Rs 1,700 rupees a month. I can’t even raise a cow in that amount! I shudder to think how the farming community has been surviving in half of India.
All that to say that agriculture has been passing through a terrible crisis all these decades, and the fact that farmers have assembled at the borders of New Delhi in the dead of winter shows they have had enough. The academia, the elite, and the economists have all failed to help farmers get their rightful dues, and so now they have taken it upon themselves to fight for their survival.
With these farm laws being introduced, they fear that whatever they have left is also going to be snatched away. That is what has pushed them into this kind of protest which is an iconic one, of a kind at least I have not seen anywhere in the world.
Farmers’ representatives during the 8th round of talks with the government over the new farm laws, at Vigyan Bhawan in New Delhi, Friday, January 8, 2021. Photo: PTI
But isn’t this primarily a protest by rich Punjabi farmers?
If the Punjab farmers were so rich, then they should have been a model for the rest of the country to follow. But a study done jointly by the Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana, Punjabi University, Patiala and Guru Nanak Dev University in Amritsar — all public sector universities — showed that between 2000 and 2015, 16,600 farmers and farm workers committed suicide. Incidentally, the total debt that Punjab farm households are reeling under is Rs 1 lakh crore!
If the farmers were rich, why did they commit suicide in such large numbers? Pick up a Punjabi newspaper, and chances are that you will find one or two suicides being reported almost daily. Also, every third farmer in Punjab happens to be below the poverty line.
Let us not forget that, in this country, only 4% farmers have land holdings which are more than 10 hectares. So, what kind of rich farmers are we talking about, when only 4% farmers have more than 10 acres of land? 86% farmers in India have a landholding size of less than five acres. The remaining are what are called median or medium farmers who have a land holdings of 6 to 8 acres.
To say that this agitation is being led by the farmers who are rich just because they get minimum support price is ridiculous. In Punjab, roughly 70% of the small farmers get the benefit of minimum support price. Small farmers are those who have less than five acres. They are the ones who benefit largely from the minimum support price.
And to those who say that this is a protest instigated by opposition parties, please go and stay outside your home for one night in the dead of winter to see what it’s like. I don’t think anybody will do that even if they are paid to. Just spend one night in a trolley or tent on a road outside Delhi, and tell me if you would do that for more than a month even if you were paid to. I think it’s time to stop being so contemptuous towards the farming community. Let’s honour and respect the protesting farmers, and try to see what they need and what we can do to help.
But aren’t most farmer unions in favour of these laws?
If the majority of farmers were in favour of these laws, would the number of them on protest be this huge? In fact, it is remarkable that so many farmer unions have come together on one platform. As someone who has worked with farmers for over two decades, I know how difficult it is to get different farmer unions to see eye to eye. And yet, here you have 32 union leaders from Punjab, and many others from Haryana, Rajasthan, Western UP, and other parts of the country. It just shows that the situation is now dire enough for them to put their differences aside and come together for their survival.
As far as the “groups” who are saying that these laws are good, it’s not very difficult to hold up a visiting card saying that you represent x farmer group. We have seen it happen earlier and we are seeing that happening now. What is more important to remember, though, is that such a large section of farmers have actually come out together in strong protest.
Even if a chunk of the farming population is unhappy, isn’t it important to try and understand why they are unhappy and then try and help them, instead of trying to minimise their distress and their numbers?
What is so bad about corporates getting into agriculture?
I was being interviewed on a business channel the other day, and the host asked me, “At a time when the markets are so excited about these farm laws, why are the farmers unhappy?”
I said, “You have answered your own question. The laws are in favour of the market, so of course they are excited. And the farmers feel the laws are not in their favour, and so they are on the streets.”
The world is moving towards corporate agriculture, but contrary to what corporations would like you to think, corporate involvement in agriculture has not boosted farmers’ income. Take the United States, for example, from where we have borrowed these laws. In America, open markets and free trade in agriculture have existed for over six to seven decades, and yet farm incomes there have been in decline. In fact, in 2020, American farmers were saddled with a bankruptcy of more than $425 billion.
If the reforms were so good, why would farmers be faced with that kind of bankruptcy? Most Indians don’t know that America is also passing through a terrible agrarian crisis. In fact, the rate of suicide in rural America is about 45% higher than it is in urban America.
Over the years, small farms in the US have disappeared and only 1.5% of America’s population is now engaged in farming. And yet, the US continues to be the biggest agriculture producer in the world. (Of course when we talk of agriculture in America, we are talking about big machines, big corporates, big business and big agriculture. But when we talk about agriculture in India, we’re talking about millions of small farmers, marginal farmers.)
In America, they don’t have MSP, or APMCs. There, big retailers like Walmart do not have stock limits. They also have contract farming, and do commodity trading, and yet, despite all of that, American farmers are given a subsidy of $62,000, every year. Which begs the question — If open markets are really that efficient, why does the government pump in so much money into the agriculture sector?
The OECD countries, the richest trading bloc in the world, pump billions of dollars into agriculture every year by way of direct income support or subsidies. Europe today is giving about $100 billion of agricultural subsidies annually and roughly half of it goes as direct income support to farmers. So, what we see as ‘market efficiency’ in agriculture or agriculture export, is actually federal support that governments have been providing to the agricultural sector.
We need to be very clear that agriculture is sustainable and viable in rich and developed countries not because the markets are efficient, but because the government provides subsidy support year after year.
Representative image of the APMC mandi at Gariyaband in Chhattisgarh. Photo: Neeraj Mishra
China, incidentally, has now emerged as the biggest provider of agricultural subsidies in the world, beating even America and the European Union. The Chinese government provided $212 billion dollars worth of subsidy support to its agricultural sector in 2016. 38% of the earnings of wheat farmers actually comes from subsidies, as does about 32% of the earnings of the rice farmers. It is not the high yield that they have, but subsidies that gives farmers high income.
Then there is the issue of technology. You’ve heard it all – “When technology comes in, then productivity goes up and income goes up,” etc. Well, since the 1970s, the US had a number of small dairy farms. These dairy farms were technology-rich, and the cattle they had were high- yielding. In fact, American dairy farms were a model for us to follow. But about ten years ago, I read a shocking report in New York Times about a farmer suicide. This farmer was so distressed by the market crash in milk prices, that he first shot each of his 51 cows, and then he shot himself.
The point I’m trying to make is that distress has prevailed in America over the decades and we don’t even know about it. If you look closely at what has happened in the US, 93% of the dairy farms have closed down since the 1970s, but milk production has gone up. This is because big corporates have moved into agriculture and set up mega dairies and this has led to milk prices crashing and 93% of dairy farms closing down.
If technology and productivity were indeed the criteria for agricultural success, then I see no reason why those dairy farms would have closed. They closed down because of the market prices they were getting, which just kept declining. It came to the point that they could not even cover their costs of production, and so they just left farming.
This is a warning for us, and is only one of many examples that show how the things that are supposed to increase farmer income actually don’t. What farmers need is direct income support. In Europe, 50% of the subsidies are allocated for direct income support. The US gives $62,000 as subsidy support or an average to each farmer in a year.
I think it tells us that markets are not what are sustaining agriculture; it is primarily subsidies which sustain whatever remains in agriculture today.
So what do you see as the way forward? How can agriculture be saved and revived?
This is a critical juncture in our history and this farmers’ movement should actually make us all sit up and think about the corrections that need to be made.
First of all, like you and I need some sort of assured income, every farmer also needs to have an assured price for his produce. He needs to be sure that after the harvest, when he goes into the mandi, he will at least get that minimum price. If there can be a minimum wage for the workers, I don’t understand why there can’t be a minimum price for the farmers.
The only way I know to ensure that is MSP. In fact, that is a strength of India, because our policymakers did a remarkable thing at the time of green revolution — they introduced a minimum support price. That is something which has stood the test of the time. I also agree there are problems in the mandis, but we need to reform their structure, not shut them down. Throwing out the mandis is like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
I would suggest that the government make MSP legal for the 23 crops that it announces MSP for every year. Every year the government announces minimum support price for 23 crops but effectively buys only wheat and paddy. (To some extent, cotton and pulses too, as the need arises, but primarily wheat and paddy.) This needs to be extended to all the crops.
An analysis in The Wire showed that in October and November of 2020, in just two months, based on the government’s own portal where they give you details about how many different crops have been sold in these two months and at what the price etc. — If the farmers had gotten MSP for all crops across the board and not just for wheat and paddy, they would have gained by Rs 1900 crores in just two months! I’m sure you will agree that is not a small amount, and considering that in half the country, the average income is only Rs 20,000 a year, imagine the economic benefit the farmers would have received
80% of the gross crop area in India is covered by these 23 crops. That means a large section of the farming population is covered by a minimum support price regime if it is implemented effectively or made legal. That would be real azadi for farmers. He would know that whether he sells in Punjab or Bihar, he will be getting the same price, the minimum support price. That’s the kind of freedom that the farmers are expecting.
Corporates are saying they will now be able to give farmers a higher price for their produce! But higher price than what? The only benchmark we have is MSP. So if corporates, policymakers and economists are already willing to pay a “higher price”, then what is the problem in setting MSP as a minimum income that the farmer is assured of? The corporate sector should be standing with the farmer saying, “Yes, let’s make MSP a legal right, because we are in any case going to give them a higher price.”
But that’s not happening, which means the corporates are not being honest. They know that they will not be able to give a higher price.
Many ‘corporate activists’ who appear on the television have been saying that if the Center brings in a fourth law, which makes the minimum support price across the country legal, then the reforms would collapse and crash! — That means you are yourself admitting that you are not going to give farmers a higher price!
Secondly, delivering minimum support price poses its own set of challenges. In this country we have about 7000 APMC-regulated mandis. What we need in this country is 42,000 mandis within a five-kilometre radius. That is infrastructure we have to create, so farmers can sell their produce easily. If you have a good network of mandis laid out, then the mechanism of MSP delivery becomes easy.
In America, after all these decades of the free market, the US Department of Agriculture tells us that the share of a farmer in every food dollar is only 8 cents. This means if the consumer is spending $1 on buying food, then the farmer’s share is only 8%. This should tell us very clearly why the American farmer is in a crisis today.
Now compare that with Amul Dairy Co-operative in India. The Managing Director of Amul Dairy Cooperative has gone on record saying that when you buy Amul milk for Rs 100, Rs 70 of that goes to the farmers. The farmer’s share is 70%! So why not draw a lesson from Amul and replicate that model in vegetables, pulses, fruits, etc, to ensure that the farmers get a larger share of the profit?
Why are we ashamed of our homegrown models? Let’s learn from our own strengths and build on them. Instead of opening up agriculture for the corporates to exploit, let’s expand the cooperative network in this country. Let’s experiment and learn how to make that work for vegetables and fruits.
One last thing — our economic design has treated agriculture as a burden on society. The argument is that unless we move people out of agriculture into the urban areas, we will not have economic growth. This has to change. In just two days of lockdown, we saw 80 million people go into reverse migration both interstate and intrastate, and that tells us that, that the model of pushing people out of the urban areas, was a flawed, economic model. And I think we need to reverse that model. The possibility of making, agriculture a powerhouse of economic growth is what is required today.
Source: Farmers' Protest: Agriculture Expert Devinder Sharma Answers Frequently Asked Questions. The Wire. Jan 17, 2021 https://thewire.in/
Tuesday, January 19, 2021
The demand for minimum assured price has global implications
A minimum assured price is the determining factor.
Addressing the Oxford Real Farming Conference last week, I said that the iconic farmers’ movement in India will have tremendous global implications. If the Indian farmers succeed in making Minimum Support Price (MSP) a legal right, it will cause major disruptions in international trade with focus shifting from trade competitiveness to first ensuring that livelihoods of farmers – the primary producer – everywhere in the world become economically viable and sustainable.
At the same time, instead of leaving farmers to face the vagaries of markets, which has pushed farmers globally in a debt trap, the demand for ensuring that no trading takes place below the MSP not only provides farmers with a safety net but will gradually become an economic design for the rest of the world to emulate. Across the globe, farmers continue to suffer the consequences of keeping farm gate prices artificially low so as to keep the economic reforms viable. An economically worked out minimum assured price is what would make farming a viable proposition.
At a time when the world is increasingly looking towards ‘growth without economic growth’ the time has come to make farmers an equal partner in growth. This can only happen when a price assurance is given to farmers.
Take the case of coffee. While the global coffee market was estimated at $ 102.5 billion in 2019, growers have only received a small fraction of the price – not more than 1 per cent – of the end price a consumer pays. While coffee roasters and retailers rake in huge profits, a majority of the 12.5 million coffee growers somehow survive below the extreme poverty line of $1.90 a day. Although there are several proposals for responsible marketing initiatives, including setting up of a Global Coffee Fund, probably the best way forward would be to provide an MSP to coffee growers.
Given the fact that even the multinational giant Nestle has expressed helplessness, providing an assured price to coffee growers in an otherwise exploitative global value chain is actually what should constitute responsible marketing. This holds true for other agricultural commodities as well. The implications of the Indian farmers protest therefore are far reaching.
Writing in these columns, this writer had earlier explained how more than 90 per cent of the cocoa farmers were living in extreme poverty, receiving only $ 1.30 as the average daily income. Like the coffee growers, cocoa farmers’ share of income in the end consumer price is hardly a fraction of the enormous profits the chocolate manufacturers make. Just because these farmers are poor no one has actually bothered till recently to look at their plight, to know how markets have destroyed millions of farm livelihoods.
Coming back to the disruptions expected in international trade, and contrary to the protesting farmers demand, pressure continues to be built on India in the World Trade Organisation (WTO) to dismantle the Farm Support Programme, which means curtailing the MSP for wheat and rice to keep it within the prescribed limit of 10 per cent for product-specific support under the Aggregate Measure of Support (AMS). According to the US, India has for a number of years exceeded its 10 per cent support limit, and is actually under-reporting the extent of support. While India has contested these claims, it does explain why India is reluctant to commit on the farmers demand for extending the MSP delivery for 23 crops for which the prices are announced every year.
The US and its allies have time and again said that the MSP regime in India disrupts domestic and global prices. Strangely, while the US points to Indian support to farmers as a hurdle in global trade, the product-specific subsidies being provided by the US, Canada and European Union actually distorts trade and makes agricultural exports from the developed countries appear globally competitive. In reality, it is the huge agricultural support that these countries provide for commercially important farm commodities that lowers the international prices. As a result of which the MSP being given to wheat and paddy farmers in India looks to be higher. Let us not forget, these subsidies are in addition to the $ 246 billion of farm subsidies the OECD provided in 2018.
According to a joint paper some years back by India and China before the WTO, the three big layers -- the US, EU and Canada -- provide for 90 per cent of the product-specific support for agricultural commodities thereby grossly distorting global prices. The total farm support these countries provide – exceeding the 5 per cent AMS limit for rich countries – is to the tune of $ 160 billion. In many cases, this support is twice the total value of the crop produced (215 per cent for wool; 141 per cent for mohair by the US; and in the EU by 120 per cent for white sugar and 155 per cent for tobacco). This huge subsidy support depresses global prices.
As if this is not enough, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) comes out with another shocker. Even against these depressed international prices, the prices Indian farmers get are still 13 per cent less.
Developing country farmers therefore have in reality been silently bearing the true cost of such enormous market price distortions. The export competitiveness that we see is built on the massive subsidy support these countries provide to agriculture, year after year. The time to end these price distortions has come. Protesting farmers have now provided policy makers a direction to rethink and redesign economic policies to usher in sabka saath sabka vishwas by revisiting farm policies, to draw from inherent strengths rather than borrow failed policies from abroad.
Farmers demand for making MSP a benchmark for domestic and international trade is expected to result in severe disruptions in international trade, and will also result in betterment of a large section of country’s population. What the protesting farmers are standing for holds the key to future growth, and provides a road map for bridging the huge income disparity the world has failed to address.Farmers agitation will impact global trade. The Tribune. Jan 16, 2021
https://www.tribuneindia.com/
Thursday, January 14, 2021
Hot Blonde Got Punished For Money | Hot XXX Collection
Hot XXX Collection
Present
Hot Blonde Got Punished For Money
⬇️
Here is " Hot Blonde Got Punished For Money " Video
⬇️
For More Videos Visit
College Professor Targeting Of Students- What Can A Student Do?
By Michelle Ball, California Education Attorney for Students since 1995
〰
〰
〰
〰
Here are some potential out-of-court actions which could potentially help or protect the student:
1) Start a good and detailed timeline with actual dates, details and any proof.
2) File a grade appeal (if relevant) with the college.
3) File a grievance/complaint against the professor with the college or university for wrongful conduct if there is enough proof.
4) File a claim with the United States Department of Education Office for Civil Rights (OCR) for discrimination/retaliation OR
4a) A claim could also be filed with the University for discrimination/retaliation, but students generally only get one shot to allege discrimination via administrative processes (depending)- and have to decide who they think would address the matter more fairly- their college, or the Office for Civil Rights.
5) Elicit help from the college's student disability office (if relevant).
6) Bring witnesses if possible when speaking with the professor or university staff about the professor so they cannot allege inappropriate conduct by the student.
7) Document everything.
8) Appeal any college discipline or other negative outcome and bring up the improper conduct by the professor.
9) Encourage others to file complaints on the professor, as if no one files them, the college is not on notice of issues.
10) Try not to do anything to exacerbate the situation!
Some college professors are very used to being the most important person in the room and I think this can go to their heads. They may not be used to being challenged or even questioned, and can react negatively afterward. They also tend to be hard to challenge as grading in many areas is so subjective and they can often defend their sly lowering of grades by saying that was their opinion. As such, students need to start protecting themselves when they even slightly smell a rat as that rat can bite and negatively impact their future graduation and career.
Best,
Michelle Ball
Education Law Attorney
LAW OFFICE OF MICHELLE BALL
717 K Street, Suite 228
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: 916-444-9064
Email:help@edlaw4students.com
Fax: 916-444-1209
Website, Blog, Twitter, Youtube, Facebook
Please see my disclaimer on the bottom of my blog page. This is legal information, not legal advice and no attorney-client relationship is formed by this posting. This blog may not be reproduced without permission from the author and proper attribution of authorship. This blog may not reflect the current state of the law.
Monday, January 11, 2021
Red Headed Girl Want Donuts Cock | Hot XXX Collection |
Hot XXX Collection
Present
Red Headed Girl Want Donuts Cock
⬇️
Here is " Red Headed Girl Want Donuts Cock " Video
⬇️
For More Videos Visit
Saturday, January 9, 2021
Horny Girl Find A Guy To Fuck | Hot XXX Collection |
Hot XXX Collection
Present
Horny Girl Find A Guy To Fuck
⬇️
Here is " Horny Girl Find A Guy To Fuck " Video
⬇️
For More Videos Visit
Friday, January 8, 2021
Brother Give Cock To Step Sister Mouth While Sleeping | Hot XXX Collection |
Hot XXX Collection
Present
Brother Give Cock To Step Sister Mouth While Sleeping
⬇️
Here is " Brother Give Cock To Step Sister Mouth While Sleeping " Video
⬇️
For More Videos Visit
Thursday, January 7, 2021
Did coverage exacerbate, exaggerate unrest in DC?
Did a group of patriots descend upon America’s Bastille yesterday in an attempt to refresh our country’s liberty? Or, did terrorists storm the capitol, intent on violently overthrowing the government? Were the events of January 6, 2021 a riot? Insurrection? Were those involved a mob, or merely protesters? Was this a coup?
If yesterday demonstrated anything in terms of media, it underscored the importance of the words we use and the way we frame our stories. Carelessly chosen words can add fuel to the fire, misinform the public, and deepen partisan divides.
Just last summer, we asked similar questions about how the media were portraying Black Lives Matter (BLM) protests. On this blog site, I praised responsible coverage that highlighted the peaceful 99% of the protesters with headlines like “US at precipice as demonstrations intensify” and “Area protests against police brutality continue for third day” while ripping publications that sensationally highlighted only the violence by stating “Looters rampage across region” or “They Want Ruin.” I also wrote about how Fox News’ “deliberately distorted and demonstrably false narratives have created an atmosphere of irrational fear, a fertile ground into which seeds of disinformation have been planted on social media” (http://stevenyoungblood.blogspot.com/2020/06/).
Did the media learn any lessons from its BLM reporting? Did they accurately portray yesterday’s events in a way that did not exacerbate the situation, and in a manner consistent with peace journalism?
I was disturbed by the generalizations made by many media. Certainly, some pro-Trump protesters did engage in a riot, defined in the Associated Press (AP) Stylebook as “a wild or violent disturbance of the peace involving a group of people. The term riot suggests uncontrolled chaos and pandemonium.” But others did not disturb the peace or break the law, just like, in the BLM protests, some were peaceable, and others were not. I prefer the term “unrest,” which the AP calls “vaguer, milder and less emotional term.” (From Twitter: @APstylebook Sept. 30, 2020)
In a Tweet, KQED (NPR-San Francisco) advised its staff to call the protesters "insurrectionists" or "pro-Trump extremists." While "insurrectionists" is better than "rioters," it still generalizes. I prefer the latter, since it correctly implies that not all Trump supporters are extremists.
I’m also concerned about the liberal use of the terms “coup” (“a sudden, violent, and illegal seizure of power from a government”) and “insurrection” (“a violent uprising against an authority or government”). I believe “coup” is technically incorrect, since power was never seized from the government. Government disruption is not seizure.
The San Francisco Chronicle’s front page today was headlined simply, “Insurrection,” while the Portland Oregonian’s said, “Unprecedented Insurrection.” “Insurrection” does more accurately describe yesterday’s events, but to my ear is needlessly judgmental regarding the intent of all of the protesters. Some planned violence; others didn't.
If we don’t call it a coup or insurrection, what was it? It was a futile, desperate attempt by the misinformed and misled to have their voices heard. It was a protest that became violent. Using “coup” and “insurrection” sensationalized and exaggerated the day’s events. If there was a legitimate, reasonable danger of the United States government being overthrown, then maybe these words apply. But was that really the case yesterday?
In my book “Peace Journalism Principles and Practices,” I present seven principles on how to more responsibly report civic unrest. These are shown below, with my capitol unrest comments in parenthesis:
1. Report on “them” fairly, respectfully, and with empathy. (Were peaceful pro-Trump protesters mocked? Were their voices heard?)
2. Report about the invisible causes and effects of the unrest. (Trump did incite. But what other less proximate factors led to yesterday’s violence?)
3. Use precise and objective language (It was not a coup)
4. Report proactively to facilitate dialogues before violence occurs (How much reporting about this protest was made beforehand?)
5. Report counter-narratives that provide a different perspective on the protesters, the police, and the community (Profiles of protesters, capitol police, etc.)
6. Report with reconciliation in mind (Where can we go from here? How can we bring these protesters back into society? How do we heal?)
7. Give voice to peacemakers on all sides during and after the unrest (Were there protesters who attempted to head off or end the violence?)
I’d like to see media use these principles, make a more consistent effort to reject sensational framing and language, and instead work to de-escalate, or at least not exacerbate, civic unrest.
Dad See Step Daughter Masterbating Footage On Camera | Hot XXX Collection |
Hot XXX Collection
Present
Dad See Step Daughter Masterbating Footage On Camera
⬇️
Here is " Dad See Step Daughter Masterbating Footage On Camera " Video
⬇️
For More Videos Visit
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)