Sarah Repucci ~ Freedom And The Media: A Downward Spiral

Key Findings:
Freedom of the media has been deteriorating around the world over the past decade.
In some of the most influential democracies in the world, populist leaders have overseen concerted attempts to throttle the independence of the media sector.
While the threats to global media freedom are real and concerning in their own right, their impact on the state of democracy is what makes them truly dangerous.
Experience has shown, however, that press freedom can rebound from even lengthy stints of repression when given the opportunity. The basic desire for democratic liberties, including access to honest and fact-based journalism, can never be extinguished.

The fundamental right to seek and disseminate information through an independent press is under attack, and part of the assault has come from an unexpected source. Elected leaders in many democracies, who should be press freedom’s staunchest defenders, have made explicit attempts to silence critical media voices and strengthen outlets that serve up favorable coverage. The trend is linked to a global decline in democracy itself: The erosion of press freedom is both a symptom of and a contributor to the breakdown of other democratic institutions and principles, a fact that makes it especially alarming.

According to Freedom House’s Freedom in the World data, media freedom has been deteriorating around the world over the past decade, with new forms of repression taking hold in open societies and authoritarian states alike. The trend is most acute in Europe, previously a bastion of well-established freedoms, and in Eurasia and the Middle East, where many of the world’s worst dictatorships are concentrated. If democratic powers cease to support media independence at home and impose no consequences for its restriction abroad, the free press corps could be in danger of virtual extinction.

Experience has shown, however, that press freedom can rebound from even lengthy stints of repression when given the opportunity. The basic desire for democratic liberties, including access to honest and fact-based journalism, can never be extinguished, and it is never too late to renew the demand that these rights be granted in full.

Read more: https://freedomhouse.org/freedom-media-2019

Bookmark and Share

The Embassy Of Good Science

The goal of The Embassy of Good Science is to promote research integrity among all those involved in research. The platform is open to anyone willing to learn or support others in fostering understanding and awareness around Good Science.

The Embassy aims to become a unique ‘go to’ place, a public square where the community of researchers can gather to discuss ‘hot topics’, share knowledge, and find guidance and support to perform science responsibly and with integrity.

We want to focus on researchers’ daily practice. Our ambition is to collaboratively map the laws, policies and guidelines informing good practices and highlight relevant cases, experiences, educational materials and good practice examples. We will also support educators to develop training on research integrity and ethics.

Let our community take over
The Embassy of Good Science is developed by and for researchers, who are willing to gather and join forces to preserve and safeguard good science. No embassy can function without its ambassadors. And that’s where you come in.

The Embassy of Good Science
Your platform for research integrity and ethics
Our declaration describes the Embassy’s principles in strong, affirmative language. It forms a clear reference for all involved, including you.

Go to: https://www.embassy.science/

Bookmark and Share

If Democrats Can’t Win The Economic Debate, Trump Will Win In 2020

Prof.dr. Robert Pollin

Pundits and economic models predict that if nothing changes in the next two years on the economic front, Donald Trump will be re-elected in 2020 by a bigger margin than in 2016. To be sure, the economy is usually the top priority for voters heading into a presidential election, and the U.S. economy appears on paper to be doing well since Trump moved into the White House. According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, real gross domestic product (GDP) increased at an annual rate of 3.2 percent in the first quarter of 2019 (real GDP grew by 2.2 percent in the fourth quarter of 2018), and the national unemployment rate is at a low 3.8 percent, with applications for unemployment benefits having declined to a 49-year low.

Nonetheless, while the economy looks strong, the economic condition of most Americans is anything but rosy. And, according to a Federal Reserve’s “Report on the Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households in 2018,” roughly 40 percent of households would not be able to cover a $400 “unexpected expense.”

At the same time, the majority of Americans think that the economic system benefits mostly the wealthy, and want to see the government do something about this situation.

As such, the question is whether Democratic presidential candidates have the vision and the boldness to put structural economic reforms on top of their pre-election campaign. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren have already positioned themselves as the ideas candidates for fixing the economy, although Wall Street Democrats will clearly oppose both of them. In the absence of a plan to abolish capitalism, drastic reforms to make it more equitable are a necessary precondition for the economic well-being of the majority of people in the U.S. — reforms that would likely prove to be detrimental to the economic interests of the super-rich, who are intent on accumulating ever higher amounts of wealth. Yet, it is unclear what sort of reforms deserve top priority in today’s U.S. economy. To answer that question, we interviewed Robert Pollin, distinguished professor of economics and co-director of the Political Economy Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst.

C.J. Polychroniou: Bob, the U.S. economy is said to be booming, although Democrats attribute this fact to the policies of the Obama administration. Firstly, is the U.S. economy in such a good shape as it appears to be on paper? Secondly, for how long can the Democrats go on giving credit to Obama for today’s signs of a strong economy?

Robert Pollin: First of all, based on the most standard measure of overall economic performance, the growth rate of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), the U.S. economy has not been booming under Trump. Indeed, over the two full years under Trump, 2017-18, real economic growth (adjusted for inflation) averaged 2.5 percent per year. This is no better than the average for the full eight years since the Great Recession officially ended in 2010. Over the 57-year period prior to the 2008 Great Recession (1950-2007), U.S. real economic growth averaged 3.4 percent per year. The Trump economy obviously hasn’t come close to reaching this long-term average growth trend.

It is true that the official unemployment rate is at a historic low, at 3.8 percent of the labor force. However, let’s also consider a broader official measure of unemployment coming from the U.S. Labor Department, one which includes both the “underemployed” — i.e., people in part-time positions but seeking full-time work — as well as people who have become discouraged from looking for a job due to lack of success. By this measure, the unemployment rate rises to 7.3 percent. If we also add in the roughly 5 million people who have dropped out of the labor market following the Great Recession, that would bring the unemployment rate to 10.3 percent. So while labor market conditions are indeed far better now than they were 10 years ago, as we were just coming out of the Great Recession, there is still a lot of distress among people trying to get jobs, much less good jobs.

The Obama administration, along with the Federal Reserve, does deserve credit for helping to avoid a total financial collapse in 2008 that could have led to a Depression as severe as the 1930s. Who knows where we would be today if, a decade ago, the unemployment rate had risen to, say 25 percent, as it did in the 1930s, versus 10 percent during the Great Recession.

Read more

Bookmark and Share

Noam Chomsky: Trump’s “Economic Boom” Is A Sham

Donald Trump ran a campaign — and won the 2016 presidential election — based on unorthodox tactics, whereby he used irrational provocation to defy traditional political norms and make a mockery of established beliefs on both domestic and international issues confronting the United States. Amazingly enough, Trump has continued his instinctual political posturing even as president, dividing the nation and causing severe friction with the traditional allies of the U.S. Yet, his unorthodox tactics and irrational leadership style appear to remain a winning formula as current polls indicate that, unless something dramatic happens, Trump may very well be re-elected in 2020 by an even bigger margin.

How do we make sense of Trump’s continuing popularity? Noam Chomsky, one of the most respected public intellectuals alive, shares his insights on Trump’s actions in the exclusive Truthout interview that follows.

C.J. Polychroniou: Noam, I want to start by asking you to reflect on Trump’s political posturing and leadership style and explain to us how this apparently “irrational” president continues to enjoy unquestionable support among nearly half of all voters and has managed to turn the GOP into his own fiefdom.
Noam Chomsky: Whatever one thinks of Trump, he is a highly skilled politician, with a good sense of how to gain popular approval, even virtual worship in some circles. His job approval just passed 50 percent for the first time, according to the latest Zogby poll.

He certainly has taken control of the GOP, to quite a remarkable extent. He’s been very successful with his two constituencies: the primary one, wealth and corporate power; and the voting base, relatively affluent fairly generally, including a large bloc of Christian evangelicals, rural whites, farmers, workers who have faith in his promises to bring back jobs, and a collection of others, some not too admirable.

It’s clear why the primary constituency is mostly delighted. Corporate profits are booming. Wealth continues to be concentrated in very few hands. Trump’s administration is lavishing them with gifts, including the tax bill, the main legislative achievement, across-the-board deregulation, and rapidly increasing fossil fuel production. He and McConnell — in many ways the evil genius of the administration — are packing the judiciary with reactionaries, guaranteeing the interests of the corporate sector and private wealth even after these “glory days” are past. They don’t like his trade wars, which are causing disruption of global supply chains, but so far at least that’s outweighed by his dedicated service to their welfare. Read more

Bookmark and Share

Joseph Roth ~ Die Flucht ohne Ende

Kapittel 1 ~ Vorwort
Im folgenden erzähle ich die Geschichte meines Freundes, Kameraden und Gesinnungsgenossen Franz Tunda.
Ich folge zum Teil seinen Aufzeichnungen, zum Teil seinen Erzählungen.

Ich habe nichts erfunden, nichts komponiert. Es handelt sich nicht mehr darum, zu »dichten«. Das wichtigste ist das Beobachtete.
Paris, im März 1927
Joseph Roth

Kapittel 2

Der Oberleutnant der österreichischen Armee Franz Tunda geriet im August des Jahres 1916 in russische Kriegsgefangenschaft. Er kam in ein Lager, einige Werst nordöstlich von Irkutsk. Es gelang ihm, mit Hilfe eines sibirischen Polen zu fliehen. Auf dem entfernten, einsamen und traurigen Gehöft des Polen, am Rande der Taiga, blieb der Offizier bis zum Frühling 1919.

Waldläufer kehrten bei dem Polen ein, Bärenjäger und Pelzhändler. Tunda hatte keine Verfolgung zu fürchten. Niemand kannte ihn. Er war der Sohn eines österreichischen Majors und einer polnischen Jüdin, in einer kleinen Stadt Galiziens, dem Garnisonsort seines Vaters, geboren. Er sprach polnisch, er hatte in einem galizischen Regiment gedient. Es fiel ihm leicht, sich für einen jüngeren Bruder des Polen auszugeben. Der Pole hieß Baranowicz. Tunda nannte sich ebenso.

Er bekam ein falsches Dokument auf den Namen Baranowicz, war nunmehr in Lodz geboren, im Jahre 1917 wegen eines unheilbaren und ansteckenden Augenleidens aus dem russischen Heer entlassen, von Beruf Pelzhändler, wohnhaft in Werchni Udinsk.

Der Pole zählte seine Worte wie Perlen, ein schwarzer Bart verpflichtete ihn zur Schweigsamkeit. Vor dreißig Jahren war er, ein Strafgefangener, nach Sibirien gekommen. Später blieb er freiwillig. Er wurde Mitarbeiter einer wissenschaftlichen Expedition zur Erforschung der Taiga, wanderte fünf Jahre durch die Wälder, heiratete dann eine Chinesin, ging zum Buddhismus über, blieb in einem chinesischen Dorf als Arzt und Kräuterkenner, bekam zwei Kinder, verlor beide und die Frau durch die Pest, ging wieder in die Wälder, lebte von Jagd und Pelzhandel, lernte die Spuren der Tiger im dichtesten Gras erkennen, die Vorzeichen des Sturms an dem furchtsamen Flug der Vögel, wußte Hagel- von Schnee- und Schnee- von Regenwolken zu unterscheiden, kannte die Gebräuche der Waldgänger, der Räuber und der harmlosen Wanderer, liebte seine zwei Hunde wie Brüder und verehrte die Schlangen und die Tiger. Er ging freiwillig in den Krieg, schien aber seinen Kameraden und den Offizieren schon in der Kaserne so unheimlich, daß sie ihn als einen Geisteskranken wieder in die Wälder entließen. Jedes Jahr, im März, kam er in die Stadt. Er tauschte Hörner, Felle, Geweihe gegen Munition, Tee, Tabak und Schnaps ein. Er nahm einige Zeitungen mit, um sich auf dem laufenden zu halten, glaubte aber weder den Nachrichten noch den Artikeln; selbst an den Inseraten zweifelte er. Seit Jahren ging er in ein bestimmtes Bordell, zu einer Rothaarigen, Jekaterina Pawlowna hieß sie. Wenn ein anderer bei dem Mädchen war, wartete Baranowicz, ein geduldiger Liebhaber. Das Mädchen wurde alt, es färbte seine silbernen Haare, verlor einen Zahn nach dem andern und sogar das falsche Gebiß. Jedes Jahr brauchte Baranowicz weniger zu warten, schließlich war er der einzige, der zu Jekaterina kam. Sie begann ihn zu lieben, das ganze Jahr brannte ihre Sehnsucht, die späte Sehnsucht einer späten Braut. Jedes Jahr wurde ihre Zärtlichkeit stärker, ihre Leidenschaft heißer, sie war eine Greisin, mit welkem Fleisch genoß sie die erste Liebe ihres Lebens. Baranowicz brachte ihr jedes Jahr die gleichen chinesischen Ketten und die kleinen Flöten, die er selbst schnitzte und auf denen er die Stimmen der Vögel nachahmte.

Weiter lesen: https://gutenberg.spiegel.de/die-flucht-ohne-ende-8647/2

Bookmark and Share

Justus de Visser ~ Spagaat óf balans – Een verkenning van de nooit eindigende spanning tussen nationalisme en Europese integratie

Justus de Visser. Ills. Joseph Sassoon Semah

Na het succes van Justus de Vissers eerste boek Europa – Dáárom (2014) dat hij afsloot met een krachtig pleidooi voor het wij-gevoel (= samen in de EU), heeft hij nu een boek over het spanningsveld tussen het nationalisme en de Europese integratie geschreven. Spagaat of Balans is een heftig pleidooi om samen op te trekken en het debat met elkaar aan te gaan over de liberale democratie en een halt toe te roepen aan de nationalistische afbraak van de Europese orde. Populisme, Brexit, Catalonië, migratie en terrorisme, Turkije, Midden- en Oost-Europa, Rusland, Oekraïne, Georgië, het nationalisme is overal en ze komen in het boek uitgebreid aan bod, voorzien van vele voetnoten.

Spagaat of Balans is een strijdbaar en informatief naslagwerk voor een ieder die is geïnteresseerd in het hedendaagse Europa en zich wil verdedigen tegen nationalisme, xenofobie en illiberalisme. De Europese waarden als democratie, gelijkheid, vrijheid, mensenrechten en de rechtsstaat staan onder druk en moeten worden verdedigd. De Visser roept op te strijden tegen de politici die de sociale rechtsstaat, die de EU wil zijn, van binnenuit bedreigen.

Justus de Visser, die jarenlang diplomaat voor Nederland is geweest en werkzaam was op het Ministerie van Buitenlandse Zaken, ziet de bedreiging van het herlevend nationalisme niet primair als bedreiging van buiten, maar vooral als het ‘Kwaad’ in ons zelf. De Visser stelt zichzelf de vraag waar de liefde voor het eigen vaderland, dat wat we patriotisme noemen, de zoektocht naar geborgenheid, over gaat in haat tegen de ander, dat nationalisme is (dit onderscheid ontleent hij aan de vroegere Duitse Bondspresident Von Weiszäcker). Nationalisme is voor De Visser vooral een op mythe gebaseerd identiteitsbesef, zoveel verschillen we niet van elkaar. Het nationalisme komt vooral voort uit angst en gebrek aan erkenning en respect en dat brengt agressief gedrag met zich mee. De kiezer wil de natiestaat terug en politici spelen handig in op deze angst- en onlustgevoelens. We trekken steeds meer muren op, fysiek en mentaal. De grenzen komen weer terug en dat levert spanning op met de Europese eenwordingsambitie.

21eeuwse nationalisme leidt tot 21eeuwse machtspolitieke confrontaties, ook buiten Europa. President Trump maakt handig gebruik van nationale gevoelens zonder dat de consequenties zijn te overzien. Wat er buiten de grenzen van Europa gebeurt heeft enorme invloed op Europeanen en daarom moeten wij hechter aaneen sluiten, Europa moet verder integreren, zeker nu Amerika afstand neemt van Europa.

‘We kunnen niet langer volstaan een wetgevingsmachine te zijn, we zullen ook samen geopolitiek moeten gaan bedrijven, veiligheids- en defensiebeleid daaronder begrepen. Er valt geen tijd te verliezen- jammer genoeg is dat besef nog niet levend genoeg’, aldus Justus de Visser. Het is tijd voor een nieuwe politieke daadkracht. Read more

Bookmark and Share
image_pdfimage_print

  • About

    Rozenberg Quarterly aims to be a platform for academics, scientists, journalists, authors and artists, in order to offer background information and scholarly reflections that contribute to mutual understanding and dialogue in a seemingly divided world. By offering this platform, the Quarterly wants to be part of the public debate because we believe mutual understanding and the acceptance of diversity are vital conditions for universal progress. Read more...
  • Support

    Rozenberg Quarterly does not receive subsidies or grants of any kind, which is why your financial support in maintaining, expanding and keeping the site running is always welcome. You may donate any amount you wish and all donations go toward maintaining and expanding this website.

    10 euro donation:

    20 euro donation:

    Or donate any amount you like:

    Or:
    ABN AMRO Bank
    Rozenberg Publishers
    IBAN NL65 ABNA 0566 4783 23
    BIC ABNANL2A
    reference: Rozenberg Quarterly

    If you have any questions or would like more information, please see our About page or contact us: info@rozenbergquarterly.com
  • Like us on Facebook

  • Archives