After a tense and often antagonistic election campaign, Emmanuel Macron is to become the next president of France. The result is, of course, in all sorts of ways extraordinary. In a little over a year, the 39-year-old former finance minister has gone from being a wannabe to the future tenant of the Elysée Palace. He struck out alone to form his own political movement and while much of the froth surrounding the election has focused on his opponent, the enormity of his achievement needs to be acknowledged and cannot be underestimated.
Even before the first round, all the polls had Macron pegged to win the second round 60/40. But then, between the rounds, Le Pen seemed to be nibbling away at Macron’s lead – not by much, but by enough to cause some butterflies among her opponents. Macron appeared lacklustre at a crucial time. Fears of a low turnout and Jean-Luc Mélenchon’s refusal to formally endorse Macron also threw a number of unknowns into the mix.
Macron addresses supporters in Paris.EPA/Thomas Samson
A high abstention rate would play in Le Pen’s favour, went the reasoning. Her electors, as far as anyone could tell, were more committed. In the end, turnout was indeed lower than expected (and there were 4m spoilt ballots), but it did not hinder Macron. Quite the reverse. With an estimated 65.1% of the vote to Le Pen’s 34.9%, Macron has come away with the second highest second round score in the history of the Fifth Republic.
So, now France has a president whose priorities are to tackle chronic unemployment by relaxing labour legislation and introducing a raft of measures to help young people into work, to reduce primary school class sizes to 12 pupils per teacher, to relaunch the European project in collaboration with France’s partners and to simplify the mind-bogglingly complex tax and pension set-up for French citizens.
What happened Marine? Deep down, Le Pen knew she didn’t have the tail wind to take her to victory after a disappointing first-round result. She had hoped to go through in first place but finished second behind Macron and only 650,000 votes ahead of François Fillon.
This goes some way to explaining her extraordinary performance in the presidential debate on May 3, where she cast aside the opportunity to present her programme in favour of a non-stop attack on Macron. He might not have looked presidential all the way through the debate, but she certainly looked like she was making a bid to be the leader of the opposition rather than the tenant of the Elysée. In any case, it looks like the debate cost her 5% of the vote. It certainly caused consternation among her supporters.
And yet her score is historic. Throughout the campaign she was the one candidate we all assumed would get through to the second round. Her total of 11m votes is twice what her father managed in 2002 – and 5m more than she herself scored in 2012.
Le Pen delivers her concession speech.EPA/Ian Langsdon
On Sunday evening, about ten minutes after the result was announced, Le Pen made a two-minute speech to a small group of party activists, accepting her defeat, but also launching herself as the head of the “première force d’opposition” and promising a transformation of the Front National for the general election in June. She neglected to explain what that means, but she will almost certainly seek to destabilise Les Républicains by appealing to the right of the party.
A discarded voting slip says it all.Paul Smith Meanwhile, after a celebration at the Louvre on Sunday night, Macron awaits his formal investiture as the eighth president of the Fifth Republic at the beginning of next week. By tradition, the incoming president announces the name of the prime minister only on the following day. Macron may break with this and make the announcement a little earlier, but there are still calculations to be made.
The electoral process isn’t quite over for the French. Can they survive the risks of electoral burn-out? For now, at least we can all savour what has been an extraordinary campaign and reflect on where France goes now.
By Michela Cortese, Bangor University Trump’s first 100 days in office were, among other things, marked by a climate march in Washington DC that attracted tens of thousands of demonstrators. No surprises there. Since the beginning of his mandate in January, Trump has signed orders to roll back the number of federally protected waterways, restart the construction of contentious oil pipeline, and cut the budget from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Among the various orders and memoranda, the one signed to overhaul Obama’s Clean Power Plan is probably the most remarkable, along with promoting coal extractions all over the US.
A good time, then, to follow up Al Gore’s iconic documentary An Inconvenient Truth, which was released 11 years ago in a similarly discouraging political climate. At that time George W Bush, who is remembered for undermining climate science and for strongly supporting oil interests, was in power. In his own first 100 days at the White House, Bush backed down from the promise of regulating carbon dioxide from coal power plants and announced that the US would not implement the Kyoto climate change treaty.
This summer sees the release of An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power. More than ten years have passed and the documentary looks likely to be released in a very similar context. With republicans in power, war in the Middle East, and regulations on the environment to be reversed, this inconvenient sequel is a reminder that the climate of the conversation about global warming has not changed much in the interim.
But the strategies needed to grab the attention of the public certainly have. In the fast-paced, ever-evolving media landscape of the 21st century, knowing how to engage the public on environmental matters is no easy thing. The tendency of the environmental films that have mushroomed since 2000 has been to use a rhetoric of fear. But how effective has this been? Certainly, environmental activism has grown, particularly with the help of social media, but the role of these productions is unclear, and there is a lack of research on audience response to these films.
Personal planet The selling point of An Inconvenient Truth was its personal approach. Although it had a lecture-style tone, this was a documentary that was all about Gore. He told his story entwined with that of the planet. It was extraordinary that people paid to go to the cinema to watch a politician giving a lecture. This was a big shift in cinema. Arguably, this format was enlivened by the way in which Gore opened up about his personal history.
The documentary opened with the politician’s notorious quote: “I am Al Gore, and I used to be the next president of the United States.” In November 2000 Gore had lost the presidential elections to George W Bush with an extraordinarily narrow defeat. The choice to run with a very personal rhetoric was certainly strategic – the right time for the former vice president to open up six years from that unfortunate election. Gore told the story of global warming through his personal life, featuring his career disappointments, family tragedies and constantly referring to the scientists he interviewed as “my friend”.
This was a very innovative way of approaching the matter of climate change. We are talking about a politician who decided to offer an insight on his private life for a greater cause: to engage the public on a vital scientific subject. The originality of the documentary led to An Inconvenient Truth scoring two Oscars at the Academy Awards 2006.
Today, An Inconvenient Truth is seen as the prototype of activist film-making. Founder of the Climate Reality Project in 2006 and co-recipient of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize (with the IPCC), Gore and his movement soon became the core of environmental activism, gathering several environmental groups that, despite their differences, today march together for the greatest challenge of our time. New hope?
Eleven years on, the revolution under Gore’s lead that many expected has yet to be fulfilled. The next decade was beset with disappointments. More recently, the 2015 Paris Agreement has marked a new era for climate action, proving that both developed and developing countries are now ready to work together to reduce carbon emissions. But today there is a new protagonist – or antagonist – in the picture. The trailer for An Inconvenient Sequel shows Gore watching Trump shouting his doubts about global warming to the crowd and announcing his plans to strip back the EPA’s budget.
It will be interesting to see how the tone of the film moves off from that of the original. The “personal reveal” tactic won’t work so well the second time round. And a change in the narrative is certainly evident from the trailer. The graphs of the previous documentary are replaced with more evocative images of extreme weather and disasters. While statistics about carbon dioxide emissions and sea-level rises were predominantly used to trigger emotions in the audience, this time round Gore can show the results of his predictions. One example of this is the iconic footage of a flooded World Trade Centre Memorial, a possibility which was discussed by Gore in the 2006 documentary and criticised by many for being a “fictional” element at that time rather than an “evidence” of climate impact. Unfortunately, I am not sure how much this shift will affect the public or whether the sequel will be the manifesto of that revolution that Gore and his followers have been waiting for. The role that the media have played in the communication of climate change issues has changed and developed alongside the evolution of the medium itself and people’s perception of the environment. The last decade has seen an explosion of sensational images and audiences are fatigued by this use of fear.
Many look for media that includes “positive” messages rather than the traditional onslaught of facts and images triggering negative emotions. It has never been more difficult for environmental communicators to please viewers and readers in the midst of a never-ending flow of information available to them.
Washington DC'sBlack Cat has hosted no shortage of iconic bands over the years including Radiohead, Beck, the Foo Fighters, and the Kings of Leon. OnMay 25, 2017, the renowned music venue has partnered with DC rock bandStone Driverto organize a benefit concert to support The Joe Strummer Foundation, a charity created in honor of the Clash's co-founder and one of the biggest icons in punk and rock music history, which raises money to provide opportunities to musicians and support to projects around the world that create empowerment through music.
"As a musician and huge fan of Joe Strummer's work, I was humbled to learn about the foundation that was created to help others. When our band was brainstorming ideas of how we could contribute, we spoke with Lindsay from the Black Cat who suggested holding a benefit concert. The Black Cat team is going above and beyond to assist the Joe Strummer Foundation and the communities they assist, and are hosting an outrageously good rock concert to make it all happen," - Chad Lesch, member of "Stone Driver" musical group.
Stone Driver is a critically acclaimed DC rock band that recently completed their sophomore full length album "Rocks" with famed London producer Sefi Carmel (David Bowie, Phil Collins, Bruno Mars), and will be joined on stage with the exceptionally talented power pop quartet Classified Frequency, and high energy rocker and DC music veteran Derek Evry.
Stone Driver press photo
The Joe Strummer Foundation was established in 2002 shortly after the rock icon's passing. The non-profit organization is committed to the prevention or relief of poverty, particularly of young people, anywhere in the world by providing grants, items and services to individuals in need and/or charities, or other organizations working to prevent or relieve poverty.
The Joe Strummer Foundation Benefit Concert will take place on May 25th, 2017 at the Black Cat in DC. Doors open at 7:30PM, and the benefit concert will begin at 8:00PM and end by 11:30PM. Tickets are available in advance on Ticketfly for $12, and the Black Cat is located at 1811 14th St NW, Washington, DC 20009.
If you’ve heard an interview with any Conservative politician during the current election campaign, you’ve probably heard the phrase “strong and stable leadership”. Theresa May used the phrase three times in seven minutes on the day she announced the vote.
It was clearly a key slogan – and therefore a key aspect of the campaign – right from the start. Since then, Buzzfeed has tracked May’s use of the phrase (giving up at 57 times in ten days). It even featured in the political cartoon for the first edition of the London Evening Standard under its new editor.
It would be easy to dismiss this as just one of those irritating political hooks that are part and parcel of any election. Political history is littered with some far worse campaign slogans (remember the Conservatives’ 2005 “Are you thinking what we’re thinking?” – an obscure slogan, to which the public’s answer was a clear “no”). But everything we know about leadership tells us that language is central, so we have to take this careful repetition seriously. What does Theresa May mean by “strong and stable leadership” – and why is it important? Constructing a reality? Linda Smircich and Gareth Morgan, two of the world’s most prominent and insightful analysts of organisation, argued in the early 1980s that “successful” leadership (that is, persuading someone to do something they wouldn’t normally do) depended on a leader persuading people of a specific reality. This process of social construction happens mostly through language. That makes language central to politics, as a means of persuasion as much as a means of communicating ideas or policies. “Strong and stable” tells us that the Conservative party strategists want us to think of all other options as weak and unstable. Social theorists have been telling us for a long time that the meaning we derive from language is relational. The idea of “strong” is therefore understood in relation to an implicit idea of “weak”. Conservative-sponsored adverts in this election and the last in 2015 are keen to tell us the parties and leaders who are weak and unstable. There’s usually a hierarchy in this way of constructing meaning. The implication here is that strong is better than weak. This is especially true of the idea of leadership. We are bombarded daily with implicit and explicit messages that strong leadership is the ideal. You don’t have to be a believer in “servant leadership” to doubt the idea of strong leadership. There’s plenty of evidence of the damage that strong leaders, in politics and in workplaces, can do. The strong man? There’s another factor at play here, too. The repetition of “strong and stable” is becoming important because it carries a series of assumptions with it. Who do you think of when someone talks about strong leadership? Someone tall, able-bodied, probably white, speaking in a deep pitch – and probably male. This ideal is reinforced by corporate commissioned leader portraits and by the representation of leaders in popular culture.
Are you getting the message yet?PA/Chris Radburn
The promotion of this leaderly ideal by a Conservative party led by a woman at the moment isn’t especially surprising. We’re in the midst of a significant fourth wave of feminist activism and theory and political representation is one of the key areas of activity. British politics, with the honourable exception of the Labour party, is notoriously resistant to structural change through positive discrimination schemes such as quotas. In representing their woman leader in this way, the Conservatives emphasise their contribution to that wider social movement, but without really questioning it. This election campaign will see a lot of discussion about whether we can trust political party leaders. Laying claim to being “strong and stable” shouldn’t mean unthinking followership. When any of us hear a politician, or someone with leadership responsibility in a workplace, tell us what kind of leadership they think we need – ask why they need to use language in this persuasive way, what they’re not saying, and what associations the linguistic images bring with them. Then maybe we can avoid following leaders without thinking. That can only end badly.
By Delia Dumitrescu, University of East Anglia Emmanuel Macron was a virtually unknown figure in French politics before 2012. Now, as leader of the new political movement En Marche! he finds himself in the position of being the defender of French liberal democratic values in the second round of the French presidential elections against the far-right Marine le Pen. Many doubted that he would hold his own during the televised debate between the two candidates on May 3, the only one before the second and final round of voting on May 7. But Macron delivered a masterclass performance in public speaking. A relative newcomer to politics, Macron has espoused policies that are too left-wing for many voters on the right, and too right-wing for many voters on the left. Yet during the debate, he proved he could deliver a clear and coherent message. He also proved that Le Pen’s programme could not stand the light of scrutiny. Timing, tone, and attitude Macron’s approach during the debate was pitch perfect. With both candidates given the same amount of talking time, Macron’s mastery of his own time was remarkable. He took control of the debate at the beginning, taking more time than Le Pen to deliver a message that both played on national pride, but also accused her of telling lies and spreading nonsense. After letting his opponent talk more in the middle of the debate, Macron finished strong, unmasking Le Pen’s contempt for the French justice system, while urging the French to be optimistic about the future.
Research has shown that people remember and are persuaded more by information they receive either at the beginning of a message, or at the end, rather than in the middle. At the beginning and at the end of the debate, Macron was at his strongest. The debate was full of accusations and insults on both sides, making it uncomfortable to watch. It is well known that people do not like incivility in debates. But here Macron was again a step ahead of his opponent. While he accused her of telling lies and not having her facts right, his accusations were for the most part specific, relating to what she had done, or had proposed to do or had said. When justified, people are more willing to accept incivility in debate. On the other hand, he also debunked her accusations, for example when she accused him of being in charge of the takeover of a mobile phone company at a point when he did not hold elected office. At the end of the debate, she was reduced to simply shouting out the names of politicians who had endorsed Macron while he was espousing his vision for the future of France. His nonverbal demeanour was also striking. Looking straight into the camera or straight into his opponent’s eyes, sitting slightly leant backward, shoulders straight, speaking with a clear, strong and calm voice, he exuded confidence. Opposite him, Le Pen often crossed her arms, leant forward, and lost eye contact. Research has shown that displaying nonverbal confidence is very important for voters’ impressions of a candidate’s leadership and winning potential.
Supporters of Emmanuel Macron watch the debate at a bar in Paris on May 3.Ian Langsdon/EPA
Catching up to do Since taking over the reins of the Front National from her father in 2011, Marine Le Pen has strived to convince the public that the party has changed, that it is no longer a party catering to a niche electorate of the extreme right, but can be a party in government. Numerous analyses of her discourse throughout the year have shown this not to be the case, and that the changes are simply image based. During the debate, the lack of viability of FN policies, such as on removing France from the euro, and Le Pen’s inability to show command of state and economic affairs, such as when she was surprised to learn that many medical drugs are produced outside of France, was obvious. She painted the FN’s familiar apocalyptic picture of France, full of despair and bleakness, mentioning key phrases such as “national interest” multiple times, but offered nothing else new. Macron, on the other hand, clearly expressed his desire to change the way things are done in France, and to do so with a pragmatic approach that takes advantage of the current strengths of France, her people and her place in Europe and the world. On every topic raised during the debate, he presented a clear plan of action. He talked about small and very small businesses, about the problem of youth radicalisation, about schools, about fiscal policy, and about people with disabilities. While both candidates’ performances may not change how people vote (Macron still has a 20 percentage point lead in the polls), it may have changed why people vote. No longer to stop Le Pen, but for Macron as a candidate and for his programme. About Today's Contributor: Delia Dumitrescu, Lecturer in Media and Cultural Politics, University of East Anglia
Apparently, Amazon is still advertising on Breitbart... That's what the email I've received earlier from the peeps at CREDO (which I'm happily sharingon here) is about. Have a read, and, if you live in the US, feel free to act accordingly. (Unfortunately, as I don't live in the US, I can't sign the petition...) Thanks in advance Stay safe! Loup Dargent
Image via adweek.com
The Email: "Dear Loup,
CREDO members recently helped force Bill O’Reilly, Fox News’ flagship racist and misogynist, off the air. Now we need to turn our attention to Breitbart, the white supremacist, misogynistic, fake news media outlet formerly run by Steve Bannon that helped fuel Donald Trump's rise to power.
After months of pressure from progressive activists, more than 1,000 advertisers have abandoned Breitbart over its racist, sexist, anti-Semitic and xenophobic reporting.1 But one company stands out for continuing to fund Breitbart’s hate: Amazon.
Our friends at UltraViolet, SumOfUs and MoveOn — along with the social media campaign Sleeping Giants — have been pushing on Amazon executives for months, but they have so far refused to pull their ads. Can you help ramp up the pressure today?
Amazon won’t accept discriminatory ads on its own site.2There is no reason for it to advertise on a site that is literally the breeding ground for some of the most toxic hate in the country.
The outrage against Amazon funding Breitbart’s hate is growing inside the company. More than 550 employees have signed a petition demanding that executives stop advertising on Breitbart.3 According to an email sent to Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos and Senior Vice President Jeff Blackburn, an employee asked Blackburn, "What is it going to take for us to stop advertising on Breitbart News?" at a March company-wide meeting.4 Blackburn shifted the blame from Amazon to the third-party ad exchanges through which it buys its ads, but that seems a weak excuse given the enormous number of advertisers who have successfully cut their ties with Breitbart.5
Amazon's ads on Breitbart are not the only troubling part of its track record when it comes to Trump’s dangerous agenda. In December, Bezos was part of a meeting between tech CEOs and Trump that helped normalize and legitimize Trump and his extremism. Bezos called the meeting “very productive.”6 That same month, CREDO partnered with our friends at Muslim Advocates, Color Of Change, MPower Change, Courage Campaign, Democracy for America and more than a dozen other progressive and civil rights groups to demand that tech companies refuse to help build Trump’s Muslim registry. While Google, Facebook, Apple, Twitter, IBM and Microsoft all pledged not to enable Trump’s xenophobic hate, Amazon failed to join them.7
Amazon’s leaders have a choice: They can get their ads off Breitbart and make sure they never appear on other sites that promote racism, xenophobia and misogyny, or they can keep funding hate. Can you add your voice to demand they do the right thing?
Posts
Follow
