Podcasts about national campaign

Maria Fleming, Chair of the National Campaign for the Arts, discusses the Arts Minister, Patrick O'Donovan's support for the retention of basic income for the arts.

So even the people that follow the topic closely are stunned by the digital landscape that engulfs our children, how quickly it evolves, and the potential social cost. Two people in a unique position to explain all this are our guest today, Jeffrey Chester and Kathryn Montgomery, both from the Center for Digital Democracy. Jeff is executive director of the Center, and Kathryn is its research director and senior strategist, as well as professor emerita of communication at American University. Jeff and Kathryn have been pioneers in this work and have been uniquely strong voices for protecting children. Interview Summary Let me congratulate the two of you for being way ahead of your time. I mean the two of you through your research and your advocacy and your organizational work, you were onto these things way before most people were. I'm really happy that you're joining us today, and welcome to our podcast. Kathryn, let me begin with you. So why be concerned about this digital landscape? Kathryn - Well, certainly if we're talking about children and youth, we have to pay attention to the world they live in. And it's a digital world as I think any parent knows, and everybody knows. In fact, for all of us, we're living in a digital world. So young people are living their lives online. They're using mobile phones and mobile devices all the time. They're doing online video streaming. They form their communications with their peers online. Their entire lives are completely integrated into this digital media landscape, and we must understand it. Certainly, the food and beverage industry understand it very well. And they have figured out enormously powerful ways to reach and engage young people through these digital media. You know, the extent of the kids' connection to this is really remarkable. I just finished a few minutes ago recording a podcast with two people involved with the Children and Screens organization. And, Chris Perry, who's the executive director of that organization and Dmitri Christakis who was with us as well, were saying that kids sometimes check their digital media 300 times a day. I mean, just unbelievable how much of this there is. There's a lot of reasons to be concerned. Let's turn our attention to how bad it is, what companies are doing, and what might be done about it. So, Jeff, tell us if you would, about the work of the Center for Digital Democracy. Jeff - Well, for more than a quarter of a century, we have tracked the digital marketplace. As you said at the top, we understood in the early 1990s that the internet, broadband what's become today's digital environment, was going to be the dominant communications system. And it required public interest rules and policies and safeguards. So as a result, one of the things that our Center does is we look at the entire digital landscape as best as we can, especially what the ultra-processed food companies are doing, but including Google and Meta and Amazon and GenAI companies. We are tracking what they're doing, how they're creating the advertising, what their data strategies are, what their political activities are in the United States and in many other places in the world. Because the only way we're going to hold them accountable is if we know what they're doing and what they intend to do. And just to quickly follow up, Kelly, the marketers call today's global generation of young people Generation Alpha. Meaning that they are the first generation to be born into this complete digital landscape environment that we have created. And they have developed a host of strategies to target children at the earliest ages to take advantage of the fact that they're growing up digitally. Boy, pretty amazing - Generation Alpha. Kathryn, I have kind of a niche question I'd like to ask you because it pertains to my own career as well. So, you spent many years as an academic studying and writing about these issues, but also you were a strong advocacy voice. How did you go about balancing the research and the objectivity of an academic with advocacy you were doing? Kathryn - I think it really is rooted in my fundamental set of values about what it means to be an academic. And I feel very strongly and believe very strongly that all of us have a moral and ethical responsibility to the public. That the work we do should really, as I always have told my students, try to make the world a better place. It may seem idealistic, but I think it is what our responsibility is. And I've certainly been influenced in my own education by public scholars over the years who have played that very, very important role. It couldn't be more important today than it has been over the years. And I think particularly if you're talking about public health, I don't think you can be neutral. You can have systematic ways of assessing the impact of food marketing, in this case on young people. But I don't think you can be totally objective and neutral about the need to improve the public health of our citizens. And particularly the public health of our young people. I agree totally with that. Jeff let's talk about the concept of targeted marketing. We hear that term a lot. And in the context of food, people talk about marketing aimed at children as one form of targeting. Or, toward children of color or people of color in general. But that's in a way technological child's play. I understand from you that there's much more precise targeting than a big demographic group like that. Tell us more. Jeff - Well, I mean certainly the ultra-processed food companies are on the cutting edge of using all the latest tools to target individuals in highly personalized way. And I think if I have one message to share with your listeners and viewers is that if we don't act soon, we're going to make an already vulnerable group even more exposed to this kind of direct targeted and personalized marketing. Because what artificial intelligence allows the food and beverage companies and their advertising agencies and platform partners to do is to really understand who we are, what we do, where we are, how we react, behave, think, and then target us accordingly using all those elements in a system that can create this kind of advertising and marketing in minutes, if not eventually milliseconds. So, all of marketing, in essence, will be targeted because they know so much about us. You have an endless chain of relationships between companies like Meta, companies like Kellogg's, the advertising agencies, the data brokers, the marketing clouds, et cetera. Young people especially, and communities of color and other vulnerable groups, have never been more exposed to this kind of invasive, pervasive advertising. Tell us how targeted it can be. I mean, let's take a 11-year-old girl who lives in Wichita and a 13-year-old boy who lives in Denver. How much do the companies know about those two people as individuals? And how does a targeting get market to them? Not because they belong to a big demographic group, but because of them as individuals. Jeff - Well, they certainly are identified in various ways. The marketers know that there are young people in the household. They know that there are young people, parts of families who have various media behaviors. They're watching these kinds of television shows, especially through streaming or listening to music or on social media. Those profiles are put together. And even when the companies say they don't exactly know who the child is or not collecting information from someone under 13 because of the privacy law that we helped get enacted, they know where they are and how to reach them. So, what you've had is an unlimited amassing of data power developed by the food and beverage companies in the United States over the last 25 years. Because really very little has been put in their way to stop them from what they do and plan to do. So presumably you could get some act of Congress put in to forbid the companies from targeting African American children or something like that. But it doesn't sound like that would matter because they're so much more precise in the market. Yes. I mean, in the first place you couldn't get congress to pass that. And I think this is the other thing to think about when you think about the food and beverage companies deploying Generative AI and the latest tools. They've already established vast, what they call insights divisions, market research divisions, to understand our behavior. But now they're able to put all that on a fast, fast, forward basis because of data processing, because of data clouds, let's say, provided by Amazon, and other kinds of tools. They're able to really generate how to sell to us individually, what new products will appeal to us individually and even create the packaging and the promotion to be personalized. So, what you're talking about is the need for a whole set of policy safeguards. But I certainly think that people concerned about public health need to think about regulating the role of Generative AI, especially when it comes to young people to ensure that they're not marketed to in the ways that it fact is and will continue to do. Kathryn, what about the argument that it's a parent's responsibility to protect their children and that government doesn't need to be involved in this space? Kathryn - Well, as a parent, I have to say is extremely challenging. We all do our best to try to protect our children from unhealthy influences, whether it's food or something that affects their mental health. That's a parent's obligation. That's what a parent spends a lot of time thinking about and trying to do. But this is an environment that is overwhelming. It is intrusive. It reaches into young people's lives in ways that make it virtually impossible for parents to intervene. These are powerful companies, and I'm including the tech companies. I'm including the retailers. I'm including the ad agencies as well as these global food and beverage companies. They're extremely powerful. As Jeff has been saying, they have engaged and continue to engage in enormous amounts of technological innovation and research to figure out precisely how to reach and engage our children. And it's too much for parents. And I've been saying this for years. I've been telling legislators this. I've been telling the companies this. It's not fair. It's a very unfair situation for parents. That makes perfect sense. Well, Jeff, your Center produces some very helpful and impressive reports. And an example of that is work you've done on the vast surveillance of television viewers. Tell us more about that, if you would. Jeff - Well, you know, you have to keep up with this, Kelly. The advocates in the United States and the academics with some exceptions have largely failed to address the contemporary business practices of the food and beverage companies. This is not a secret what's going on now. I mean the Generative AI stuff and the advanced data use, you know, is recent. But it is a continuum. And the fact is that we've been one of the few groups following it because we care about our society, our democracy, our media system, et cetera. But so much more could be done here to track what the companies are doing to identify the problematic practices, to think about counter strategies to try to bring change. So yes, we did this report on video streaming because in fact, it's the way television has now changed. It's now part of the commercial surveillance advertising and marketing complex food and beverage companies are using the interactivity and the data collection of streaming television. And we're sounding the alarm as we've been sounding now for too long. But hopefully your listeners will, in fact, start looking more closely at this digital environment because if we don't intervene in the next few years, it'll be impossible to go back and protect young people. So, when people watch television, they don't generally realize or appreciate the fact that information is being collected on them. Jeff - The television watches you now. The television is watching you now. The streaming companies are watching you now. The device that brings you streaming television is watching you now is collecting all kinds of data. The streaming device can deliver personalized ads to you. They'll be soon selling you products in real time. And they're sharing that data with companies like Meta Facebook, your local retailers like Albertsons, Kroger, et cetera. It's one big, huge digital data marketing machine that has been created. And the industry has been successful in blocking legislation except for the one law we were able to get through in 1998. And now under the Trump administration, they have free reign to do whatever they want. It's going to be an uphill battle. But I do think the companies are in a precarious position politically if we could get more people focused on what they're doing. Alright, we'll come back to that. My guess is that very few people realize the kind of thing that you just talked about. That so much information is being collected on them while they're watching television. The fact that you and your center are out there making people more aware, I think, is likely to be very helpful. Jeff - Well, I appreciate that, Kelly, but I have to say, and I don't want to denigrate our work, but you know, I just follow the trades. There's so much evidence if you care about the media and if you care about advertising and marketing or if you care, just let's say about Coca-Cola or Pepsi or Mondalez. Pick one you can't miss all this stuff. It's all there every day. And the problem is that there has not been the focus, I blame the funders in part. There's not been the focus on this marketplace in its contemporary dimensions. I'd like to ask you both about the legislative landscape and whether there are laws protecting people, especially children from this marketing. And Kathy, both you and Jeff were heavily involved in advocacy for a landmark piece of legislation that Jeff referred to from 1998, the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act. What did this act involve? And now that we're some years in, how has it worked? Kathryn - Well, I always say I've been studying advertising in the digital media before people even knew there was going to be advertising in digital media. Because we're really talking about the earliest days of the internet when it was being commercialized. But there was a public perception promoted by the government and the industry and a lot of other institutions and individuals that this was going to be a whole new democratic system of technology. And that basically it would solve all of our problems in terms of access to information. In terms of education. It would open up worlds to young people. In many ways it has, but they didn't talk really that much about advertising. Jeff and I working together at the Center for Media Education, were already tracking what was going on in that marketplace in the mid-1990s when it was very, very new. At which point children were already a prime target. They were digital kids. They were considered highly lucrative. Cyber Tots was one of the words that was used by the industry. What we believed was that we needed to get some public debate and some legislation in place, some kinds of rules, to guide the development of this new commercialized media system. And so, we launched a campaign that ultimately resulted in the passage of the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act. Now it only governs commercial media, online, digital media that targets children under the age of 13, which was the most vulnerable demographic group of young people. We believe protections are really, really very important for teenagers. There's a lot of evidence for that now, much more research actually, that's showing their vulnerable abilities. And it has required companies to take young people into account when developing their operations. It's had an impact internationally in a lot of other countries. It is just the barest minimum of what we need in terms of protections for young people. And we've worked with the Federal Trade Commission over the years to ensure that those rules were updated and strengthened so that they would apply to this evolving digital media system. But now, I believe, that what we need is a more global advocacy strategy. And we are already doing that with advocates in other countries to develop a strategy to address the practices of this global industry. And there are some areas where we see some promising movement. The UK, for example, passed a law that bans advertising on digital media online. It has not yet taken effect, but now it will after some delays. And there are also other things going on for ultra processed foods, for unhealthy foods and beverages. So, Kathryn has partly answered this already, Jeff, but let me ask you. That act that we've talked about goes back a number of years now, what's being done more recently on the legislative front? Perhaps more important than that, what needs to be done? Well, I have to say, Kelly, that when Joe Biden came in and we had a public interest chair at the Federal Trade Commission, Lena Khan, I urged advocates in the United States who are concerned about unhealthy eating to approach the Federal Trade Commission and begin a campaign to see what we could do. Because this was going to be the most progressive Federal Trade Commission we've had in decades. And groups failed to do so for a variety of reasons. So that window has ended where we might be able to get the Federal Trade Commission to do something. There are people in the United States Congress, most notably Ed Markey, who sponsored our Children's Privacy Law 25 years ago, to get legislation. But I think we have to look outside of the United States, as Kathryn said. Beyond the law in the United Kingdom. In the European Union there are rules governing digital platforms called the Digital Services Act. There's a new European Union-wide policy safeguards on Generative AI. Brazil has something similar. There are design codes like the UK design code for young people. What we need to do is to put together a package of strategies at the federal and perhaps even state level. And there's been some activity at the state level. You know, the industry has been opposed to that and gone to court to fight any rules protecting young people online. But create a kind of a cutting-edge set of practices that then could be implemented here in the United States as part of a campaign. But there are models. And how do the political parties break down on this, these issues? Kathryn - I was going to say they break down. Jeff - The industry is so powerful still. You have bipartisan support for regulating social media when it comes to young people because there have been so many incidences of suicide and stalking and other kinds of emotional and psychological harms to young people. You have a lot of Republicans who have joined with Democrats and Congress wanting to pass legislation. And there's some bipartisan support to expand the privacy rules and even to regulate online advertising for teens in our Congress. But it's been stymied in part because the industry has such an effective lobbying operation. And I have to say that in the United States, the community of advocates and their supporters who would want to see such legislation are marginalized. They're under underfunded. They're not organized. They don't have the research. It's a problem. Now all these things can be addressed, and we should try to address them. But right now it's unlikely anything will pass in the next few months certainly. Kathryn - Can I just add something? Because I think what's important now in this really difficult period is to begin building a broader set of stakeholders in a coalition. And as I said, I think it does need to be global. But I want to talk about also on the research front, there's been a lot of really important research on digital food marketing. On marketing among healthy foods and beverages to young people, in a number of different countries. In the UK, in Australia, and other places around the world. And these scholars have been working together and a lot of them are working with scholars here in the US where we've seen an increase in that kind of research. And then advocates need to work together as well to build a movement. It could be a resurgence that begins outside of our country but comes back in at the appropriate time when we're able to garner the kind of support from our policymakers that we need to make something happen. That makes good sense, especially a global approach when it's hard to get things done here. Jeff, you alluded to the fact that you've done work specifically on ultra processed foods. Tell us what you're up to on that front. Jeff - As part of our industry analysis we have been tracking what all the leading food and beverage companies are doing in terms of what they would call their digital transformation. I mean, Coca-Cola and Pepsi on Mondelez and Hershey and all the leading transnational processed food companies are really now at the end of an intense period of restructuring to take advantage of the capabilities provided by digital data and analytics for the further data collection, machine learning, and Generative AI. And they are much more powerful, much more effective, much more adept. In addition, the industry structure has changed in the last few years also because of digital data that new collaborations have been created between the platforms, let's say like Facebook and YouTube, the food advertisers, their marketing agencies, which are now also data companies, but most notably the retailers and the grocery stores and the supermarkets. They're all working together to share data to collaborate on marketing and advertising strategies. So as part of our work we've kept abreast of all these things and we're tracking them. And now we are sharing them with a group of advocates outside of the United States supported by the Bloomberg Philanthropies to support their efforts. And they've already made tremendous progress in a lot of areas around healthy eating in countries like Mexico and Argentina and Brazil, et cetera. And I'm assuming all these technological advances and the marketing muscle, the companies have is not being used to market broccoli and carrots and Brussels sprouts. Is that right? Jeff - The large companies are aware of changing attitudes and the need for healthy foods. One quick takeaway I have is this. That because the large ultra processed food companies understand that there are political pressures promoting healthier eating in North America and in Europe. They are focused on expanding their unhealthy eating portfolio, in new regions specifically Asia Pacific, Africa, and Latin America. And China is a big market for all this. This is why it has to be a global approach here, Kelly. First place, these are transnational corporations. They are creating the, our marketing strategies at the global level and then transmitting them down to be tailored at the national or regional level. They're coming up with a single set of strategies that will affect every country and every child in those countries. We need to keep track of that and figure out ways to go after that. And there are global tools we might be able to use to try to protect young people. Because if you could protect young, a young person in China, you might also be able to protect them here in North Carolina. This all sounds potentially pretty scary, but is there reason to be optimistic? Let's see if we can end on a positive note. What do you think. Do you have reason to be optimistic? Kathryn - I've always been an optimist. I've always tried to be an optimist, and again, what I would say is if we look at this globally and if we identify partners and allies all around the world who are doing good work, and there are many, many, many of them. And if we work together and continue to develop strategies for holding this powerful industry and these powerful industries accountable. I think we will have success. And I think we should also shine the spotlight on areas where important work has already taken place. Where laws have been enacted. Where companies have been made to change their practices and highlight those and build on those successes from around the world. Thanks. Jeff, what about you? Is there reason to be optimistic? Well, I don't think we can stop trying, although we're at a particularly difficult moment here in our country and worldwide. Because unless we try to intervene the largest corporations, who are working and will work closely with our government and other government, will be able to impact our lives in so many ways through their ability to collect data. And to use that data to target us and to change our behaviors. You can change our health behaviors. You can try to change our political behaviors. What the ultra-processed food companies are now able to do every company is able to do and governments are able to do. We have to expose what they're doing, and we have to challenge what they're doing so we can try to leave our kids a better world. It makes sense. Do you see that the general public is more aware of these issues and is there reason to be optimistic on that front? That awareness might lead to pressure on politicians to change things? Jeff - You know, under the Biden administration, the Federal Trade Commission identified how digital advertising and marketing works and it made it popular among many, many more people than previously. And that's called commercial surveillance advertising. The idea that data is collected about you is used to advertise and market to you. And today there are thousands of people and certainly many more advocacy groups concerned about commercial surveillance advertising than there were prior to 2020. And all over the world, as Kathryn said, in countries like in Brazil and South Africa and Mexico, advocates are calling attention to all these techniques and practices. More and more people are being aware and then, you know, we need obviously leaders like you, Kelly, who can reach out to other scholars and get us together working together in some kind of larger collaborative to ensure that these techniques and capabilities are exposed to the public and we hold them accountable. Bios Kathryn Montgomery, PhD. is Research Director and Senior Strategist for the Center for Digital Democracy (CDD). In the early 90s, she and Jeff Chester co-founded the Center for Media Education (CME), where she served as President until 2003, and which was the predecessor organization to CDD. CME spearheaded the national campaign that led to passage of the 1998 Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) the first federal legislation to protect children's privacy on the Internet. From 2003 until 2018, Dr. Montgomery was Professor of Communication at American University in Washington, D.C., where she founded and directed the 3-year interdisciplinary PhD program in Communication. She has served as a consultant to CDD for a number of years and joined the full-time staff in July 2018. Throughout her career, Dr. Montgomery has written and published extensively about the role of media in society, addressing a variety of topics, including: the politics of entertainment television; youth engagement with digital media; and contemporary advertising and marketing practices. Montgomery's research, writing, and testimony have helped frame the national public policy debate on a range of critical media issues. In addition to numerous journal articles, chapters, and reports, she is author of two books: Target: Prime Time – Advocacy Groups and the Struggle over Entertainment Television (Oxford University Press, 1989); and Generation Digital: Politics, Commerce, and Childhood in the Age of the Internet (MIT Press, 2007). Montgomery's current research focuses on the major technology, economic, and policy trends shaping the future of digital media in the Big Data era. She earned her doctorate in Film and Television from the University of California, Los Angeles. Jeff Chester is Executive Director of the Center for Digital Democracy (CDD), a Washington, DC non-profit organization. CDD is one of the leading U.S. NGOs advocating for citizens, consumers and other stakeholders on digital privacy and consumer protections online. Founded in 1991, CDD (then known as the Center for Media Education) led the campaign for the enactment of the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA, 1998). During the 1990s it also played a prominent role in such issues as open access/network neutrality, diversity of media ownership, public interest policies for children and television, as well the development of the FCC's “E-Rate” funding to ensure that schools and libraries had the resources to offer Internet services. Since 2003, CDD has been spearheading initiatives designed to ensure that digital media in the broadband era fulfill their democratic potential. A former investigative reporter, filmmaker and Jungian-oriented psychotherapist, Jeff Chester received his M.S.W. in Community Mental Health from U.C. Berkeley. He is the author of Digital Destiny: New Media and the Future of Democracy (The New Press, 2007), as well as articles in both the scholarly and popular press. During the 1980s, Jeff co-directed the campaign that led to the Congressional creation of the Independent Television Service (ITVS) for public TV. He also co-founded the National Campaign for Freedom of Expression, the artist advocacy group that supported federal funding for artists. In 1996, Newsweek magazine named Jeff Chester one of the Internet's fifty most influential people. He was named a Stern Foundation “Public Interest Pioneer” in 2001, and a “Domestic Privacy Champion” by the Electronic Privacy Information Center in 2011. CDD is a member of the Transatlantic Consumer Dialogue (TACD). Until January 2019, Jeff was the U.S. co-chair of TACD's Information Society (Infosoc) group, helping direct the organization's Transatlantic work on data protection, privacy and digital rights.

The Herle Burly was created by Air Quotes Media with support from our presenting sponsor TELUS, as well as CN Rail, and TikTok Canada.Greetings, you curious, you courageous Herle Burly-ites! Election 45 is in the books. And after 5 and ½ weeks on the trail, Mark Carney is in office. This time, as an elected Prime Minister.I have a conversation today with one of the key players that helped him navigate that path. For both the Liberal Leadership race and the ensuing election. My aim, for the next 60 minutes or so, will be to get an insider's view of the whole story ... with Braeden Caley!When Prime Minister Carney was first sworn in back in March, Braeden was named Deputy Chief of staff in the PMO. On the campaign, he served as National Campaign co-director and senior advisor. He's a long-time Liberal operative, the Senior Director of Comms for the Liberal Party, playing key roles in the 2015, 2019 and 2021 elections. And if all of that weren't enough, Braeden was also President and CEO of Canada 2020, a leading progressive think tank in Canada.So today: Who is Mark Carney? What motivates him? What does he care about? And then the shape of the campaign itself ... we'll talk about what Team Carney expected to happen. And what surprised them. The 51 st State factor. Was it a welcome intrusion, from a purely political point of view? And then, the upcoming minority parliament. How is the Prime Minister going to approach achieving his agenda?Thank you for joining us on #TheHerleBurly podcast. Please take a moment to give us a rating and review on iTunes, Spotify, Stitcher, Google Podcasts or your favourite podcast app.Watch episodes of The Herle Burly via Air Quotes Media on YouTube.

Part 1:Benjamin T. King, Esquire, is a partner in the Concord law firm of Douglas, Leonard & Garvey, P.C., concentrating in employment litigation, civil litigation, workers compensation, and personal injury litigation. Attorney King, who has been a New Hampshire trial lawyer since 1997, is the current President of the New Hampshire Chapter of the National Employment Lawyers Association and is a Past President of the New Hampshire Association for Justice. Attorney King graduated from Dartmouth College and the University of Virginia School of LawWe discuss employee rights, particularly in the right-to-work states, where the employees are "At-will", and not covered by union contracts. There are some exceptions to the employer's ability to fire employees, and these are covered by specific laws. We also talk about the role of the NLRB.Part 2:Eugene Carroll, a longtime labor educator and organizer and a Worker Institute Fellow at Cornell University's School of Industrial and Labor Relations.His previous positions included executive director of New York Jobs with Justice; communications specialist for the United Mine Workers of America; national labor coordinator and organizing director for the National Campaign for a Nuclear Weapons.Freeze; and organizer for the Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers Union.We discuss the origins of the labor movement. We also look at the history of May Day worldwide. We discuss some of the current threats to the labor movement. Music: David RovicsWNHNFM.ORG  production 

A national campaign to ensure the future of small scale producers and abattoirs has been launched. The Australian Food Sovereignty Alliance wants to see increased government funding for the industry, as well as collaboration to address worker shortages, and safeguards for micro and mobile abattoirs. Rural Editor Emily Minney spoke with President Tammi Jonas about the challenges the sector faces. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Right to Information Act was a historic piece of legislation that gave ordinary citizens a legally enforceable means to seek information about the government's functioning – a small step towards accountability. But over the years, governments have progressively diluted the provisions of this law. The latest blow to the RTI is in the form of Section 44 (3) of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023. This law will come into force once the Rules under it are notified, which is expected to happen this month. law's Rules are notified, and that is expected to happen any time now. How does Section 44 (3) of the DPDP Act weaken the Right to Information Act? Why is the Opposition demanding that it be repealed? And what are the consequences for citizens if this Section stays? Guest: Anjali Bhardwaj, founder of the Satark Nagarik Sangathan and co-convenor of the National Campaign for the People's Right to Information (NCPRI). Host: G. Sampath, Social Affairs Editor, The Hindu Edited by Shiva Raj Recorded and Produced by Jude Francis Weston

Malcolm Byrne, Fianna Fáil TD for Wicklow-Wexford; Aiden Farrelly, Social Democrats TD for Kildare North; Mannix Flynn, Independent Councillor for Dublin City Council; Maria Fleming, Chair of The National Campaign for the Arts; Aoife Barry, Writer and journalist

Malcolm Byrne, Fianna Fáil TD for Wicklow-Wexford; Aiden Farrelly, Social Democrats TD for Kildare North; Mannix Flynn, Independent Councillor for Dublin City Council; Maria Fleming, Chair of The National Campaign for the Arts; Aoife Barry, Writer and journalist

Dr. Orla Lenihan, Assistant Professor in Corporate Governance, University of Galway // Maria Fleming, CEO of First Fortnight, Ireland's mental health arts festival and Chair of NCFA, the National Campaign for the arts // Jo Mangan, Director of the Performance Corporation

*) Israeli invasion in Gaza claims first civilian casualty of 2025 The New Year dawns tragically for Palestinians as Israeli forces escalate in Gaza. An air strike hit the Abu Dhaher family home in Bureij camp, killing eight-year-old Adam Farhallah—the first Palestinian civilian casualty of twenty-twenty-five. Meanwhile, National Campaign to Retrieve Martyrs' Bodies, a non-governmental organisation said Israel held the bodies of one-hundred-ninety-eight Palestinians in twenty-twenty-four. Separately Israeli media alleges that Hamas has proposed a week-long ceasefire, offering to provide a list of Israeli captives by the fourth day, awaiting Israel's response on extending peace or resuming conflict. *) South Korea warns against obstructing Yoon Suk-yeol's arrest South Korean authorities have warned that anyone obstructing the arrest of impeached President Yoon Suk-yeol could face prosecution. Supporters gathered outside his Seoul residence as officials pledged to enforce the arrest warrant by January-six. Yoon, stripped of his duties and facing insurrection charges, could face life imprisonment or the death penalty. His legal team has challenged the warrant, calling it “illegal.” *) Europe's Russian gas era ends as Ukraine transit stops Russian gas supplies to Europe through Ukraine ceased on New Year's Day as a five-year transit deal expired. It marks the end of a decades-long era of Russian dominance in the European gas market. The move comes as Europe has significantly reduced its reliance on Russian energy following the war in Ukraine. While the immediate market impact may be limited, the loss of this crucial supply route has significant geopolitical implications for both Russia and Europe. The halt in gas flows will have a significant impact on countries like Moldova, which relied on this pipeline. *) Thousands in Bangladesh call for prosecution of ousted PM Hasina Thousands rallied at the iconic Shaheed Minar in Dhaka, demanding justice for victims of Bangladesh's July uprising. The "March for Unity," led by students, called for ousted PM Sheikh Hasina's prosecution and a ban on her Awami League party. Hasina fled to India on August-five amid escalating violence, leaving behind a fractured nation. Nobel laureate Muhammad Yunus's interim government now seeks international support for justice, while Hasina dismisses charges as a “political witch hunt.” *) US military court rules 9/11 plea deals can proceed A US military appeals court upheld plea deals for 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and two accomplices. Defence Secretary Lloyd Austin had tried to invalidate the agreements, but a judge ruled he acted too late. The deals could spare the trio the death penalty in exchange for guilty pleas. Meanwhile, the Pentagon repatriated a Guantanamo detainee to Tunisia, marking another chapter in the detention facility's controversial history, as 26 inmates remain.

Thanks to our group sponsors: Rogers, Pattison Media, Corus Entertainment, iHeartRadio, Stingray, Vista Broadcasting, Harvard Media. The Following summary of winners is from Broadcast Dialogue. Pattison Media's 102.3 NOW! Radio (CKNO-FM) Edmonton is among the multiple winners at the 2024 Canadian Radio Awards.NOW! won Major Market Station of the Year, and Best On-Air Promotion (Major Market) for its “Swiftie-oke” contest, while Program Director Jay Stone captured Program Director of the Year (Major Market). The station was also the catalyst behind Best Community Service Initiative winner Alberta Day of Caring for Jasper, which saw the province's radio stations come together to raise more than $1.5M to support those impacted by this summer's wildfire.Evanov Communications' stations in Winnipeg won in multiple categories. Evanov Winnipeg's Adam West captured Program Director of the Year (Medium Market), while the Energy 106 (CHWE-FM) morning show, Wheeler in the Morning, won Best On-Air Team (Music) (Medium Market). Energy 106 and Z103.5 (CIDC-FM) Toronto also won Best Imaging Production (Large Market), while their joint entry for HOT 100.5 (CFJL-FM) Winnipeg and LITE 92.1 (CKPC-FM) Brantford won in the Medium Market category.Rogers Sports & Media's CHEZ 106 Ottawa also captured two awards, including Station of the Year (Medium Market) and Best Community Service Initiative (Medium Market) for its DEEDS promotion.In the small market categories, Fort St. John, BC independent station 100.1 Moose FM (CKFU-FM) picked up two awards. Program Director Chris Walker won Program Director of the Year (Small Market), while the station also won Best Podcast (Small Market) for Before the Peace, focused on telling the stories of the Indigenous and Métis peoples of B.C.'s Peace Region.Kahnawake, Que. community station K1037 The Monster (CKRK-FM) also claimed two awards. Paul Graiff won Best Anchor/Reporter (Small Market), while Mitch Craig captured Best Imaging Voice (Small Market).By network, Rogers Sports & Media led wins with 14, followed by Pattison Media with eight, while Evanov picked up a total of five wins. Bell Media won in four categories, with Corus Radio and Harvard Media each earning three awards. Vista Radio won two.Find a full list of this year's winners below. To listen to their award-winning audio and view this year's runners-up, head to CanadianRadioAwards.com.Best Anchor or Reporter – Sponsored by Burli Major MarketRichard Southern, 680 NewsRadio, (CFTR), Rogers Sports & Media, TorontoMedium MarketRichard Duggan, VOCM-AM, (VOCM), Stingray, St. John's, Newfoundland and LabradorSmall MarketPaul Graif, K103.7 The Monster, (CKRK), Mohawk Radio, KahnawakeBest Canadian Multi-Market Network ProgramMajor MarketFearless Fred, Q107 / Power 97 / Edge / Big 101, (CILQ / CFQC / CJKR / CIQB ), CorusMedium MarketSam McDaid – Country Nights, (CKQC / CJOK / CKXC / CKBY / CIKZ / CJQM / CKAT / CJDL), Rogers Sports & MediaSmall MarketNick Liard – Regional Midday Show, (CJRQ / CJQQ / CKFX ), Rogers Sports & MediaBest On-Air Team or Host (News/Talk/Sports)Major MarketAndrea Montgomery / Kelly Turner / Logan Stein / Tanya Blakeney / Phil Wood / Lauryn Heintz – Calgary Morning Show, 660 NewsRadio (CFFR), Rogers Sports & Media, Calgary, AlbertaMedium MarketBrett Megarry / Greg Mackling – The Start, 680 CJOB (CJOB), Corus, Winnipeg, ManitobaBest On-Air Team or Host (Music)Major MarketThe Roz & Mocha Show, KiSS 92.5 (CKIS), Rogers Sports & Media, Toronto, OntarioMedium MarketWheeler in the Morning, Energy 106 (CHWE), Evanov Communications, Winnipeg, ManitobaSmall MarketJason McCoy / Carey Moran, Pure Country 106 (CICX), Bell Media, Orillia, OntarioBest On-Air Solo Host (Music)Major MarketLauren Hunter, Sonic 102.9 (CHDI), Rogers Sports & Media, Edmonton, AlbertaMedium MarketKatherine Dines, MOVE 100 (CJMJ), Bell Media, Ottawa, OntarioSmall MarketRobyn Thomson, KiSS 99.3 (CKGB), Rogers Sports & Media, TimminsMusic Director of the YearMajor MarketKatie Stanners, KiSS 91.7 (CHBN), Rogers Sports & Media, Edmonton, AlbertaMedium MarketIan Sharek, Rogers Rock Radio, Rogers Sports & Media, Multiple MarketsSmall MarketCourtney Rae, 106.1 The Goat (CKLM), Vista Radio, Lloydminster, Alberta Program Director of the Year – Sponsored by Momentum Media Major MarketJay Stone, 102.3 NOW! Radio (CKNO), UP! 99.3 (CIUP), Pattison Media, Edmonton, AlbertaMedium MarketAdam West, Energy 106 (CHWE), HOT 100.5 (CFJL), Evanov Communications, Winnipeg, ManitobaSmall MarketChris Walker, 100.1 Moose FM (CKFU), Moose Media, Fort St John, British ColumbiaStation of The Year – Sponsored by David Kaye / Kayeman Productions Major Market102.3 NOW! Radio (CKNO), Pattison Media, Edmonton, AlbertaMedium MarketCHEZ 106 (CHEZ), Rogers Sports & Media, Ottawa, OntarioSmall Market100.5 Cruz FM (CHFT), Harvard Media, Fort McMurray, AlbertaSound of Success – Sponsored by Validate Audio AttributionMajor MarketWhat's In A Name / Booster Juice, Rogers Sports & Media, National Campaign, Canada-wideSmall MarketGo Rock Campaign (CFLB), Novacast Media, Lunenburg, Nova Scotia Best Achievement in Engineering – Sponsored by leanStream All MarketsDaryll Donais, Hot Country 103, (CKHZ), Acadia Broadcasting, Halifax, Nova ScotiaBest Community or Campus Station – Sponsored by Community Radio Fund of Canada Major MarketVIBE 105 (CHRY), Canadian Centre for Civic Media and Arts Development Inc., Toronto, OntarioSmall Market100.1 BayFM (CKVB), Bay of Islands Radio Inc. , Corner Brook, Newfoundland and LabradorBest Community Service Initiative – Sponsored By Broadcast Dialogue Major MarketAlberta Day Of Caring For Jasper, 102.3 NOW! (CKNO), UP! 99.3 (CIUP), Pattison Media, Edmonton, AlbertaMedium MarketDEEDS, 106.1 CHEZ (CHEZ), Rogers Sports & Media, Ottawa, OntarioSmall MarketSpirit Day, 101.3 the River (CKKN), 99.3 REWIND Radio (CKDV), Pattison Media, Prince George, British ColumbiaBest Imaging Production – Sponsored by Benztown Major MarketZ103.5, (CIDC), Energy 106, (CHWE), Evanov Communications, Toronto, Ontario / Winnipeg, ManitobaMedium MarketLITE 92.1, (CKPC), HOT 100.5, (CFJL), Evanov Communications, Brantford, Ontario / Winnipeg, ManitobaSmall MarketPure Country 105, (CKQM), Bell Media, Peterborough, OntarioBest Imaging VoiceMajor MarketCorri English / Allan Peck / Jeff McKnight, STAR 95.9, (CHFM), Rogers Sports & Media, Calgary, AlbertaMedium MarketDavid Kaye, 104.9 The Wolf, (CFWF), Harvard Media, Regina, SaskatchewanSmall MarketMitch Craig, K1037, The Monster, (CKRK), Mohawk Radio, KahnawakeBest Performance in a CommercialMajor MarketBob Johnstone, Amore Pasta – Love Pasta Again, The Eagle, (CKLR), Pattison Media, Courtenay, British ColumbiaMedium MarketDave Hiltz, FoCheezy, 107.5 Dave Rocks. (CJDV), Corus, Kitchener, OntarioSmall MarketBrian Viggiani, Georgian Bay Storage, LITE 99.3, (CJGB), Evanov Communications, Meaford, Ontario Best CommercialMajor MarketOodle / Noodle – Improve Your Noodle, Play 107, (CKPW), Harvard Media, Edmonton, AlbertaMedium MarketHealthy Smiles / The Tooth Is Out There, BIG105 FM, (CHUB), Pattison Media, Red Deer, AlbertaSmall MarketFouillard Carpets, POWER99, (CFMM), Pattison Media, Prince Albert, SaskatchewanBest On-Air Promotion – Sponsored by vcreative Major Market102.3 NOW! Radio, (CKNO), Pattison Media, Edmonton, Alberta Medium Market103.7 Virgin Radio, (CHBE), Bell Media, Victoria, British ColumbiaSmall Market94.1 CJOC, (CJOC), Vista Radio, Lethbridge, AlbertaBest PodcastMajor MarketSweethearts: Island Crime, Season 6, Rogers Frequency NetworkMedium MarketRadio des Petits Hiboux, U Multicultural, U RadioSmall MarketBefore The Peace, 100.1 Moose FM, (CKFU), Fort St. John, British ColumbiaSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Esther Adán – National Campaign for collecting hearing aids for deaf children...with TRE's Hannah Murray

Xen Nhà is founder and editor of Red Pocket Press, a queer asian publishing project celebrating Lunar New Year through zines, food and gatherings. Xen talks about Red Pocket Press and the upcoming Languages in Community Festival where they'll be sharing stories of queer and trans Asian histories, ancestry and family in the diaspora. 3CR reporter Pilar Aguilera reports from the Federal Court in Sydney, where former Chilean Secret Service Agent and Bondi nanny, Adriana Rivas, has launched a final appeal to block her extradition to Chile. The ‘National Campaign for Truth and Justice in Chile' is an Australian-based community group (made up of victims and family members of ‘detained & disappeared' peoples) who have been campaigning for a decade for the extradition of Adriana Rivas. In this excerpt, Pilar speaks to campaign member Elizabeth Rivera, and then to Adriana Navarro, the human rights lawyer representing the 7 victims' families in Australia. This excerpt originally aired on Doin' Time on Monday 25th November. [Special Broadcast - 16 Days of Activism Against Gender-Based Violence]Ness Gavanzo is chairperson of Gabriela Australia (Association of Filipino Women) and coordinator of the Support Network for International Students (SNIS). Ness speaks about the crisis of domestic violence that is affecting migrant women, international students and women who experience visa instability. Please note that the following conversation discusses themes such as violence against women and children and death. Please take care when listening and reach out to your support networks. If you would like to speak to someone, you can call Lifeline on 13 11 14 or 1800 RESPECT on 1800 737 732. [Special Broadcast - 16 Days of Activism Against Gender-Based Violence]Bee is a migrant sex worker, outreach peer support worker for women of cultural and linguistically diverse backgrounds for Vixen and AMSWAG (Asian Migrant Sex Worker Advisory Group) under the Scarlet Alliance. They are also a member of Justice for Our Sisters. In the second part of this conversation, Bee speaks about the different forms of violence perpetrated against sex workers and migrant sex workers and actions the broader community can take to stand in solidarity with SW, especially in light of the murders of Yuqi Luo and Hyun Sook Jeon. There will be discussions about sexual violence, so please take care when listening. If you would like to reach out to someone, please contact Lifeline on 13 11 14, 1800 RESPECT on 1800 737 732. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander listeners can call 13 YARN on 13 92 76. Sign the letter to stand in solidarity with Hyun and Yuqi here. 13-year-old Ayah and 12-year-old Retel, children of Palestinian and Yemeni immigrants respectively, speak at the Free Palestine Rally in Naarm on Sunday 24th November. They speak about how genocide and racism affects them as children, about the inequalities and unfairness they see in the world, and their future aspirations as activists. Songs:Lonely Love Affair - YARAMoving in Circles- Tia GostelowSantai - NonaRia

A former Bondi nanny and cleaner accused by Chile of being a torturer and kidnapper for Pinochet's military dictatorship in the 1970s has launched a last-ditch legal appeal to avoid extradition. Adriana Rivas, 70, has been in prison in Australia since 2019, when she was arrested on an extradition request from Chile – seeking her for trial on seven counts of aggravated kidnapping relating to the disappearance, and presumed murder, of seven members of Chile's communist party who disappeared in 1976.Today's guest is Pilar Aguielera, co-founder of the National Campaign for truth and justice in Chile.

Study after study has shown that consumption of sugar sweetened beverages poses clear health risk. So how have the big soda companies, Coke and Pepsi in particular, reacted to this news and to public health policies that have aimed to restrict their business dealings like marketing, labeling, and even taxes? A fascinating and important part of this history has been told in a new book by Dr. Susan Greenhalgh called Soda Science: Making the World Safe for Coca Cola. Dr. Greenhalgh is the John King and Wilma Cannon Fairbank Professor of Chinese Society Emerita at Harvard University. But hold on, what in the heck does China have to do all this? Well, we're about to find out. This will be a very interesting discussion. Interview Summary Let's begin by setting the context for your book, again, on soda science. Back in 2015, the New York Times published a major expose, written by Anahat O'Connor, and a critique of what was called the Global Energy Balance Network (GEBN), that was funded by Coca Cola. Could you explain what this network was? Sure. The GEBN was an international network of researchers that argued that the energy balance framework is the best approach for addressing the obesity epidemic. So that simple framework calls for balancing the energy in the number of calories consumed through eating with a number of calories burned through moving to achieve a healthy weight. While that sounds neutral in practice, in the early 2000s, Coke and the food industry at large, adopted energy balance as their motto. It had several advantages. One is under the banner of "energy balance," the industry and the scientists working with it could say that people could eat whatever they wanted and then exercise it off. Unfortunately, that doesn't work for most people. Second, in practice, the energy balance slogan was used to promote exercise as the priority solution. What the research shows about energy is that exercise helps, but the primary answer to the obesity issue is to eat fewer unhealthy foods. Now the third advantage to the energy balance framework is that talking about energy balance meant the companies and the GEBN didn't need to mention soda taxes, or other legislative and regulatory measures, that worked but that might hurt the industry. So, in my book, I call this body of ideas adopted by the GEBN and the food industry “Soda Science.” That's short for Soda Defense Science - a science created not so much to understand obesity, as to defend the profits of the soda industry. Okay, that all makes sense, and I totally agree with your interpretation of the science that food intake is much more important in the obesity epidemic, in particular, than physical activity. It's not that activity is unimportant, but to divert attention away from the dietary part of it is really a public health misdeed. But one can obviously see the benefit to the industry for making that diversion. So, in that 2015 article, it was highly critical of the conflicts of interest that had been created by the soda industry paying prominent scientists. What benefits did the company reap from making these payments and what happened after that article got published? The GEBN was the product of the 15 years that came before it, of gradually building up this soda science. The GEBN itself lasted only about a year, but during that 15-year period, the industry benefited by having fewer people, fewer specialists, fewer countries talking about soda taxes. But what happened after the GEBN was outed in the New York Times in late 2015 was Coca Cola was absolutely mortified. The revelation that the company had paid for industry-friendly science was just incredibly embarrassing. So, under absolutely withering criticism from scientists and the public, Coke stopped funding the GEBN, which of course led to its collapse. The company also took a major turn in its approach to obesity. Vowing to no longer single-handedly fund scientific research, and by publishing a long so-called transparency list of all the individuals and organizations it had funded over the last 15 years. So, those things helped, but Coke's reputation remains tarnished to this day. But meanwhile, as for the academic scientists behind the GEBN, they saw things differently. They continued to maintain that their science had not been affected by the 20 million dollars that Coke had promised to support their network. Of the four researchers who led the GEBN effort, two stepped down and found wonderful jobs elsewhere. They both have leadership positions in different universities. One retired and the fourth continues to work in his previous position. So, there was no single, discernible impact on these debates within the academy. I know some of the individuals involved. And by the way, I know a good bit of information available to understand what this network was doing came from Freedom of Information requests that various parties made. And your book contains transcripts from emails and things like that, that these various scientists were sharing with the industry. The content of those is extremely interesting and very telling. And the result, it's sort of this good-old-boy-back-slapping-network of people who were kind of winking - let's go get the people that don't like us. It's just interesting. My impression is that some pretty negative consequences befell at least two of those academics afterwards. You know, there was a lot of embarrassment. One basically, I think, had to leave the job he had. Another, suffered some real penalties in his academic life. And so, it wasn't outcome free, or it wasn't penalty free for these scientists at the end of the day. But I do think that your basic point is well made. That lots of people take lots of money from lots of industries on lots of topics. Not just on food, but you know energy and environment and all kinds of things. And very rarely do they pay any kind of a penalty. It only took this investigative report by the New York Times to shed special light on how pernicious this particular one was. But let me ask you a question, and then I kind of have my own thoughts about it. Why don't you think anything more happened to the people that got caught? I don't know if caught is the right word. But at least that they're taking industry money and their favorable science for industry got exposed. Why don't you think more happened about that? The scientists themselves were deeply convinced that they hadn't done anything wrong. They were convinced that their science was not affected by all the money that they had taken from Coke, and the scientific nonprofit working for the industry, over all those years. I think there's a significant fraction of folks in the public health field, or at least in the obesity research field, who think the same thing. There's just a lot of support for them. As I see it, the two people who lost their original jobs have bounced back. I haven't done a survey of the field to ask people what they feel about these researchers, but they did pretty well given what they did. The reason I think that they're convinced that they didn't do anything wrong is they have these practices, I call them “doing ethics,” to assure the world and themselves that their scientific integrity is intact. And one of the practices that these guys used was to constantly say, "This problem of obesity epidemic, it's huge. We have to include the food industry as our partner." And then when you go there, food industry begins to have a huge voice and there's very little you can do to effectively restrain it. You know, it's an interesting way to think about it and consistent with the way I've thought about it over the years. I've done some writing on this topic and it seems to me that scientists have, not all scientists by all means, but a few select ones, get sought out by industry. And then this blind spot ensues where if you ask these scientists sort of, in general, does research get tainted or affected by industry money? They'll say yes. But if you ask does YOUR research get tainted by it? They'll say no. ‘Oh, no, I'm above that. I can be objective We have to change from within.' There's a whole series of rationalizations for taking the money. But do they ever stop and ask, why is industry investing this money? And industry is not stupid. They wouldn't be paying you $50,000 as a consultant, or putting you on boards, or flying you around the world, or funding your research if there was no return from it. And the research on it is absolutely clear. Industry-funded research typically finds industry favorable results. So, all that's been documented. But the scientists who want to get involved with industry and take the money don't kind of interpret it that way. Like ‘I can take money but be free of the temptations to bias the work I do.' May I just interject something here? I think that they believe it's a win-win prospect. Of course, Coke wants to emphasize exercise to make people forget about their sugar. But I've just dug long and hard into those emails, which none of the scientists ever thought would be read and used in scholarly accounts. But in the emails, the leader of the GEBN wanted to fund a major research project that he was promoting, and he's arguing all the reasons that Soda Science was good for Coca Cola. I suspect that he thought that Coke wasn't influencing him. Instead, he was influencing Coke. And in fact he was, but it doesn't matter where the influence comes from because in the end the science is affected. You know, I've often asked myself, if there are negative consequences from this, the question is isn't there a police force out there looking after this kind of thing? And it's hard to know who that would be, because the scientists themselves have shown that enough of them are willing to take the money. And so the scientists aren't policing themselves sufficiently. Their institutions, the universities, tend not to do it because they're taking money from industry, too, in some way, generally. And their university's response to that is you have to disclose that you're taking money from industry. But there's research on disclosure, and that seems to make things worse rather than better. The journals that people publish their work in do the same thing. They make people disclose, but that doesn't have much impact. And professional associations have been investigated every which way by one of the same people who wrote that article in 2015, showing that they take money from industry. So, how can they police their members? So, it seems to me that the police have to be the press and people that do investigative scholarly work like you've done in this book. The book is pretty new. So, it's a little early to say what its impact is going to be. But let's hope that a lot of people read this book. And get more insight into how this works, how people feel when they're involved in this money taking, and what the ultimate impact might be. So let's turn to one particular area of expertise you have. Let's talk about China. So almost all the criticism on industry-funded efforts like the Global Energy Balance Network have been focused on the U.S. But you follow the soda trail to China. So why did you do that and what's the significance of this inquiry? Really significant. The GEBN was part of a much larger corporate project that was absolutely global in scope. So, from the vantage point of the industry, the U.S. has long been a declining market for soda. The important markets for sugary drinks are the large rapidly developing countries in the Global South. So that's where the industry is focusing its efforts to sell product, that is junk food and drinks. And to promote a corporate science and corporate policy that stresses exercise over dietary change in soda taxes. So China. China has 1.4 billion people these days. One billion back in 1980 when Coke set up shop in China. China was the single biggest market for the soda companies. Coke was so keen to get into the China market that it started lobbying early. Actually the mid 1970s, when Mao Zedong was still alive. And in 1978, Coke became the very first Western company to set up shop in China as the country opened up for the first time in 30 years to the market, into the global economy. And another advantage of the Global South, from the point of view of the food industries, is an attitude toward Western firms that's less critical than what you find in the U.S. In the U.S., huge companies are always under suspicion that they will promote corporate interests over socially valued goals. So those attitudes are much less prevalent in many countries in the Global South where big companies are often seen as agents of development, essential agents. In China, big Western companies were celebrated as sources of capital and advanced interests. So, nobody would suspect they were hurting the country. And the industry has lots of ways of dressing this up in a self-serving, positive way, by talking about developing emerging markets, investments in the developing world, and things like this. But it strikes me also as being stunningly similar to what the tobacco companies did when they got hammered in the United States. They simply moved outside the United States and tried to sell as many cigarettes as beyond our borders as they could. And a lot of these same sort of phenomenon take place. Does that seem true to you? Absolutely. So let me ask what actually occurred in China. So, Coke sets its sights on China. It has this kind of process established that's trying to affect policy through connections with scientists. So, what actually took place in China? What was the impact on policies? Well, to understand that, we need to know that the food industry had a magic weapon way back in the late 1970s. The food industry created an industry-funded scientific nonprofit based in DC that was global in scope. And whose job was to sponsor science that served industry needs. Its name was ILSI (International Life Sciences Institute). So, in China, the local branch of ILSI organized a series of major conferences and other activities designed to combat obesity. Over time, the proportion of these anti-obesity activities focusing on exercise rose dramatically, while the proportion focusing on diet sank.What this shows is that the food industry had tilted China's approach to obesity. ILSI China also played a major role in creating China's first and most important policies on obesity. The most important was the National Campaign for Healthy Lifestyles, ironically modeled after the patriotic health campaigns that Mao used to promote in his day. So, that healthy lifestyle campaign drew heavily on the Soda Science created by Coke, ILSI, and their academic friends. So, that ‘healthy lifestyle' campaign prioritized exercise in a number of ways. Said nothing about sugar and soda. And it made the individual, not the government or industry, responsible for fixing the obesity problem. So, with this campaign, ILSI China had smuggled the policy favored by the food industry into China's policies. That's an amazing history that you've documented. And it occurs to me that in the United States, we can celebrate public health victories, like the huge decline in cigarette smoking that occurred. And, the big decline that's occurred in sugared beverage consumption too. And those things are all good. But if this is like a balloon and you're just squeezing the end of it here, but it expands elsewhere in the world, the overall public health impact could be even worse than when you started, not better. And it sounds like the industry-funded front groups have been pretty responsible for making that happen. Yes, they're incredibly effective. In my view, I really took apart ILSI, looking at it as an organizational sociologist. And I think it's just brilliantly designed to make academic-looking science that benefits industry. And to keep everything hidden from sight under that label nonprofit. It's really quite brilliant. They're not very happy with this project. And the work that you've done, and the investigative journalists have done in the U. S., to expose these industry ties can have traction in the U. S. much more so in a country like China. So, it sounds like there's probably not much to put the brakes on this kind of thing in China. Is that right? To tell the truth, there's a younger group of obesity experts, trained in the U.S., who now are based in China and have written major articles. There was a three-part series in The Lancet in 2021 on obesity in China. And they are on board with a critique of the food industry and working in every way they can to bring that to the attention of officials. But the government has a vested interest in the success of Coca Cola. I have to say that Coca Cola, and there's a huge state-owned enterprise called CoffCo, they now have a partnership called CoffCo Coca Cola, that runs the bottlers in 19 provinces, representing something like 60-70 percent of the Chinese population. So, the government has a vested interest in making sure Coca Cola remains happy. Let's talk about that just a bit more. So, Susan, you'd think that the Chinese government would be in a conflicted position with this. On one hand, they want to financially benefit from Coca Cola prospering in their country. And I'm sure officials are benefiting individually from that kind of thing. But the country doesn't benefit because they certainly don't want high rates of diabetes and heart disease and obesity and other things that come from consumption of these products. How do you think that that plays out? Is it just that the short-term financial benefits are prevailing over the longer-term health consequences? I think the government is highly conflicted. It has a number of policy, overarching policy themes, that it has been promoting ever since opening up in the late 70s and early 80s. One of those themes is marketization, growing the economy, advancing the technology in high end industries. And nothing can interfere with the achievement of that goal. China is known around the world for having very sophisticated environmental policies. But when push comes to shove, market goals prevail over environmental goals. I think the very same thing happens with health. It's just astonishing to see how market forces and market logics pervade the health sector. I did a separate piece of research, it's not in this book. But it shows that the major western food companies have been partnering with the Chinese government to carry out China's policies on chronic disease. And that means they're teaching the Chinese people basic notions of good nutrition. And what they're teaching them is not that soda is bad, is that, you know, it's that you can drink soda as long as you go ahead and exercise at all. I think there are major fundamental conflicts here at the level of profound party policy. I think this is going to be very hard to address. I was going to say that's just a stunning observation. That part of the food nutrition education has been turned over to the food industry. Absolutely. And you can, you can read about it in the Chinese media every year. They have, it's called Food Week or Nutrition Week, that's sponsored by the Chinese Nutrition Society, which is nominally independent. And they invite Western food companies to come in and sponsor a big project within that week. And of course they're very happy to do it. Unbelievable. And also, the policies that ILSI created that are very much pro industry, that was back in the 2000s. Those have now been built into central policy. So they continue to impact policy today. So, a chapter of your book is entitled Doing Ethics, the Silent Scream. What do you mean by that? Let me start with just a little bit of background. So, in China, the head of the ILSI branch operated as a virtual health ministry official. Kind of a de facto part of the government. So, no one could question what she did, part of the government, no questioning the government. As I just mentioned, most of the scientists I interviewed believed that Coke and other food and beverage companies were positive forces in China. They loved Coke's corporate social responsibility programs and had them all in their head and regaled me with these stories of schools in the rural areas supported by Coke. They thought everything was above board. They thought that ILSI's science was objective or disinterested. They couldn't imagine that Coke was supporting policies that benefited the corporate bottom line while harming the health of the Chinese people. Now, getting to that chapter, some very senior scientists, folks who had worked in the field before money came to dominate everything in China, they knew in their hearts that the food industry was corrupting China's science and policy. But it was very dangerous for them to talk about it. They certainly didn't volunteer those feelings to me. But when I began to ask really probing questions, they quietly acknowledged that yes, of course, corporate funding shapes the science. But the whole subject caused them just incredible angst. They couldn't talk about it. They certainly couldn't talk about it in public, and they couldn't do anything about it. And so, they issued a silent scream. And this is a really important part of the story of China. There really are voices of resistance, voices that see through the official line that everything's being done correctly. The readers of this book can hear that silent scream in that last chapter. That's a pretty, pretty amazing story. Well, you know, it's heartening in a way that in a country like China, where the government controls so much of what day to day life is like, that there is some activity. At least some pushback, some resistance. So, let's hope ultimately that the objective science prevails. That the industry influence wanes, and the public health will be protected. So, speaking of chapters in your book, the last two chapters are titled, Soda Science Lives On. And then the final chapter, So What and What Now. Tell us more. Oh sure, I'd love to. Soda Science Lives On: that's like the conclusion to the China part. I show how, even to this day, the provisions of Soda Science continue to shape China's policies on obesity and chronic disease more generally. In the last decade, President Xi Jinping has stressed the importance of including health in all policies, which is good. But a close look suggests that his signature policy package, that's called Healthy China 2030, bears the imprint of the Coca Cola company and -promotes ILSI's trademark exercise programs that omit soda taxes. And have a strong market orientation that makes individuals, again, not companies, not even the government, fundamentally responsible for maintaining a healthy weight through their healthy lifestyle choices. This, of course, neglects the importance of China's obesogenic environment and the impact of that environment on the choices available to individuals. So, this part of the book also introduces a group of next generation Chinese scientists who understand the threat posed by big food constantly lobbying the government to introduce policies to restrict its power. I've talked about the impact on China, but I'm also very interested in the impact on America, especially American fitness culture. In the book's conclusion, what I do is I take the short history of Soda Science. And I place that in the context of the much larger history of the post-World War II history of American fitness culture. What I suggest is that Soda Science was instrumental in creating today's Fitbit wearing, step counting, exercise and obesity-obsessed culture that assumes that exercise by itself can take off pounds. That 10,000 steps a day is going to solve all my problems. It won't, but the idea is very much part of our everyday thinking about obesity. There's a lot of work to do. As we all know, those big food companies are some of the wealthiest and most powerful forces in the world. Way richer than any of any fields of science in America. For critical scientists and social scientists, the effort to chip away at their power through the power of expose and documenting the truth often feels quite futile, time consuming and useless. But in fact, our work can make a difference. And I document this in the book. In the last few years, Coca Cola cut its ties with ILSI. That is big because Coca Cola was the founding company behind ILSI. Two other companies have also dropped ILSI. ILSI itself has also undergone a major reorganization and this is big - ILSI China has dissolved. It is no longer. I'd like to think that the in-depth research of the social sciences has exposed what is really going on and left these corporate science organizations little choice but to close shop, or fundamentally change how they work. That's my secret dream. So this, this is progress, yes, but the food industry is still at it, for sure. Especially in the Global South. The industry is focusing its energies on defending junk food and drinks by opposing regulatory measures that have proven successful. You know, taxes, front of package warning labels, marketing restrictions and so on. So even in countries that have developed, often with the assistance of American researchers, really impressive chronic disease prevention programs, the industry has been moving aggressively to weaken, delay, or block them. Our work has just begun. And I really hope some listeners will be, will be encouraged to join the force of all of us working to expose and change how things are happening. BIO Susan Greenhalgh is John King and Wilma Cannon Fairbank Professor of Chinese Society Emerita in the Anthropology Department and Fairbank Center for Chinese Studies at Harvard University. A former Guggenheim fellow, she is a specialist in the social study of science, technology, and medicine, especially as these intersect with questions of policy, governance, and the state. Her latest book, Soda Science: Making the World Safe for Coca-Cola (2024), uncovers the secret strategies by which Big Food, working with allies in academia, created an industry-friendly, “soda-defense” science of obesity that argued that the priority solution to the obesity epidemic is exercise, not dietary restraint, and that soda taxes are not necessary – views few experts accept. For 15 years the “soda scientists” were highly successful in promoting these ideas, eventually getting them built into Chinese policy, where they remain today. An earlier study of the American obesity epidemic, Fat-Talk Nation: The Human Costs of America's War on Fat (2015), illuminates some of the unexpected consequences of the national panic over obesity for the bodies, lives, and selves of vulnerable young people. Under the Medical Gaze: Facts and Fictions of Chronic Pain (2001) presents a case study of iatrogenic injury, illustrating medicine's power to define disease and the self, and manage relationships and lives, and sometime induce suffering.

Acknowledgement of Country// Headlines// Alison Thorne: 2021 death of Aboriginal woman at Dame Phyllis//Alison Thorne (ISJA, fSP, retired CPSU Unionist) joined the program to discuss an ongoing inquest into a tragic death in custody. First Nations listeners are advised that this conversation contains names of people who have died. Heather Calgaret, a proud Noongar, Wongi, Yamatji and Pitjantjatjara woman tragically died in custody while incarcerated at the Dame Phyllis Frost Centre in 2021. Alison gives background to the case, and encourages listeners to attend the last day of hearings in support. Joe Lorback speech: Disrupt and S11//A speech from Joe (Renegade Activists) at the Free Palestine Rally this Sunday 15th September comparison between Disrupt Land Forces protests to the S11 protests 20 years ago, condemning the increasingly violent actions of the Victoria Police and the Victorian governments complicity in genocide. Land Forces Discussion and Poems//Nita and Jesse have a conversation on Police violence and the military industrial complex, followed by two poems:'I am the pain and nothing else/my son told me I am depressed' by Samia MikhailNaarm-based Lebanese filmmaker Samia says has been writing her opinion since the age of ten, and that this poem is her opinion from the perspective of a mother dedicated to the mothers of Gaza. Just as relevant today, this poem was originally written in Arabic and recorded after the Free Palestine Rally held on the 3rd of December 2023.'The End' by Wislawa Szymborska Read by Lesley Walker at Mothers Rebellion event with Disrupt Land Forces, last Friday 13th Sept. Thanks to 3CR Volunteer Marion for recording this event. Pilar Aguilera: Chile History, memory and Lessons For Organising//Jesse and Nita speak with comrade Pilar Aguilera, Co-Founder of the National Campaign for Truth and Justice in Chile, who discusses the importance of memory, contextualising the history of Chile (1973 Coup, 2019 Social Uprising, current campaign to extradite Adriana Rivas from Australia).  She also talks about the free upcoming film screening event, with open discussion, photo exhibition, and food, and why we must reflect on the past to call for justice and organise social movements under increasing government repression. All welcome. Community events//AnnouncementsWeds - CFMEU 'Line in the Sand' Rally, 11am Trades Hall Weds - Last day of hearings into the death in custody of First Nations woman Heather Calgaret, Coroner's Court Docklands Weds - Rising Tide: The First Wave film screening at CERES learning centre in Brunswick East at 7:00pm Ongoing - Refugee encampment at Home Affairs office, 808 Bourke street Docklands where refugees have been camping for more than 9 weeks now demanding visas after 12 years in limbo and finally  Songs//Cannot Buy my Soul - Archie RoachMawtini - Performed by Egyptian musician Mohamed Yousef 

The joint collaboration, between several organisations, want to ensure a safer online experience for children and young people. Teacher and assistant principal at Temple Carrig Secondary School in Greystones, Eoghan Cleary discusses the issue.

In this episode, Jaime sits down with Kim Hallman to talk about the role placing faculty experts can play in an integrated marketing communications strategy. By strategically integrating faculty experts into an overall marketing communications strategy, universities can leverage their knowledge and reputation to enhance the institution's image, attract and retain students, and potentially impact rankings. Takeaways from this episode include:Advice on how to choose faculty members for strategic expert pitching – and how to train them to make the most of their interview opportunitiesInsight into ways colleges and universities can use earned media as part of a broad marketing strategyGuidance on how to craft a pitch that sells an expertInsight into trending topics – including the forthcoming electionStrategies for leveraging faculty expertise through short form videoGuest Name: Kim HallmanGuest LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/kimberlyhallman/Guest Bio: Now in season 10 at 160over90, Kim leads the agency's institutional marketing practice, helping colleges and universities, research institutes, health enterprises, and cause-based organizations raise awareness and raise funds to support a core impact mission. A former journalist turned publicist now all-around communications strategist, she first penned bylines in The Post-Standard in upstate New York, then worked as an editorial assistant for the National Campaign for the Arts in London, before landing on the marketing scene 18+ years ago. Originally focused in retail and hospitality PR, Kim quickly found that education category work fulfills her deep desire for lifelong learning. She holds a BA in English from Bucknell University and a master's degree in Print Journalism from Syracuse University's S.I. Newhouse School of Public Communications. These days, when Kim's not working, she's soaking up all the firsts of new motherhood (and still trying to make some time for sleep). - - - -Connect With Our Host:Jaime Hunthttps://www.linkedin.com/in/jaimehunt/https://twitter.com/JaimeHuntIMCAbout The Enrollify Podcast Network:Confessions of a Higher Ed CMO is a part of the Enrollify Podcast Network. If you like this podcast, chances are you'll like other Enrollify shows too! Some of our favorites include Talking Tactics and Higher Ed Pulse. Enrollify is made possible by Element451 — the next-generation AI student engagement platform helping institutions create meaningful and personalized interactions with students. Learn more at element451.com.Element451 is hosting the AI Engage Summit on Oct 29 and 30Register now for this free, virtual event.The future of higher ed is being redefined by the transformative power of AI. The AI Engage Summit brings together higher ed leaders, innovators, and many of your favorite Enrollify creators to explore AI's impact on student engagement, enrollment marketing, and institutional success. Experience firsthand how AI is improving content personalization at scale, impacting strategic decision-making, and intuitively automating the mundane tasks that consume our time. The schedule is packed with real examples and case studies, so you leave knowing how to harness AI to drive meaningful change at your institution. Whether you're looking to enhance student outcomes, optimize enrollment marketing, or simply stay ahead of the curve, the AI Engage Summit is your gateway to the next level of higher education innovation. Registration is free, save your spot today.

Torrey reacts to the ruling from the Supreme Court affirming Presidential immunity in official duties.  We examine the Democrat reaction to the ruling.  We also discuss a statement from the Maryland Republican Party, criticizing Wes Moore for his focus on national issues. MDGOP National Committeewoman, Nicolee Ambrose, joins the program to discuss.  Today was the first day for increased vehicle registration fees, and we discuss if lawmakers will continue to raise fees. We also have a brief discussion on wage transparency.

6/24/24  Hour 1    CNN's Kasie Hunt quits her interview with Karoline Leavitt as Trump's National Campaign's spokeswoman calls out Jake Tapper and Dana Bash's biases. Kasie Hunt has an anxiety attack on air. Vince discusses whether he thinks attacking the moderators is a good strategy or not. Vince speaks with David Strom, Associate Editor at Hot Air about the RNC fundraising haul and the upcoming CNN debate.       For more coverage on the issues that matter to you visit www.WMAL.com, download the WMAL app or tune in live on WMAL-FM 105.9 from 3-6pm.   To join the conversation, check us out on social media: @WMAL @VinceCoglianese.      Executive Producer: Corey Inganamort @TheBirdWords See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Welcome back for SEASON 3 of the Cocktails & Culture Podcast! This episode we sat down with Mrs. Maryland Petite, Kamrin Brown George, to discuss all things sustainable fashion, her journey being a pageant queen and so much more. Comment below and let us know what you'd like to see next from us! Learn More: https://linktr.ee/wearecandcpod Follow Us! Instagram: @cocktailsandculturepod Twitter: @WeAreCCPod TikTok: @cocktailsandculture Benjamin Coy: Instagram: @benjiecoy TikTok: @benjiecoyy Brigethia Arai: Instagram: @brigethia TikTok: @brigethia Kamrin Brown George: Instagram: @naturallykam and @mrsmarylandpetite Donate to Kamrin's National Campaign here: https://gofund.me/5d7e9d4c --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/cocktails--culture-podcast/message

Howie kicks off his first live show of the season with a call from President Trump's National Campaign press secretary Karoline Leavitt. She lets the listeners know Trump is in wonderful spirits. He is defiant, she assures. Join Howie Carr and Grace Curley as they broadcast from Evviva Trattoria in Hanover, Massachusetts. Visit the Howie Carr Radio Network website to access columns, podcasts, and other exclusive content.

RISE Mzansi announced on Wednesday that human rights and social justice activist Mark Heywood has joined RISE Mzansi National Campaign Team and will help to refine the party's policies. Heywood initially joined Roger Jardine to form Change Starts Now, which will no longer contest the upcoming elections, for which it blames the Constitutional Court's recent ruling and the barriers it imposes. The Independent Electoral Commission's rules for new parties, relating to the amount of signatures required for them to contest the elections, was recently under scrutiny in the Constitutional Court, however, the court chose not to hear the issue citing a disruption in preparations for the May elections. RISE Mzansi National Chairperson Vuyiswa Ramokgopa said Heywood has volunteered his time to work with the organisation ahead of the May 29 National and Provincial Elections, and beyond. Heywood will work with RISE Mzansi on its policy offering, help to continue building the movement, work with civil society and help organise in communities across the country. Ramokgopa said Heywood will bring with him six highly skilled individuals who will assist the National Campaign Team in the key performance areas of marketing, communication, organising, mobilising, political programmes as well as research. "With just nine-weeks until millions of South Africans cast their votes for new leaders at the more than 23 000 voting stations, our enhanced National Campaign Team is critical to ensuring that RISE Mzansi is able to reach more communities through community meetings, door-to-door, and the media," she said. She added that "RISE Mzansi's door remains open to all patriots who align with the constitutional and social democratic values of freedom, equality, integrity, solidarity and justice".

In this episode, Starr tells us more about her background and what led her to join NASA, as well as how the government agency is helping to pave the way for Advanced Air Mobility in the USA. We talk about its National Campaign, which has featured some of the biggest names in the eVTOL space, and deep dive into some of the most important tests it has carried out. This includes a wind study and fascinating experiment on noise with Joby Aviation.

You won't want to miss the call at the end of this hour between Grace and an ultra-Trump deranged woman. Plus, tune in for an exclusive interview with Karoline Leavitt, Trump's National Campaign Press Secretary.

This past weekend, DSA held their inaugural kickoff for their new nationwide campaign for Trans Rights & Bodily Autonomy. Spearheaded by the Trans Rights and Bodily Autonomy Campaign Commission, DSA will mobilize the organization's tens of thousands of members across 150+ chapters across the country, not only to combat the advances of the far-right and their systematic attempt at every level of government to remove trans people from public life & restrict access to abortion, but also to advance a positive vision of queer liberation that protects queer spaces, our rights as workers, students & educators, and as human beings. Tonight, we will hear from Genevieve, joining us from Ithaca, NY and one of the leaders of this organization-wide project, to break down all the pieces of this ambitious campaign, how DSA will rise to fight the far-right, and why the struggle for trans rights & bodily autonomy is a struggle for the whole working class.  Join DSA's Trans Rights & Bodily Autonomy Campaign Commission: https://airtable.com/appxkhakxWCUXVVqO/pag9jCfy3jpsn74do/form Support Tech Guild Workers organizing for trans rights at The New York Times:https://actionnetwork.org/petitions/nyt-respect-trans-workers

In the second hour of "Connections with Evan Dawson" on Friday, February 2, 2024, our guests debate if a national campaign to destigmatize drugs was a mistake. They also share their perspectives on the most effective way to deal with America's drug problem.

All Local 4pm Update for November 15th 2023 

National's campaign chair has clarified his earlier warnings of a second election.   The final vote count reveals National's dropped two seats to 48, which means it no longer has a majority with ACT's 11 and will need New Zealand First.   During the campaign Chris Bishop cautioned voters could be sent back to the polls if the three parties couldn't come to an arrangement.   Today he told Andrew Dickens that was only one scenario.   “As things have turned out, there have been really productive and constructive conversations between New Zealand First and National, and also between National and ACT, and so that is not a possibility.”  LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

National has disclosed allegations of violence and intimidation threatening to disrupt their election campaign. Allegations claim a gang threat has forced a candidate to move house, a volunteer's faced death threats, and another's been the victim of a dog attack. Labour's Angela Roberts has reported being slapped at a debate, and Te Pati Maori's Hana Maipi-Clarke says she's had a politically-motivated home invasion. National Campaign Chair Chris Bishop says the gangs are campaigning for a third Labour term and aim to keep National out of Government. "The behaviour our candidates have experienced on the campaign trail has been disgraceful. There's been death threats, there's been people having to move house, one of our candidates has had a Head Hunters member threaten them when they're out at dinner." LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

 Introducing Beena J Pallical, a catalyst for change in marginalized communities and a dedicated advocate for gender equality. With unwavering determination, she has ignited policy shifts within both Central and State governments, advocating for the inclusion of Dalit women in policy formulation. Beena J Pallical is an Intersectional Feminist and Dalit women Leader and currently General Secretary, National Campaign on Dalit Human Rights (NCDHR)-DAAA. After about a 10-year stint in the corporate sector in marketing, she decided to move to the social sector because of her interest in human rights and taking up social causes. Over the last thirteen years she has been with the NCDHR working on Dalit Economic Rights. Her focal point remains Economic Justice, meticulously addressing Gender Equity, targeted budgets, fiscal accountability, and governance.For the past five years, her energy has been channeled into enabling youth to access education, yielding scholarships for over 1 lac students across 10 states. She also holds the helm of the Asia Dalit Rights Forum, ensuring Dalit concerns reverberate on both regional and global platforms. A member of the board at Victims Advocate International, Beena champions intersectionality as the bedrock for women's economic freedom and gender equality.Her impact resonates globally, notably through her work with UN mechanisms like OHCHR in Geneva and the High Level Political Forum in New York. As a pioneering Dalit woman, she has been a frontrunner in the sustainable development goals, emphasizing marginalized voices and equitable financial management for their attainment. With fervent dedication, she embodies the ethos of change through capacity building, representation, and a gender-focused lens.Her journey amplifies Dalit and Adivasi voices through international seminars, cultivating stronger policies for effective implementation and forging a brighter future.Support the show

Navigating the restaurant industry can be tough for workers involved in it.  From constantly changing schedules, demanding, and unruly customers, even A.I. and robots beginning to disrupt the space, restaurant workers are contending with a lot these days. The last thing they need is an organization using their own wages to lobby against increases to the minimum wage, which is exactly what's happening through the ServSafe certification. Talmon Smith is an Economic Reporter for The New York Times, a Harvard Institute of Politics National Campaign Ambassador, and a former fellow at the Center for the Study of Race and Democracy. Much of Talmon's work focuses on labor issues regarding wages, corruption, and racial politics. Alongside previous guest David Fahrenthold, Talmon co-authored the article  “How Restaurant Workers Pay for Lobbying to Keep Their Wages Low,” that delves into how the National Restaurant Association (NRA), the largest foodservice trade association in the world, utilizes the fifteen dollar fee from required ServSafe courses to fund their own lobbying efforts. We wanted to get Talmon's perspective on what was most surprising about putting together the article, the legal intricacies of how the NRA set up such a system, and the “benefits” of ServSafe, and if it really helps workers. In a time when restaurant workers, once lauded as essential workers, are now increasingly under pressure to do more with less, this is another episode you're not going to want to miss.  So, with that…let's bring it in!

As more mass shootings reveal an epidemic of mental illness and drug addiction, Dr. Kevin Sabet is leading the charge against marijuana legalization nationwide. He talks to Dan about the downside of legal pot in states where it has been approved on the ballot. Also, Kwame Spearman has announced his candidacy for the Denver Public School Board, challenging incumbent Tay Anderson for his seat.

The Civil Liberties Director at the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), David Greene, joins Tim to talk about current efforts to ban the social media app TikTok from American users. The EFF describes itself as the leading nonprofit organization defending civil liberties in the digital world. Founded in 1990, EFF says its “mission is to ensure that technology supports freedom, justice, and innovation for all people of the world.”  In this episode, David talks about current legislation in the U.S. to ban the popular social media app called TikTok, but it has more far-reaching impacts than just TikTok. https://traffic.libsyn.com/secure/shapingopinion/RESTRICT_Act_auphonic.mp3 TikTok is a short-form video hosting platform owned by a Chinese company called ByteDance. TikTok users create their own videos and submit them to the platform. Some videos can be as short as a few seconds, while others can be as long as 10 minutes. TikTok started in China under a different name, and continues in that country under its original brand. The social media app made its international debut in September of 2017. To date, the TikTok app has been downloaded more than 150 million times in the United States and has how surpassed 2 billion downloads globally. If you have kids, especially teenagers, you probably don't need me to tell you how popular the app is, but it's not limited to teenagers. Videos on TikTok are well known for going viral. This causes them to jump onto other platforms like Twitter and Instagram, where for some, their reach penetrates America's national consciousness. Sometimes a TikTok video will go viral to the extent that America's traditional media will pick up the story. But the TikTok story is more than that of just a popular app. That 150 million download number means that the app is installed on roughly 150 million American smart devices. This gives the social media platform access to data and information on those 150 million users. What complicates this is that ByteDance is a Chinese-owned company. And despite assurances from the company, a common fear is that the government of China is using this access to spy on Americans. Links Electronic Frontier Foundation "Patriot Act on Steroids:" Left and Right Unite Against Fear-mongering TikTok Ban, MSN TikTok Ban Faces Obscure Hurdle: The Berman Amendments, The Wall Street Journal Could the RESTRICT Act Criminalize the Use of VPNs?, Reason About this Episode's Guest David Greene David Greene, Senior Staff Attorney and Civil Liberties Director, has significant experience litigating First Amendment issues in state and federal trial and appellate courts. David currently serves on the steering committee of the Free Expression Network, the governing committee of the ABA Forum on Communications Law, and on advisory boards for several arts and free speech organizations across the country. David is also an adjunct professor at the University of San Francisco School of Law, where he teaches classes in First Amendment and media law and was formerly an instructor in the journalism department at San Francisco State University. He has written and lectured extensively on many areas of First Amendment Law, including as a contributor to the International Encyclopedia of Censorship. Before joining EFF, David was for twelve years the Executive Director and Lead Staff Counsel for First Amendment Project, where he worked with EFF on numerous cases including Bunner v. DVDCCA. David also previously served as program director of the National Campaign for Freedom of Expression where he was the principal contributor and general editor of the NCFE Quarterly and the principal author of the NCFE Handbook to Understanding, Preparing for and Responding to Challenges to your Freedom of Artistic Expression. He also practiced with the firms Bryan Cave LLP and Hancock, Rothert & Bunshoft. Way back in 1998, he was a founding member,

The Herle Burly was created by Air Quotes Media with support from our presenting sponsor TELUS, as well as CN Rail, the Nuclear Innovation Institute, and Uber Canada.We have what I think is a great pod for you today because our guest is someone I've wanted to get in here for a long time. He's someone I have a lot in common with, as we've both been strategists and campaign directors for Prime Ministerial candidates.Fred DeLorey is our guest today!Most know him as the man who helped Erin O'Toole win the Conservative leadership in 2020. And then, managed Mr. O'Toole's ultimately unsuccessful bid to become Prime Minister in 2021.Fred has also served as Director of Field Operations for Ontario Premier Doug Ford. He a former Director of Political Operations for Stephen Harper. As well as Director of Comms. Prior to that, he was Atlantic Canada Advisor in the Office of the Prime Minister. He's even run for political office himself, in Central Nova in 2015. Right now, he's a Managing Partner at Deslauriers Public Affairs.So, here's our conversation today:We're going to break down the 2021 Campaign. What actually happened? What Fred hoped would happen? What surprised him? And what got in the way of a victory?We'll also talk China election interference. If you read Fred's op-ed in The Star on March 5th, he advocates for a different approach than a public inquiry.And finally, we'll do a little Pierre Poilievre speculating. What's going to happen in the next election? And would 2019 or 2021 been any different with Poilievre as leader, instead of Scheer or O'Toole?Thank you for joining us on #TheHerleBurly podcast. Please take a moment to give us a rating and review on iTunes, Spotify, Stitcher, Google Podcasts or your favourite podcast app.Watch episodes of The Herle Burly via Air Quotes Media on YouTube.

Dr. Janet Lawson was the first guest on the Strong Women in Medicine podcast. A retired OB-GYN, she shares her experience growing up during segregation, what inspired her to become a doctor and how her work in Public Health helped to create policy change.  About our guest: Dr. Lawson had a unique career in clinical medicine and public health. She received her medical degree in June 1980 from Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas, and completed a residency program in Obstetrics and Gynecology (Ob/Gyn) at the Baylor College of Medicine Affiliated Hospitals. She was board certified by the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology and maintained her medical license in Texas until her retirement in June 2014. She is a recipient of the Women in Government 2009 Presidential Leadership Award, 2006 Excellence in Women's Health Award from the Jacobs Institute of Women's Health and an award for Leadership in Women's Health in Texas from the United States Department of Health and Human Services Region VI Office on Women's Health. In September 1996, she joined the Texas Department of Health (TDH) as the Director of the Division of Women's Health. During her tenure at TDH, she has served in a variety of positions, including medical consultant for the Bureau of Clinical and Nutrition Services, acting chief for the Bureau of Community Oriented Public Health, acting chief for the Bureau of HIV/STD Prevention, Interim Medical Director for the South Texas Health Care System, Title X Medical Director for Texas, and medical consultant on the clinical support team of the Preventive and Primary Care Unit in the Division for Family and Community Health Services. While serving as the acting director of the Regional and Local Health Services and later the Director of Regional and Local Health Services, she helped the creation of the Division of Regional and Local Health Services, becoming first the Assistant Commissioner for the newly formed division. Her professional and teaching experience includes faculty positions in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at the University of Texas Medical Branch (UTMB) (1985-89) and the Louisiana State University Medical Center (LSUMC) in New Orleans (1994-96). She was the medical director of the Teen Pregnancy Clinic and the Pediatrics/Adolescent Gyn Clinic at UTMB. She was also the Director of Pediatrics and Adolescent Gynecology at LSUMC, where she established and became the first Medical Director of the Developmental Disability Clinic – a preventive/primary care clinic for women with developmental disabilities. During that tenure, she co-authored a chapter in Adolescents with Down Syndrome: Toward a More Fulfilling Life. Other clinical experience includes providing general obstetric and gynecologic care at the Brownsville Community Health Clinic in Brownsville, Texas (8/89-2/91) and private practice in Albany, Oregon (8/91- 7/94). While at the Brownville Community Health Clinic she served as medical director for the Brownsville Community Health Clinic Birthing Center. She is a Life Fellow in the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ACOG) and was a founding member of the North American Society for Pediatrics and Adolescent Gynecology. She served on the ACOG Committee on Health Care for Underserved Women. She has also served on several other committees and boards, representing diverse organizations. These include the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy: State and Local Action Task Force, the Texas Association Concerning School Aged Parenthood, the Association for Retarded Citizens of Greater New Orleans, March of Dimes – Austin Travis County Chapter, the Turner Syndrome Society – United States and the Texas Council on Family Violence. She is currently on the Board of Directors for Any Baby Can.

Dr. Janet Lawson was the first guest on the Strong Women in Medicine podcast. A retired OB-GYN, she shares her experience growing up during segregation, what inspired her to become a doctor and how her work in Public Health helped to create policy change.  About our guest:  Dr. Lawson had a unique career in clinical medicine and public health. She received her medical degree in June 1980 from Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas, and completed a residency program in Obstetrics and Gynecology (Ob/Gyn) at the Baylor College of Medicine Affiliated Hospitals. She was board certified by the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology and maintained her medical license in Texas until her retirement in June 2014. She is a recipient of the Women in Government 2009 Presidential Leadership Award, 2006 Excellence in Women's Health Award from the Jacobs Institute of Women's Health and an award for Leadership in Women's Health in Texas from the United States Department of Health and Human Services Region VI Office on Women's Health. In September 1996, she joined the Texas Department of Health (TDH) as the Director of the Division of Women's Health. During her tenure at TDH, she has served in a variety of positions, including medical consultant for the Bureau of Clinical and Nutrition Services, acting chief for the Bureau of Community Oriented Public Health, acting chief for the Bureau of HIV/STD Prevention, Interim Medical Director for the South Texas Health Care System, Title X Medical Director for Texas, and medical consultant on the clinical support team of the Preventive and Primary Care Unit in the Division for Family and Community Health Services. While serving as the acting director of the Regional and Local Health Services and later the Director of Regional and Local Health Services, she helped the creation of the Division of Regional and Local Health Services, becoming first the Assistant Commissioner for the newly formed division. Her professional and teaching experience includes faculty positions in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at the University of Texas Medical Branch (UTMB) (1985-89) and the Louisiana State University Medical Center (LSUMC) in New Orleans (1994-96). She was the medical director of the Teen Pregnancy Clinic and the Pediatrics/Adolescent Gyn Clinic at UTMB. She was also the Director of Pediatrics and Adolescent Gynecology at LSUMC, where she established and became the first Medical Director of the Developmental Disability Clinic – a preventive/primary care clinic for women with developmental disabilities. During that tenure, she co-authored a chapter in Adolescents with Down Syndrome: Toward a More Fulfilling Life. Other clinical experience includes providing general obstetric and gynecologic care at the Brownsville Community Health Clinic in Brownsville, Texas (8/89-2/91) and private practice in Albany, Oregon (8/91- 7/94). While at the Brownville Community Health Clinic she served as medical director for the Brownsville Community Health Clinic Birthing Center. She is a Life Fellow in the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ACOG) and was a founding member of the North American Society for Pediatrics and Adolescent Gynecology. She served on the ACOG Committee on Health Care for Underserved Women. She has also served on several other committees and boards, representing diverse organizations. These include the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy: State and Local Action Task Force, the Texas Association Concerning School Aged Parenthood, the Association for Retarded Citizens of Greater New Orleans, March of Dimes – Austin Travis County Chapter, the Turner Syndrome Society – United States and the Texas Council on Family Violence. She is currently on the Board of Directors for Any Baby Can.        

It has been nearly 10 years since Limerick took up the mantle as Ireland's national city of culture. But why has the programme not been revisited since then? Maria Fleming is Chair of the National Campaign for the Arts and explained why?

It's campaign season! The Three Guys (Derek and Brett) interview Political Strategist, La Nita Ann Tench-Dykes to discuss what it takes to run and manage  a successful political campaign. The purpose of this episode isn't to dive into politics, but learn the very interesting world of running for office in 2022.     La Nita is very seasoned having worked on various local, state and national races! ***Please note all opinions expressed on The Three Guys Podcast do not represent any Group, Company or Organization***Episode Produced by The Three Guys ProductionsThe Three Guys Podcast:Instagram:  The Three Guys Podcast (@the_three_guys_podcast_) • Instagram photos and videosTwitter:  The Three Guys Podcast (@TheThreeGuysPo1) / TwitterYouTube:   Three Guys Podcast - YouTubeLinkedIn the-three-guys-podcastDerek:  Derek DePetrillo (@derekd0518) • Instagram photos and videosBrian:  Brian Nazarian (@the_real_brian_nazarian) • Instagram photos and videosBrett:  Brett J. DePetrillo (@78brettzky)

* Threat to Democracy Looms as Supreme Court Set to Hear Moore v. Harper Case; Dan Vicuña, National Redistricting Manger with Common Cause; Producer: Scott Harris. * Massive Investment in Public Transit Needed to Achieve Racial Equity and Climate Justice; Libero Della Piana, Leader of the National Campaign for Transit Justice; Producer: Melinda Tuhus. * 17 States Criminalize Protests Targeting Fossil Fuel Infrastructure Projects; Emma Fisher, Deputy Director with the group Climate Cabinet; Producer: Scott Harris.

Steve discusses Florida Governor Ron DeSantis' recent out-of-state rallies on behalf of other candidates and why, regardless of whether he runs for president, he's laying the foundation for a national network. Then, BlazeTV contributor Eric July joins the show to discuss his extraordinarily successful comic book venture, the Rippaverse. In Hour Two, Fake News or Not reviews how accurate popular polling was in the 2020 cycle. Finally, Pop Culture Tuesday is Steve's review of the movie "Where the Crawdads Sing." Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Television screenwriter Kay Mellor, the woman behind popular series like Band of Gold, Fat Friends and The Syndicate, is remembered by fellow dramatist Sally Wainwright, Kat Rose Martin holder of the Kay Mellor Fellowship and television critic Julia Raeside. The idea of a minimum wage for artists is discussed by Aisa Villarosa Director of External Relations at the Yerba Buena Center for the Arts, Dr Joe Chrisp of the Institute for Policy Research at the University of Bath and Angela Dorgan, Chair of the National Campaign for The Arts, in Dublin Nick talks to Chloe Moss writer of a new play, Corinna Corinna, at the Liverpool Everyman about the only woman on board a ship bound for Singapore. Presenter : Nick Ahad Producer Ekene Akalawu

Angela Dorgan, Chair of National Campaign for the Arts, discusses the living wage for artist's scheme which is due to be announced today.

This is a portion of Paid Search Podcast episode 302 titled "Amazing Google Ads Q&A Episode". In this clip, Chris and Jason answer this question: I'm running Google Ads campaigns in one location and was getting good results. I've scaled it out to more locations (national), ran exactly like I had it in my one location, but the conversion rate has completely dropped. How should I target a national campaign for good results?    Send us your questions here - https://paidsearchpodcast.com/contact-us/Subscribe to the Paid Search Podcast on YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/c/ThePaidSearchPodcastSubscribe to the newsletter - https://paidsearchpodcast.substack.com/

Join SeafoodNews Managing Editor Amanda Buckle and staff writer Ryan Doyle as they talk about how Russia's invasion of Ukraine is impacting the seafood industry. Plus, learn more about GAPP's national campaign, the Plant Based Co.'s big win, and more. This episode of the SeafoodNews Podcast is brought to you by Urner Barry, the trusted source for benchmark pricing in the food and agriculture industry for over 160 years. Urner Barry will be at Seafood Expo North America in Boston from March 13th through the 15th. Stop by Booth #364 to learn more about Urner Barry's COMTELL service and for a free demo.

Student discipline used to be handled by guidance counselors and principals. Today, police are increasingly called upon to respond to children's behavioral issues, giving rise to the school-to-prison pipeline. Today, over 1.5 million students attend schools with police but no counselors. The consequences can be dire: students are five times more likely to be arrested and charged when they attend schools where there are police, also known as school resource officers, or SROs.Professor Mark Warren and Jonathan Stith argue that during pandemic-schooling, schools are responding to a student mental health crisis with harsh discipline that has fallen hardest on students of color. This “white lash” has resulted in what they call the “pandemic-to-prison pipeline.”“The pandemic has really caused a lot of trauma and a lot of stress, economic hardship, family loss for young people and disruption of schooling,” says Mark Warren, Professor of Public Policy and Public Affairs at the University of Massachusetts Boston and the author of Willful Defiance: The Movement to Dismantle the School-to-Prison Pipeline. “Instead of getting support, and investment of support, what we've been starting to see is the intensification of discipline and policing practices in schools.”Warren argues that there is no research-based evidence that the presence of police improves safety in schools.There is now a national campaign to limit the police presence in schools. Since June 2020, more than 138 school districts announced they would remove police from schools. In Vermont, several school boards, including Burlington, have voted to end or reduce their police contracts. A report last year by a task force of the Burlington School District concluded: “The majority of SRO activity is not associated with law enforcement but with mentoring students and connecting them with needed resources…These additional roles fell to the SROs due to social workers being overwhelmed with cases.”There is “a direct link between that the Black Lives Matter movement and police-free schools,” says Jonathan Stith, National Director of the Alliance for Educational Justice and co-director of the National Campaign for Police-Free Schools. The effort to increase school policing, as well as fights over the teaching of critical race theory in schools is “what we've been calling this ‘white lash' post the Trump presidency.”

This week on The Athletes Podcast features Jillian A. Brown. Jillian is an adventure photographer, mental health advocate, public speaker, and a fantastic guest to have on the podcast. She talks about her battle with PTSD, and how she has used it to fuel her drive to connecting others to nature, adventure, and themselves. 2:40: Jillian talks about adventure photography6:30: Who is Jillian Brown14:10: What it was like to paddle across America21:10: When did you know you wanted to become a photographer 24:10: Favourite place in BC28:55: Jillian talks about being a National Campaign advocate for Bell Lets Talk33:10: Suggestions to deal with mental health38:40: Jillian's nutrition habits during her expeditions43:10: Where you can reach Jillian on social media44:10: Jillian's single piece of advice for the next generation of athletes