Clayton, Cobb, Coweta, DeKalb, Fayette, Fulton, Henry, Paulding and Rockdale counties are part of the watch, which is set to expire at 9 a.m. In Carroll and Douglas counties, the National Weather Service upgraded the watch to a warning.
Archives par mot-clé : video
Reports in unmasking controversy were detailed, had info about ‘everyday lives’
The intelligence reports at the center of the Susan Rice unmasking controversy were detailed, and almost resembled a private investigator’s file, according to a Republican congressman familiar with the documents.
« This is information about their everyday lives, » Rep. Peter King of New York, a member of the House Intelligence committee said. « Sort of like in a divorce case where lawyers are hired, investigators are hired just to find out what the other person is doing from morning until night and then you try to piece it together later on.”
On the House Intelligence Committee, only the Republican chairman, Devin Nunes of California, and the ranking Democrat Adam Schiff, also of California, have personally reviewed the intelligence reports. Some members were given broad outlines.
Nunes has consistently stated that the files caused him deep concern because the unmasking went beyond the former national security adviser Mike Flynn, and the information was not related to Moscow.
Schiff said in a statement, “I cannot comment on the content of these materials or any other classified documents, and nothing should be inferred from the fact that I am treating classified materials the way they should be treated – by refusing to comment on them. Only the Administration has the power to declassify the information and make it available to the public. »
Former National Security Adviser Rice is under scrutiny after allegations she sought to unmask the identities of Trump associates caught up in surveillance – such as phone calls between foreign intelligence targets. Rice denies ever having sought such information for political purposes and has defended her requests as routine.
But the most recent government data shows that unmasking or identifying Americans happens in a limited number of cases. The Office for the Director of National Intelligence, which oversees the 17 intelligence agencies, said « …in 2015, NSA disseminated 4,290 FAA Section 702 intelligence reports that included U.S. person information. Of those 4,290 reports, the U.S. person information was masked in 3,168 reports and unmasked in 1,122 reports. »
The report said « NSA is allowed to unmask the identity for the specific requesting recipient only under certain conditions and where specific additional controls are in place » and those conditions were met for « 654 U.S. person identities » in 2015.
That means Americans were identified in 26 percent of the cases, or roughly one in four intelligence reports.
During his March 20 testimony before the House Intelligence Committee, NSA director Admiral Mike Rogers said only 20 individuals within the agency are authorized to approve those requests.
“They receive specific training, there are specific controls put in place in terms of our ability to disseminate information out of the databases associated with U.S. persons,” Rogers said at the time. What it appears to suggest is that the NSA itself agreed that the instances in which Rice requested unmasking warranted that action.
FBI Director James Comey was less direct. « I don’t know for sure. As I sit here, surely more, given the nature of the FBI’s work, » he testified.
« It would be nice to know the universe of people who have the power to unmask a U.S. citizen’s name, » South Carolina Republican congressman Trey Gowdy pressed. « Because that might provide something of a roadmap to investigate who might’ve actually disseminated a masked U.S. citizen’s name. »
Rice told NBC News’ Andrea Mitchell that the reports were requested by the Obama administration, which announced a probe into the Russian election hacking in early December. Two months earlier in October, before the election, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the Homeland Security Department put out a joint statement about Moscow’s interference.
Given the late fall timeline, it is not clear the intelligence reports Rice discussed during the NBC interview, are the same files reviewed by Nunes and Schiff.
Speaking to Fox News Wednesday, President Trump said he believed the former national security adviser may have committed a crime when she sought the identities of the Trump team members. The allegation was first reported by the New York Times.
While not commenting on the individual case, a former senior intelligence official explained the request must be approved by the NSA. Rice would have understood that there is an extensive government paper trail, that can be audited within the NSA, that shows who requested the unmasking, on what basis, and whether it was granted. This raises more questions about Rice, her motivation and whether it was authorized higher up, offering cover.
If approved, the former senior intelligence official said, only the requester, in this case Rice, would receive the information. Based on Fox News’ reporting, the information was shared beyond Rice, but it is not clear if those who received it had a “need to know.”
A spokeswoman for Rice, Erin Pelton, said in an email to the New York Times on Wednesday, “I’m not going to dignify the president’s ludicrous charge with a comment.” Pelton works for Mercury LLC, a crisis management firm.
At the height of the 2012 Benghazi terrorist attack fallout, and questions about whether Rice and a former senior intelligence official had misled Congress about the role of an internet video in the deaths of four Americans, Mercury LLC was also tasked with handling the Fox News media inquiries.
Catherine Herridge is an award-winning Chief Intelligence correspondent for FOX News Channel (FNC) based in Washington, D.C. She covers intelligence, the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security. Herridge joined FNC in 1996 as a London-based correspondent.
Pamela K. Browne is Senior Executive Producer at the FOX News Channel (FNC) and is Director of Long-Form Series and Specials. Her journalism has been recognized with several awards. Browne first joined FOX in 1997 to launch the news magazine “Fox Files” and later, “War Stories.”
Trump condemns Syria chemical attack and suggests he will act
If proven to have been carried out by Assad, the chemical attack Tuesday would represent a challenge to Trump to act where Obama did not. The attack followed recent Trump administration statements backing away from Obama’s insistence that Assad must leave power as a part of any political settlement in Syria.
Trump did not call for Assad to go and said nothing about Russian culpability for backing the regime and defending it against charges that it targeted civilians. The Assad government and Russia blamed the chemical release on rebel forces.
The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, a Britain-based monitoring group, said that at least 72 people were killed, making it the deadliest chemical assault since 2013, when the Syrian government dropped sarin on the Damascus suburbs, killing hundreds of people as they slept, and bringing the United States and European allies to the verge of military intervention.
On Wednesday, Trump repeated campaign-trail criticism of the Obama administration for threatening military action over that 2013 attack and then backing off. For the balance of his presidency, Obama struggled with the limits of an arm’s-length approach that he maintained was still preferable to direct military involvement.
“We have a big problem. We have somebody that is not doing the right thing. And that’s going to be my responsibility,” Trump said. “But I’ll tell you, that responsibility could’ve made, been made, a lot easier if it was handled years ago.”
Trump had supported Obama’s decision not to bomb in 2013, but as a candidate, he used the episode as an example of what he called the Democrat’s weakness and indecision. Trump promised certitude and strength, and there were echoes of that rhetoric in his first Rose Garden news conference Wednesday.
“We will destroy ISIS and we will protect civilization,” Trump said, referring to the Islamic State group that operates in Syria and is one of many players in the fractured country. “We have no choice. We will protect civilization.”
Abdullah, whose small country has been overwhelmed by Syrian refugees, largely dodged a question about whether Trump’s proposed travel ban, which would block Syrians from coming to the United States as refugees, would add to Jordan’s burden.
“The Europeans are being very forward-leaning” in providing financial and other help, Abdullah said. “A tremendous burden on our country, but again, tremendous appreciation to the United States and the Western countries for being able to help us in dealing with that.”
In the past, attacks on civilians such as the one Tuesday have increased the pressure on Syrians to flee.
Earlier Wednesday, Haley assailed Russia in blunt terms for protecting the Syrian government, saying that Moscow is callously ignoring civilian deaths.
“How many more children have to die before Russia cares?” she said in New York, with representatives of the Syrian government and its Russian backers looking on.
She held aloft gruesome images from the attack in Idlib province. One showed a child splayed and apparently lifeless.
“Russia has shielded Assad from U.N. sanctions. If Russia has the influence in Syria that it claims to have, we need to see them use it,” Haley said. “We need to see them put an end to these horrific acts.”
[Deadly attack in Syria likely involved banned nerve agent, experts say]
At the United Nations, Russia’s representative lamented what he called “clearly an ideological thrust” to the discussion at the Security Council.
Accusations of the Assad regime’s involvement are “closely interwoven with the anti-Damascus campaign, which hasn’t yet reached the place it deserves on the landfill of history,” Russian representative Sergey Kononuchenko said.
Russia is likely to block a proposed Security Council condemnation of the attack.
Syria’s representative, Mounzer Mounzer, dismissed the accusation that his country is to blame, saying Damascus condemns the use of chemical weapons. “We don’t have them. We never use them,” he told the council.
Under Russian pressure, Syria agreed in 2013 to give up its chemical weapons and claimed it had eliminated its stockpiles.
Russia tried Wednesday to shift the blame to armed groups opposing Assad.
Maj. Gen. Igor Konashenkov, a Russian military spokesman, said Syrian warplanes had been targeting rebel workshops and depots.
“The territory of this storage facility housed workshops to produce projectiles filled with toxic agents,” he said in a recorded statement.
The World Health Organization said Wednesday that victims’ symptoms bore all the hallmarks of a chemical attack, possibly involving a banned nerve agent. Syrian forces also have used chlorine-based weapons.
The British and French ambassadors to the United Nations criticized Russia directly for protecting the Assad government at the expense of civilians.
“History will judge all of us in how we respond to these unforgettable and unforgivable images of the innocent,” British Ambassador Matthew Rycroft said. “How long are we going to sit here and pretend that actions in these chambers have no consequences?”
He said Russia and China squandered an opportunity to call out Syria when they vetoed a February effort to condemn smaller reported instances of chemical weapons use.
John Wagner contributed to this report.
Mobile Marketing Association Study with Allstate Insurance Company Reveals Importance of Attribution and Cross …
Cross Marketing Effectiveness (SMoX) research proves fine-tuned targeting strategy a success.
New York (PRWEB) April 05, 2017
The optimal combination of formats and targeting can create significant shifts in sales and consideration, according to the most recent SMoX attribution study done for Allstate Insurance by The Mobile Marketing Association (MMA). The study also proved the clickthrough rate (CTR), a widely-use measurement of impact, has no direct correlation to conversions.
« The insights we learned will have immense value over time as our marketing efforts evolve, » says Allstate’s Chief Marketing Officer Sanjay Gupta. « This confirms our belief that in this fast-changing world, what’s seen as tried and true in the past may not always be the best method for the future. »
The new research suggests brands should leverage some form of unified, real-time data measurement practices, and apply them across all their channels and down to individual users, in order to accurately attribute performance and optimize campaigns on the fly.
Leveraging such an approach, the study revealed a number of specific opportunities that drastically improve the performance of mobile:
- The right format for the right goal: Mobile video and mobile audio were more efficient than the campaign average of all media in driving brand consideration, performing at 85 percent and 32 percent, respectively. On the other hand, mobile banners that successfully targeted consumers who were in the market for insurance were 12 percent more efficient as compared to the campaign average (across all media) in terms of driving sales.
- Targeting changed the game: The best targeting performer was behavioral targeting which far outperformed untargeted banners, scoring 272 out of an index of 100 when it came to incremental sales per dollar spent. Re-targeting was also very efficient– performing more than two times better as compared to when it was not applied.
- Location drives sales at scale: Banners that employed location targeting improved the efficiency of sales per dollar spent compared to untargeted banners by a factor of nearly two. The study also validated the importance of physical location patterns of consumers as predictive in terms of defining an audience that is in the market for insurance.
- Shorter is better for audio and video: Video’s efficiency was hugely dependent not just on its placement in the sales funnel but also on length. A 15-second video was twice as effective in delivering on consideration as a 30-second version and audio was 18 percent better when it was a shorter length, as well.
« It is critical for marketers to understand the potentially huge swings in ROI that both format and targeting opportunities unique to mobile can have, » says MMA’s Chief Executive Officer Greg Stuart. « Metrics need to be integrated cross-channel to accurately attribute business outcomes. The impact this level of marketing maturity can have to drive topline business growth as well as greater personalization of the consumer experience is unprecedented. »
To date, MMA has conducted 10 SMoX attribution studies providing marketers with an idea of what an optimized marketing mix should look like for brands.
About SMoX
SMoX is a global research initiative conducted by the MMA, which has included studies with Allstate, ATT, Coca-Cola, MasterCard, Walmart and Unilever. SMoX applies research techniques from person-centric marketing analytics firm Marketing Evolution to provide a granular read of mobile and other media. For more on SMoX, click here. SMoX methodology has been independently reviewed by the Advertising Research Foundation (ARF). The MMA thanks the following companies that support SMoX: Jun Group, PlaceIQ, The Weather Company, xAd, ESPN, Foursquare, Pandora, Turner, Ubimo and Verve.
About the MMA
The MMA is the world’s leading global non-profit trade mobile marketing association comprised of more than 800 member companies, from nearly fifty countries. Its members hail from every faction of the mobile marketing ecosystem — including brand marketers, agencies, mobile technology platforms, media companies, operators and others. The MMA’s mission is to accelerate the transformation and innovation of marketing through mobile, driving business growth with closer and stronger consumer engagement. Anchoring the MMA’s mission are four core pillars; to cultivate inspiration by driving innovation for the Chief Marketing Officer; to build the mobile marketing capabilities for the marketing organizations through fostering know-how and confidence; to champion the effectiveness and impact of mobile through research providing tangible ROI measurement; and advocacy. MMA industry-wide committees work collaboratively to develop and advocate global best practices and lead standards development.
Mobile Marketing is broadly defined as including advertising, apps, messaging, mCommerce and CRM on all mobile devices including smartphones and tablets. Members include: Allstate, American Express, Bank Of America, Campbell’s, Chobani, Choice Hotels, Citi, Colgate-Palmolive, DataXu, Dunkin’ Brands, E*TRADE, Electronic Arts, ESPN, Facebook, Ford, Foursquare, Goodyear, Google, Hilton, iHeartMedia, InMobi, Johnson Johnson, Kellogg, Krux, Marriott, MasterCard, McDonald’s, Nestle, Pandora, Pepsi, Pernod Ricard, Pfizer, Pinterest, PlaceIQ, Procter Gamble, R/GA, RadiumOne, Razorfish, Salesforce, Samsung, SAP, Snap, Spotify, Target Brands, The Coca-Cola Company, The Rubicon Project, The Weather Company, T-Mobile, TUNE, Uber, Ubimo, Unilever, Verve, VEVO, Vibes, Walmart, Wendy’s, xAd , Zurich and many more. The MMA’s global headquarters are located in New York with regional operations Asia Pacific (APAC), Europe/Middle East/Africa (EMEA) and Latin America (LATAM). For more information about the MMA please visit http://www.mmaglobal.com.
About Allstate
The Allstate Corporation (NYSE: ALL) is the nation’s largest publicly held personal lines insurer, protecting approximately 16 million households from life’s uncertainties through auto, home, life and other insurance offered through its Allstate, Esurance, Encompass and Answer Financial brand names. Other growth platforms include predictive analytics company Arity and consumer-product protection plan company SquareTrade. Allstate is widely known through the slogan « You’re In Good Hands With Allstate®. » Allstate agencies are in virtually every local community in America. In 2016, The Allstate Foundation, Allstate, its employees and agency owners gave $42 million to support local communities.
For the original version on PRWeb visit: http://www.prweb.com/releases/2017/04/prweb14216900.htm
Pepsi pulls protest-themed video after online outrage
It’s rare that an issue can unite both left and right in equal levels of
indignation, but Pepsi was
forced to pull a new video campaign Wednesday after a major misfire.
The now-removed video tells a fictional story about a protester—played by
model Kendall Jenner—who wins huzzahs from fellow demonstrators after
handing a can of pop to a cop.
After years of protests over politics and allegations of police excesses,
Pepsi appears to have waded into the same shark-infested waters that have
claimed other brands in recent years.
« Pepsi was trying to project a global message of unity, peace and
understanding,”
the company stated. “Clearly we missed the mark, and we apologize. We did not intend to make
light of any serious issue. We are removing the content and halting any
further rollout. We also apologize for putting Kendall Jenner in this
position. »
(Give brand managers bonus points for apologizing to the model, who has
been the subject of online ridicule.)
Intentionally or not, the ad was released on the anniversary of Martin
Luther King Jr.’s death, a fact not lost on the Twitter orcs assaulting
Pepsi’s corporate castle walls.
Pepsi’s video sought to project youth and hipness in keeping with
successful campaigns dating back to its 1980s-era Michael Jackson
commercials. No doubt its marketing team seriously considered the
controversy the video would generate.
Online fury
Still, the cola company appears not to have anticipated the level of
indignation it would shake up. A New York Times headline reads, “
Pepsi Ad With Kendall Jenner Trivializes Black Lives Matter, CriticsSay.” The noted civil rights journal Elle scolds, “
Pepsi and Kendall Jenner Co-opt the Resistance to Sell You Soda.”
Nor, surely, was Pepsi courting this zinger from Martin Luther King Jr.’s
daughter:
If only Daddy would have known about the power of #Pepsi. pic.twitter.com/FA6JPrY72V
— Be A King (@BerniceKing) April 5, 2017
Pepsi initially stood by its commercial. In a statement to AdWeek (“
Pepsi’s Tone-Deaf Kendall Jenner Ad Co-opting the Resistance Is GettingClobbered in Social”), the fizzy-beverage icon stated, “This is a global ad that reflects
people from different walks of life coming together in a spirit of harmony,
and we think that’s an important message to convey.”
The ad was produced by PepsiCo’s in-house content creation arm, Creators
League Studio, the company
stated. Pepsi’s press release on the ad crowed that the video “takes a more
progressive approach to truly reflect today’s generation and what living
for now looks like.”
But why?
While Pepsi pauses to reflect, would whatever big-bucks consultant who
keeps persuading major brands to wade into political minefields please
raise your hand? Many in Medialand are curious: Did nobody see this coming?
Or is the selling point that any social media hullabaloo boosts brand
awareness, even if customers are shaking their fists at you?
The whole blowup is ironic, given that Pepsi’s intended message seems to be
that of reconciliation. There’s no difference between police and any given
assortment of guitar-strumming, cello-lugging, hijab-wearing protesters
that can’t be resolved over a can of soda, the video implies.
David Haigh, chief executive of Brand Finance, stated in an email:
“Ill-conceived campaigns equally have the power to significantly erode
hard-earned brand equity. Pepsi, which already had a difficult 2016 with
its brand value dropping by 4 percent to $18.3 billion dollars, could face
further losses in the value and strength of its brand as a result of this
ad.
“Companies are right to push the boundaries and take risks when it comes to
marketing products, but this proves that fallout from a single video can
have a very damaging effect.”
Trouble is, Twitter isn’t buying it. People mocked the ads with images
ranging from Tiananmen Square to the civil rights struggle. Also, does it
count as good PR when people mention your competitor?
When the cops come and you only got Coca-Cola in the fridge pic.twitter.com/GWWO67bkMm
— Ira Madison III (@ira) April 4, 2017
« Oh nevermind. He ordered a Pepsi. » pic.twitter.com/hujesuLrEA
— Eric Spring (@ericleespring) April 5, 2017
One wag dropped in an image of a protester in need of a cola caffeine fix.
« YOU WANT DIET OR REGULAR PEPSI? » pic.twitter.com/DSEn5y5npv
— MAXIIMUS (@maxcdesign) April 5, 2017
Others remembered confrontations with cops that weren’t so friendly.
Me: « I don’t have Pepsi with me »
Police: pic.twitter.com/luZzVdwnBX
— S’thembiso Gamede (@StheeReloaded) April 5, 2017
Even Stephen Colbert got in on the act.
This Pepsi ad is so unrealistic. Those protesters would have been Dr. Pepper Sprayed. https://t.co/oNjjtm6eFu
— Stephen Colbert (@StephenAtHome) April 5, 2017
(Image via)
Rosario Dawson Spoofed The Kendall Jenner Pepsi Ad…18 Years Ago
Pepsi has not quenched the world’s thirst for an explanation of exactly what their marketing department was thinking with that now-pulled protest-themed ad starring Kendall Jenner. Treated as a good idea by who knows how many decision-makers at the soda conglomerate, and approximately zero members of the general public, the commercial will surely one day be taught in advertising courses as an example of what not to do.
It’s even more perplexing considering that the idea of shooting a soft drink ad set at some sort of protest was an idea that was lambasted 18 years ago, as Rosario Dawson quickly pointed out.
After all, she had starred in The Chemical Brothers’ music video that had done just that. The clip was for « Out of Control, » the fourth single from the big beat group’s 1999 album Surrender, and featured vocals from New Order bassist Bernard Sumner. Dawson was the first to make the connection on Twitter.
Indeed, the video stars Dawson and actor Michael Brown as two, young revolutionaries who can’t seem to keep their hands off each other even as they’re fighting an army that represents a ruling class that can’t seem to keep its hands off the means of production. Indeed, the Mexico City shot clip took its visual cues from the Zapatista Army of National Liberation, an actual leftist revolutionary group active in Mexico during the ’90s.
Oh, right, the two stars also can’t seem to get enough of the fictional soda Viva.
The video climaxes as Dawson distracts an approaching battalion of armed men in riot cop formation by sexily chugging down the soda. Meanwhile, Brown’s character sneaks up on them and launches a Molotov cocktail in a soda glass.
Except, surprise, turns out it’s just a soda advertisement, and the protesters and armed forces wind up all happily chugging down the « 100% chemical » drink together in the end. Until of course the camera pulls out to reveal the ad was playing in an electronics store window right before another protest.
There exists no deep dives or think pieces into the music video’s meaning on the easily searchable internet, nor any interviews with anyone involved, but it’s not hard to imagine what the joke of the video was supposed to be.
The youth of the time was notoriously disillusioned with advertising and keenly aware of marketing manipulation, so brands tried to reach the young Gen X and older Millennial youth with untraditional « guerrilla advertising » and « rebel marketing. » In fact, the music video would have been shot just a few years after Coca Cola’s notoriously failed attempt to launch OK Soda, which they tried to aim squarely at the counter culture youth through supposedly quirky and offbeat marketing.
The joke of the video: « What if brands went a step forward and used actual guerrilla rebel imagery in their advertising? » Such a ’90s electro music video concept.
Today’s teens seem to be a bit more chill with being marketed to. As a Google study recently informed us, cool teens absolutely love their cool brands. « Gen Z believe and rely on brands to shape their world, » the report informs us. (Incidentally, the teens actually think that Pepsi is pretty cool. It got a « cool score » of 6.5, making it cooler than Beats by Dre, Forever 21 and Buzzfeed. Or at least it was until before the Jenner ad).
There’s no excusing the advertisement, but you can at least imagine why Pepsi thought it might be a good idea to earnestly connect with young consumers in this kind of way. Indeed, Pepsi is far from the first brand to try to leverage some vague commitment to social justice alongside the popularity of a young influencer, they just were misguided in their approach. Whereas past generations didn’t want to know they were being marketed to at all, Gen Z might be a little bit more open to it if the brand presents itself in a way that’s authentic, relatable and representative of sharing their values. Pepsi, though, just seemingly put this information into a blender alongside a lot of buzzwords and trending tropics.
What we’re left with is an ad intended for Gen Z that is a surreal unintentional remake of a video taking the piss out of advertising from a Gen X and Gen Y perspective.
Of course, it’s advertisers themselves that like to perpetuate the idea that different generations respond to advertising differently, but the truth of the matter is no generation wants tone-deaf, appropriative marketing.
Related: Pepsi Pulls Controversial Kendall Jenner Ad
Watch W’s Trending Videos:
Advantage Dealer Services Boosts Key Email Marketing Metrics by 20% or More with Addition of Flick Fusion Videos
Urbandale, IA — April 3, 2017 — Flick Fusion, the auto industry’s leading video marketing services provider, today announced that Advantage Dealer Services (ADS) has significantly boosted key metrics in email marketing campaigns with the addition of Flick Fusion videos.
Compared to email marketing campaigns sent without video, video emails increase open rates by 20% to 30%, click-through rates (CTR) by 20%, and time on site by 25% to 35%.
Based in Suwanee, Georgia, ADS is a digital marketing agency specializing in email conquest campaigns. ADS serves nearly 400 auto dealerships nationwide and sends out 10 million emails weekly. Three years ago they began utilizing video emails and today incorporate video into approximately 35% of their email campaigns.
“It’s pretty clear that most consumers today would rather watch a video as a way to get information, versus looking at a static landing page,” said Michael Jaber, owner of ADS. “Leveraging video is such a natural for auto dealers because videos give a dealership’s inventory so much more appeal with action, sights and sounds.”
ADS selected Flick Fusion as its video marketing platform of choice because Flick Fusion is an industry leader and their overall value proposition was the most attractive. “They’re one of the best in the business with turnaround time and responsiveness as far as I’m concerned,” said Jaber. He adds that the Flick Fusion platform makes setting up video landing pages quick and easy, which is helpful in the fast-paced business of email marketing.
One of the most watched metrics in email marketing is the open rate. Adding videos to email marketing campaigns has increased the open rate approximately 20%. ADS’ average email campaign open rate without videos ranges from 10% to 12%; but with the addition of videos, that average increases to 12% to 15%. “Most dealers get an average 10 percent open rate from their own database, so the fact these are conquest campaigns delivering those open rates is quite exceptional,” said Jaber.
Video emails deliver a similar boost in the click-through rate, another closely measured metric. To increase CTRs, ADS overlays a big “play” button on top of a picture from the video, which is the universally recognized symbol for “this is a video.” When a customer clicks on the picture, it immediately takes them to a video landing page on the dealership’s website where the video begins to play. ADS also includes incentives in emails that encourage prospects to click on the video, such as “Smart Trade, Guaranteed Offer on Their Trade-In,” or “Watch this video to see the latest cash-back offers.”
Another way to increase the CTR is to include multiple links in every email, all of which lead to the dealership’s website. “We typically have dozens of links in every email,” said Jaber. ADS’ video emails often include stacked banners featuring photos of vehicles, and if a prospect clicks anywhere on the banner they will be taken to the video landing page.
One of the most important metrics to many dealers is time spent on site. Video emails that link to video landing pages have increased time on site by 25% to 35%. “This is a huge number when you’re getting quality visitors, and dealers really like to see this kind of increase,” said Jaber.
To increase time on site, Jaber ensures that the offer made in each email matches the offer on the video landing page. “Some email marketing companies will send out emails that make an offer, but when the customer clicks on it, they are taken to the dealership’s home page or another section of the site and the offer is not there,” said Jaber. If the email is promoting an offer on a particular Toyota, then the landing page needs to mirror that exact same offer.
Another best practice that ADS finds effective for increasing time on site is to ensure that navigation links are clearly visible on video landing pages. “You want to make it easy for the consumer to be able to navigate out of the video landing page to other parts of the dealership’s website,” said Jaber.
For ADS, video emails have significantly increased key metrics and email campaign results when compared to email marketing campaigns sent without videos. “Many dealers in hypercompetitive areas are trying to leverage technology to differentiate themselves, and videos are definitely an effective method for doing that,” said Jaber.
For more information, call Flick Fusion at (800) 247-2502 or visit www.flickfusion.com
About Flick Fusion
Flick Fusion offers intelligent video marketing solutions to auto dealers, making it easy to create vehicle inventory videos, video emails, dealership branded videos and more. Flick Fusion’s innovative SmartFlicks hosting, marketing and distribution platform delivers automated, integrated, rule and behavior-based video content in real-time across multiple channels throughout the entire purchase cycle.
With CRM integration, auto dealers can capture video viewer data from any touchpoint, match that data to customer records in the CRM, and receive real-time alerts when certain viewing parameters are met.
Flick Fusion’s mission is to give every consumer a better car shopping experience. Video is proven to capture buyers’ attention, build emotional value, increase organic SEO rankings and convert more website visitors into leads. Flick Fusion is the preferred video marketing platform of more than 4,500 brands and partners.
Media Contact
Holly Forsberg, www.carterwestpr.com, 602-680-8960
So, which party is responsible for the death of the filibuster? Let’s debate.
By the end of this week, the Senate probably will get rid of the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees, ending a procedural tool that has been available to the minority party for about 250 years and helped define the Senate as a slower, more methodical chamber than the majority-rule House.
Republicans will pull the trigger to get Judge Neil Gorsuch on the Supreme Court over a Democratic filibuster. But they say this is just the inevitable, regrettable conclusion of a war Democrats started years ago.
Dem filibuster of exceptional Judge Gorsuch means no GOP nominee will B acceptable Can’t be 1 rule for Dems and 1 rule for GOP
— ChuckGrassley (@ChuckGrassley) April 3, 2017
No surprise; Democrats argue the exact opposite: It’s Republicans’ obstruction over the past decade that led to this moment.
Don’t be fooled-the decision to destroy minority rights in the Senate is entirely Sen McConnell’s. We are at this point because of him alone
— Senator Dick Durbin (@SenatorDurbin) April 4, 2017
Who’s right? The answer depends on your politics, which probably says more about how partisan the nation has become — and as a result, rules governing political institutions are eroding — than it does answer the question about who’s to blame for the filibuster.
But because both sides are pretty convinced that the other is to blame, let’s try to answer that question. Here’s a guide on how to best argue who’s to blame for getting rid of the filibuster.
If you think Democrats are to blame, say:
Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) and other Senate Democratic leaders. (Andrew Harnik/Associated Press)
1. Democrats sent the Senate down this road in 2013, when they got rid of filibusters for all nominees except those to the Supreme Court.
“I guarantee you, it is a decision that, if they actually go through with it, they will live to regret,” warned then-Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). He added: « Let me assure you: This Pandora’s box, once opened, will be utilized again and again by future majorities — and it will make the meaningful consensus-building that has served our nation so well a relic of the past.”
2. Actually, it goes further back than that — to when Democrats filibustered a qualified judge in 2001
Republicans point to the battle over President George W. Bush’s nomination of lawyer Miguel Estrada in 2001 to the D.C. Court of Appeals as the moment that really started the war of the filibuster. The American Bar Association unanimously rated Estrada as “well qualified” even though he had no experience as a judge. Democrats filibustered on Estrada’s lack of credentials, but underlying it, Republicans believe, was Democrats’ political motivation to keep Estrada off the second-highest court in the land and, potentially, off the Supreme Court. He was never confirmed.
With that, a playbook was created: If you’re in the minority in the Senate, blocking or threatening to block a judicial nominee is an effective tool to gain political victories.
« It became almost routine for our Democratic colleagues to filibuster President Bush’s nominees, » Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), now the Senate’s No. 2 Republican, said in a speech Tuesday.
In 2005, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) was so frustrated by Democratic filibusters that he made the first high-profile threat to get rid of it. Both parties worked to avoid such a fate. But the first hole was punched in the can of worms.
Sens. Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), left, and Trent Lott (R-Miss.) in 2005. (Getty Images)
3. This 60-vote threshold Democrats are claiming Supreme Court justices must hit? Nonsense.
Senate Judiciary Committee members Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), the chairman, greet Judge Neil Gorsuch, center, before his Supreme Court hearing in March. (Melina Mara/The Washington Post)
One of the Democrats’ most common explanations for why they’re filibustering Gorsuch has been rated by fact checkers here at The Washington Post as a misleading statement: that nominees must get 60 votes to be approved. It’s true that the past six justices have received 60 votes, but there’s no rule that they have to.
In filibustering Gorsuch, Democrats are putting him through a rare extra hurdle for Supreme Court confirmation votes, one that requires the Senate to find 60 senators to vote to end debate.
[Confirmations for the sitting Supreme Court justices were not nearly as partisan as Judge Gorsuch’s]
Two of the most controversial Supreme Court nominees in history — Clarence Thomas and Robert Bork — never had to clear such a hurdle.
For these reasons, Republicans say Democrats are forcing them to throw out the filibuster.
“We have no alternative,” Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (Utah), a senior Senate Republican, said Monday.
If you think Republicans are to blame, say:
1. You wanna talk filibusters. Let’s talk about the Obama years.
That’s when Senate Republicans, in the minority for six of President Barack Obama’s eight years in the White House, blocked at least a dozen* of Obama-nominated judges and even Cabinet appointments — including Chuck Hagel for defense secretary, the first filibuster of any nominee to lead the Defense Department.
Lower-court benches were left virtually empty as a result, said Democratic aides working in the Senate at that time.
Senate Republicans’ filibuster of three not particularly partisan District Court judges in 2013 was the last straw for then-Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.), who pulled the trigger other majority leaders had only contemplated pulling.
In an afternoon, Democrats in the Senate voted to lower the vote threshold for all of a president’s political and lower-court nominees, so that a simple majority (usually 51 votes) could get them through.
Then-Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) attends a news conference in 2013 with Senate Democrats after they got rid of the filibuster for most judicial nominees. (Win McNamee/Getty Images)
A regrettable change to centuries of Senate procedure? Maybe. But Democrats said they had no choice.
“These nominees deserve at least an up-or-down vote,” Reid said at the time. “But Republican filibusters deny them a fair vote and deny the president his team.”
*Correction: We originally incorrectly overstated how many of President Obama’s nominees Republicans filibustered during this period. At the time Reid changed the filibuster, Republicans maintained they had confirmed 99 percent of Obama’s judicial selections, and The Washington Post’s Fact Checker counted 12 Obama nominees who did not receive a final vote/had their nominations withdrawn as a result, compared to 14 during the Bush presidency. Democratic aides working in the Senate during this time maintain that dozens more of Obama’s were blocked by threats of filibusters or cloture motions filed to delay proceedings.
2. It’s Republicans who are actually pulling the trigger on getting rid of the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees, not Democrats.
Therefore, the blame rests on Republicans. Case closed.
As Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) said in a recent interview with NPR’s Robert Siegel: “Nobody is forcing McConnell to go that route. But he is a very determined person, and he wants what he wants.”
3. Also, there’s a guy called Merrick Garland who never got a vote.
Judge Merrick Garland speaks from the podium as President Barack Obama applauds, at the announcement of Garland’s nomination to the Supreme Court in March 2016. (Kevin Lamarque/Reuters)
Democrats say Republicans put them in a no-win situation in February 2016, when, hours after Justice Antonin Scalia died, McConnell vowed that Republicans would not even consider President Barack Obama’s pick for the seat, no matter whom he picked.
Obama’s pick, federal Judge Merrick Garland, was largely considered a moderate one aimed at appeasing Republicans. But under McConnell, Republicans held the line and didn’t even have a hearing for Garland, who now holds the longest wait time for any Supreme Court nominee.
“This is a stolen seat,” Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) said in January, as President Trump nominated Gorsuch. “This is the first time in American history that one party has blockaded a nominee for almost a year to deliver a seat to a president of their own party. If this tactic is rewarded rather than resisted, it will set a dangerous new precedent in American governance.”
If you’re not sure which party to blame, just say this:
There’s blame to go around on both sides.
In fact, you could make the case that no matter which party started it, the demise of the filibuster was inevitable:
- Democrats catch Republicans off guard by filibustering a Bush nominee.
- Republicans filibuster a dozen of Obama’s judicial nominees. (Democrats argue they unofficially blocked much more than that, but the definition of « blocked » is in the eye of the beholder.)
- Democrats decide to get rid of the filibuster for all non-Supreme Court nominees.
- Republicans hold a Supreme Court seat open for more than a year.
- Democrats are now leading a rare filibuster of a Supreme Court nominee.
- In turn, Republicans will probably get rid of that last shred of the filibuster for nominees.
North Korea launches ballistic missile ahead of Trump-Xi summit
SEOUL, South Korea — North Korea fired a newly developed powerful ballistic missile into its eastern waters Wednesday, U.S. and South Korean officials said, amid worries the North might conduct nuclear or long-range rocket tests ahead of the first summit between President Trump and his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping this week.
The initial U.S. and South Korean assessments indicated it was a KN-15 medium-range missile, whose first publicly known test in February was considered by many foreign experts as a potentially worrying development. It uses solid fuel already loaded inside the missile, which would shorten launch preparation times, boost the weapon’s mobility and make it harder for outsiders to detect the signs of its liftoff.
North Korean leader Kim Jong Un had said after the February launch that the missile, called “Pukguksong-2” in North Korea, provided another nuclear attack capability against the United States and South Korea. Most of North Korea’s missiles use liquid propellant, which usually must be added on the launch pad before the weapon is fired.
The missile fired from land in the area of the eastern coastal city of Sinpo on Wednesday morning flew about 60 kilometers (37 miles), according to a South Korean military statement. The missile launched in February flew about 500 kilometers (310 miles), but it wasn’t immediately clear if the shorter distance meant Wednesday’s launch was a failure.
North Korean state media said the “Pukguksong-2” missile is a surface-to-surface missile that can carry nuclear warheads. It is likely to be an upgraded version of the submarine-launched missile named “Pukguksong” launched last summer. Many South Korean experts say “Pukguksong-2” missile would be a greater security threat because it can be launched anywhere from a ground-based mobile vehicle. While submarines are also a stealthy way to do that, North Korea doesn’t have enough of them.
Ralph Cossa, president of the Pacific Forum CSIS think tank in Honolulu, said he was expecting North Korea would do something to coincide with the Trump-Xi summit, perhaps conduct a nuclear test. The missile launch may be a precursor, with more to come as the summit starts later this week, Cossa said.
Posted!
A woman dressed in a traditional gown pays her respects at statues of late North Korean leaders, Kim Il Sung, left, and Kim Jong Il, in Pyongyang, North Korea, Thursday, Feb. 16, 2017. Unaware of reports his eldest son – and current leader Kim Jong Uns half-brother – was killed just days ago in what appears to have been a carefully planned assassination, North Koreans marked the birthday of late leader Kim Jong Il on Thursday as they do every year.
Azalea, whose Korean name is « Dalle », a 19-year-old female chimpanzee, smokes a cigarette at the Central Zoo in Pyongyang, North Korea Oct. 19, 2016. According to officials at the newly renovated zoo, which has become a favorite leisure spot in the North Korean capital since it was re-opened in July, the chimpanzee smokes about a pack a day. They insist, however, that she does not inhale.
A picture released by the Rodong Sinmun, the newspaper of the ruling North Korean Workers Party, on Sept. 8, 2015, shows North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, center front, and Miguel Diaz-Canel Bermudez, second from right, a member of the Political Bureau of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Cuba and first vice-president of the Council of State, watching an art performance by the Moranbong Band and the State Merited Chorus in Pyongyang, North Korea, on Sept. 7, 2015. Bermudez led a Cuban delegation to North Korea to mark the 55th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations between North Korea and Cuba.
Men and women pump their fists in the air and chant « defend! » as they carry propaganda slogans calling for reunification of their country during the « Pyongyang Mass Rally on the Day of the Struggle Against the U.S., » attended by approximately 100,000 North Koreans to mark the 65th anniversary of the outbreak of the Korean War at the Kim Il Sung stadium, Thursday, June 25, 2015, in Pyongyang, North Korea. The month of June in North Korea is known as the « Struggle Against U.S. Imperialism Month » and it’s a time for North Koreans to swarm to war museums, mobilize for gatherings denouncing the evils of the United States and join in a general, nationwide whipping up of the anti-American sentiment.
North Koreans gather in front of a portrait of their late leader Kim Il Sung, left, and Kim Jong Il, right, paying respects to their late leader Kim Jong Il, to mark the third anniversary of his death, Wednesday Dec. 17 at Pyong Chon District in Pyongyang, North Korea. North Korea marked the end of a three-year mourning period for the late leader Kim Jong Il on Wednesday, opening the way for his son, Kim Jong Un, to put a more personal stamp on the way the country is run.
- 1 of 150
- 2 of 150
- 3 of 150
- 4 of 150
- 5 of 150
- 6 of 150
- 7 of 150
- 8 of 150
- 9 of 150
- 10 of 150
- 11 of 150
- 12 of 150
- 13 of 150
- 14 of 150
- 15 of 150
- 16 of 150
- 17 of 150
- 18 of 150
- 19 of 150
- 20 of 150
- 21 of 150
- 22 of 150
- 23 of 150
- 24 of 150
- 25 of 150
- 26 of 150
- 27 of 150
- 28 of 150
- 29 of 150
- 30 of 150
- 31 of 150
- 32 of 150
- 33 of 150
- 34 of 150
- 35 of 150
- 36 of 150
- 37 of 150
- 38 of 150
- 39 of 150
- 40 of 150
- 41 of 150
- 42 of 150
- 43 of 150
- 44 of 150
- 45 of 150
- 46 of 150
- 47 of 150
- 48 of 150
- 49 of 150
- 50 of 150
- 51 of 150
- 52 of 150
- 53 of 150
- 54 of 150
- 55 of 150
- 56 of 150
- 57 of 150
- 58 of 150
- 59 of 150
- 60 of 150
- 61 of 150
- 62 of 150
- 63 of 150
- 64 of 150
- 65 of 150
- 66 of 150
- 67 of 150
- 68 of 150
- 69 of 150
- 70 of 150
- 71 of 150
- 72 of 150
- 73 of 150
- 74 of 150
- 75 of 150
- 76 of 150
- 77 of 150
- 78 of 150
- 79 of 150
- 80 of 150
- 81 of 150
- 82 of 150
- 83 of 150
- 84 of 150
- 85 of 150
- 86 of 150
- 87 of 150
- 88 of 150
- 89 of 150
- 90 of 150
- 91 of 150
- 92 of 150
- 93 of 150
- 94 of 150
- 95 of 150
- 96 of 150
- 97 of 150
- 98 of 150
- 99 of 150
- 100 of 150
- 101 of 150
- 102 of 150
- 103 of 150
- 104 of 150
- 105 of 150
- 106 of 150
- 107 of 150
- 108 of 150
- 109 of 150
- 110 of 150
- 111 of 150
- 112 of 150
- 113 of 150
- 114 of 150
- 115 of 150
- 116 of 150
- 117 of 150
- 118 of 150
- 119 of 150
- 120 of 150
- 121 of 150
- 122 of 150
- 123 of 150
- 124 of 150
- 125 of 150
- 126 of 150
- 127 of 150
- 128 of 150
- 129 of 150
- 130 of 150
- 131 of 150
- 132 of 150
- 133 of 150
- 134 of 150
- 135 of 150
- 136 of 150
- 137 of 150
- 138 of 150
- 139 of 150
- 140 of 150
- 141 of 150
- 142 of 150
- 143 of 150
- 144 of 150
- 145 of 150
- 146 of 150
- 147 of 150
- 148 of 150
- 149 of 150
- 150 of 150
“I’ve joked before that they don’t mind being hated but they definitely hate to be ignored,” Cossa said.
Recent outside satellite imagery show possible preparations for a new atomic test at the North’s main nuclear test site, such as the laying of communication cables used to initiate a test and collect data. North Korea’s state media has also said the world will soon witness what it calls “eventful successes” the country achieves in the space development. Washington, Seoul and others call the North’s space program a cover for its long-range missile development program.
South Korea’s Foreign Ministry called the North’s latest missile launch a “reckless provocation” that posed a threat to international peace, while Japan’s Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshihide Suga said the country lodged a strong protest over the launch.
READ MORE:
U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson acknowledged the launch in a statement but said the U.S. had spoken enough about North Korea and would not comment further.
North Korea is pushing hard to upgrade its weapons systems to cope with what it calls U.S. hostility. Many weapons experts say North Korea could have a functioning nuclear-tipped missile capable of reaching the continental U.S. within a few years. North Korea carried out two nuclear tests last year.
The North’s latest missile launch also came as it is responding annual military drills between the United States and South Korea with weapons tests and harsh rhetoric. North Korea sees the drills as an invasion rehearsal.
Two weeks ago, the South Korean and U.S. militaries said they had detected a failed North Korean ballistic missile launch. Earlier in March, North Korea fired four ballistic missiles that flew about 1,000 kilometers (620 miles), with three of them landing in waters that Japan claims as its exclusive economic zone.
A chemical weapons attack in Syria exposes Trump’s Assad problem
Want smart analysis of the most important news in your inbox every weekday along with other global reads, interesting ideas and opinions to know? Sign up for the Today’s WorldView newsletter.
Yet again, the world is watching gut-wrenching images emerge from the site of a suspected chemical weapons attack in Syria.
Activists claim the Syrian government launched an airstrike on the town of Khan Sheikhoun in the country’s northwestern Idlib province. Scores of civilians, including many women and children, were reportedly killed.
Video footage surfaced on social media of small, frantic children being hosed off by rescuers in the hopes of washing away whatever lethal chemical agent had hit them. Other gruesome reports showed corpses hastily wrapped in blankets, victims with foam coming out of their mouths and a chilling scene of lifeless boys, their torsos bare, eyes open and limbs contorted in shock.
The death toll was unclear at the time of writing, with aid agencies and monitoring groups putting the number anywhere from 58 up to 100 killed.
Supporters of the Syrian regime rejected any link to a chemical weapons strike. They claimed the reports were fabricated by terrorist groups in Idlib and suggested the fatalities were the result of an explosion at a supposed al-Qaeda chemical weapons factory. Russian authorities, whose warplanes are flying in support of the regime, said they had not conducted a strike in the area around the town. But the broader international reaction was vehement — and put the blame squarely on Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
« Once again the Syrian regime will deny the evidence of its responsibility for this massacre, » French President François Hollande said in a statement.
« Bombing your own civilians with chemical weapons is unquestionably a war crime, and they must be held to account, » declared British Foreign Minister Boris Johnson.
The Turkish foreign minister, Mevlut Cavusoglu, said the attack was a crime against humanity that could derail the fragile Syrian peace process.
The French and British ambassadors at the United Nations called for an emergency meeting of the Security Council, which will convene on Wednesday morning.
Such strikes are a regime tactic to further demoralize the flagging rebellion. « Assad calculates, reasonably, that military dynamics play in his favor. By using chemical weapons and other weapons, he is demonstrating the powerlessness of international actors, » said Emile Hokayem, a Middle East analyst at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, to The Washington Post.
But in Washington, the Trump administration initially chose to blame its predecessor, another sign the White House is far more comfortable operating as if it’s still running an election campaign rather than the world’s only superpower.
« Today’s chemical attack in Syria against innocent people, including women and children, is reprehensible and cannot be ignored by the civilized world, » said White House press secretary Sean Spicer. « These heinous actions by the Bashar al-Assad regime are a consequence of the past administration’s weakness and irresolution. »
Spicer, speaking at a press briefing, added: « President Obama said in 2012 he would establish a red line against the use of chemical weapons and then did nothing. The United States stands with our allies across the globe to condemn this intolerable act. »
It’s seemingly a bizarre line of attack for the Trump administration to choose. In 2013, the Obama administration contemplated a military response after a suspected regime chemical weapons attack on rebel-held districts in the suburbs of Damascus killed more than 1,000 people. The mounting international pressure at the time compelled Assad to agree to eliminate its chemical weapons program.
The fact that Obama chose to back off from confronting the Assad regime, which allegedly used chemical weapons numerous times in the years since, will forever haunt the former president’s legacy. Much of the Washington foreign policy establishment has excoriated him for it. But Trump in 2013 — then a private citizen with the same itchy Twitter finger — was opposed to American intervention in Syria.
What will we get for bombing Syria besides more debt and a possible long term conflict? Obama needs Congressional approval.
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 29, 2013
AGAIN, TO OUR VERY FOOLISH LEADER, DO NOT ATTACK SYRIA – IF YOU DO MANY VERY BAD THINGS WILL HAPPEN FROM THAT FIGHT THE U.S. GETS NOTHING!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 5, 2013
President Obama, do not attack Syria. There is no upside and tremendous downside. Save your « powder » for another (and more important) day!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 7, 2013
The irony is that Trump’s position on the Syrian conflict isn’t that far removed from Obama’s — although it’s more conspicuous in its indifference to the plight of Syrian refugees. The previous administration called for Assad’s departure, but it did little to actually push for regime change, fearing that any deeper involvement in the Syrian conflict would risk the sort of blowback and chaos that rocked Iraq after the 2003 U.S. invasion. Trump, meanwhile, has insisted on multiple occasions that he is not interested in nation-building in the Middle East or dictating regime change. His lieutenants indicated as recently as last week that the White House does not prioritize removing Assad from power.
« No one — not even President Obama, as far as I could tell — was satisfied with the Obama administration’s approach to the conflict in Syria, » wrote Andrew Exum, a former Obama-era Pentagon official, in the Atlantic. « But if you assembled all of the Obama administration’s critics in one room, they would not agree on an obvious alternative. The problem is wicked enough to confound easy solutions, and each policy alternative had strategic and moral deficiencies. »
Instead of being weighed down by the strategic headache of Syria — what Spicer described as « weakness and irresolution » — you get the impression that Trump has decided to brush it all aside in favor of aggressive posturing and a steady escalation of the military campaign against the Islamic State. It’s the kind of brazenness that may have deep costs — as seen in the scores of Iraqi civilians likely killed by a recent American airstrike in the city of Mosul.
« This president would be wise to remember what his predecessor knew: War is a very imperfect instrument of policy, » wrote Exum.
Later on Tuesday, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson put out a more measured statement that singled out the « brutal, unabashed barbarism » of the Assad regime. It scolded Assad’s boosters, Russia and Iran, for not ensuring the regime’s « compliance » with a cease-fire they were supposed to guarantee and said they « bear great moral responsibility » for Syrian civilian deaths. This, as analysts noted, while scoring no political points at home, was more intelligent messaging in the face of a complex challenge. But for now, his boss seems content to ignore the complexity altogether.
Want smart analysis of the most important news in your inbox every weekday along with other global reads, interesting ideas and opinions to know? Sign up for the Today’s WorldView newsletter.