# data[].attributes.body
Huffington Post article

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Katy Perry and Madonna posed on the cover of the summer issue of V magazine for a "bondage-themed" photo shoot for photographer Steven Klein. Actor Neil Patrick Harris was completely naked except for a top hat and bowtie on the cover of a recent issue of Rolling Stone. The issue prior featured actress Julia Louis-Dreyfus almost naked except for the cursive words of the U.S. Constitution (and the signature of John Hancock) and many people view it as a "rise" in her combating sexism, as opposed to submitting to it. Now there's more scandalous pictures of her and clowns in

Fill in the blank: #NeilPatrickHarris's RollingStone cover is __________! http://t.co/8OGpXIEzmq pic.twitter.com/4LZuck5LPh

- HollywoodLife (@HollywoodLife) May 7, 2014

#Veeple Alert: @OfficialJLD"s @RollingStone cover hits stands today: http://t.co/oRK0D88hvJ pic.twitter.com/yPViVIwO1t

- Veep (@VeepHBO) April 11, 2014

These cover releases and photo shoots ( as well as many more) beg the question: Why is there a need to strip down or be in suggestive poses in order to have your voice heard or your brand seen?

Even though there have been studies which conclude that sex doesn't sell, it is commonly believed that it does. It's a topic that's consistently been debated, and we're left wondering why there continues to be an abundance of over-sexualized, sexist and misogynistic advertisements in glossy magazines and commercials.

Menswear brand SuitSuppy released it's Spring/Summer 2014 campaign complete with bikini-clad women (or not, depending if you click the uncensored version) and fully-clothed men in suits. However, sexist adverts like these aren't new to SuitSupply. When they released their " shameless" advertising campaign in 2010, their photos of women in compromising positions were banned from Facebook.

Other advertisements focus on a woman's physical body rather than her personality, including the following AXE commercial which, as Annie-Rose Strasser says in ThinkProgress, "treats women as a series of body parts instead of a whole person with a brain."

Some celebrities capitalize on the notion that "sex sells" and other celebrities take notice. UK British pop artist Gabrielle says in The Independent:

Miley and Rihanna are young, and the reality is, sex sells. It's horrible but let's not pretend. These young ladies have taken it upon themselves to be more assertive about their sexualities. If you watch interviews with Miley after the twerking thing, this is not a girl who has lost the plot. She's a businesswoman. Madonna did it before her, Gaga's doing it now. Let's face it, Beyonce, as gorgeous and multi-talented as she is, she's done a video in her underwear. I didn't see anyone moaning about that.

Miley Cyrus does sing and act, but overall she doesn't seem to need to do anything except wear controversial outfits (or perform in her bra and underwear) and it's a goldmine for getting attention, getting headlines and getting more people interested. However, if Miley didn't have the "perfect" celebrity body and wasn't born into a famous family, would this "act" still work?

The body image issue in Hollywood is pervasive. In an interview with Self magazine, Amanda Seyfried said:

I try not to look in the mirror very much -- you can't wake up and expect your body to be different than it was last night. You've got to realize that you're living for yourself, not for other people. Nobody's perfect. Only in Hollywood are people perfect and that's because they spend thousands of dollars on trainers and diets and surgeries. That's what we're made to feel like we're supposed to look like but if you put it in perspective, there's nothing realistic about it!

In print advertisements, it's the same idea. Photoshop and re-touching give an unrealistic expectation of how to attain society's idea of beauty and perfection. Photoshop fails have appeared in countless news outlets, retailers, clothing websites, even the Russian Orthodox Church.

The idea that it is on the consumer to know the difference between a "real" image and a "Photoshopped" image might as well be a "brand fail."

However, male model CJ Richards appeared on " Cosmo Live" this past January and talked about the Vogue cover featuring Lena Dunham and the controversy around using Photoshop and made the below statement:

"I feel like it's been going on since the film world," Richards said. "Why would you watch a movie without special effects? You understand that this isn't real. There's Photoshop in magazines and special effects in movies. I mean, it happens. So accept it and know that this is actually a real person underneath all of the computerized effects that they're adding in."

But the thing is, the clothing is real and tangible and can be bought un-touched-up in stores, whereas the models have distorted figures, missing limbs and shrunken torsos, which is not a reflection of a woman or man in any kind of reality.

I don't want superficial things anymore. I'm tired of looking at artificially sculpted bodies with flat stomachs and chiseled abs and tan skin and bleached white teeth.

Everything is blending together. It's boring. It's uninteresting.

It's not "sexy" when a headline teases that an actress "bares all" for an interview. It's not clever when it's advertised that an actor "strips down" for an interview.

#Miley-Cyrus Bares It All For ... - http://t.co/q6XKbuj238 - #Vanna-White #Wmagazine - #Interview pic.twitter.com/cEZi67E5eK

- Hollywood (@Hollywoodstern) February 4, 2014

I want depth. I want personality. I want someone to be described as beautiful even if they don't have what society deems is beautiful.

Objectifying the human body is nothing new. However, it's absurd to critique people who are at the peak of physical perfection, most notably Olympic athletes. Chloe George writes in for Vagenda, part of the Guardian Comment Network:

... watching the Olympics is a lot about bodies, their amazing strength and agility. These bodies are not objects, they are instruments, with inspiring stories behind them: stories of determination, of truckloads of Lucozade, of millions of mornings of getting up to swim or run or row instead of sleeping in like all the other teenagers. We are wowed by these people's stories. We worship them.

But soon shallowness takes over and we reduce Olympic athletes to superficial bodies. She continues: "This turns quickly from a state of admiration, sexual or otherwise, to objectification, a removal of someone's story (and a close up of their balls). It seems an antithesis of what the Olympics is about -- the individual, their particular achievement."

Shallowness and objectification seems to be the antithesis of American culture. A place that consciously promotes sexist and misogynistic advertisements should not be the same place where you can pursue " the American Dream."

However, there are advertising agencies and fashion brands and big-names in the industry who are striving to create meaningful advertisements and change, in the U.S. and abroad.

In this three-minute spot from Thai Life insurance, it follows the day-to-day life of a regular guy who helps those around him. He realizes the power of paying it forward as when it says in the commercial: "What he does receive are emotions. He witnesses happiness. Reaches a deeper understanding. Feels the love. Receives what money can't buy. A world made more beautiful."

Another thought-provoking advertisement comes from Ogilvy Amsterdam and Dela, a funeral insurance company. From Adweek, this campaign urges people to, while they still can, "say something wonderful" to those who are closest to them.

The first is of a woman who surprises her widowed father by showing her affection by singing a song.

The second is of a devoted husband of more than 50 years who continues to express his love of his wife in front of her water aerobics class.

The last shows an overweight, bullied student who gives thanks to his teacher for helping him " overcome his social awkwardness."

In an effort to show more "real" women in advertisements, American Eagle's young women's lingerie line, Aerie, is showing how the girls are in real life, un-photoshopped and with "flaws."

Aerie Brand representative Jenny Altman, when talking about the unconventional approach in an interview with ABC News' JuJu Chang, said, "We left everything. We left beauty marks, we left tattoos, what you see is really what you get with our campaign."

But is what you see truly what you get? It's a step in the right direction, but the campaign still features young, thin, conventionally attractive women. In a recent study written in The Guardian, advertising in television is "drastically under-representing" to the point where only 5 percent of television advertisements showcase ethnic minorities. There are more plus-size models appearing in magazines more minorities are being featured on magazine covers (though it's still controversial).

Altman continues:

They are still models, they're still gorgeous, they just look a little more like the rest of us. We're hoping to break the mold... we hope by embracing this that real girls everywhere will start to embrace their own beauty. It's a selling point because our customers represent this great demographic and they don't really get to see what girls their age really look like.

In an age where shallowness is revered, where beauty is unfortunately skin deep, will we ever truly see what "girls our age" look like? Beauty marks, dimples, stretch marks and all?

We may never be truly comfortable in our own skin, and people are taking drastic measures to change how they look and perhaps to look more like those photoshopped, artificial images. Eating disorders affect up to 24 million Americans. In a survey of 5th to 12th graders, 69 percent said that pictures in magazines influenced their idea of what the "perfect body" looks like. But the number of people who actually have the body type most advertisements portray as "ideal" is a dismal five percent.

The road to society's definition of perfection is marked with cosmetic surgeries, eating disorders and Photoshop. Maybe it's time to redefine beauty, to incorporate what it's like on the "inside" as well as what's immediately perceived to be on the outside.

The debate around whether "sex sells" in advertising and in life is hurting men and women. In various studies, attractive people get called back for interviews at a higher rate than unattractive people. Daniel Hamermesh, an economics professor at the University of Texas in Austin, researched this topic and some of it is referenced below from the Wall Street Journal:

According to his [Hamermesh's] research, attractive people are likely to earn an average of 3% to 4% more than a person with below-average looks. That adds up to $230,000 more over a lifetime for the typical good-looking person, Dr. Hamermesh estimates. Even an average-looking worker is likely to make $140,000 more over a lifetime than an ugly worker.

Women and minorities, who are already lacking in being well-represented, have to fight extra hard against this double-standard to prove they have brains behind the shell of a body. You can pursue the American dream... if you're attractive. You can land the best job... if you are good-looking.

There are so many road blocks in the way of women and minorities pursuing a career that is not in "beauty" or athletics. Neil DeGrasse Tyson explains the struggles he faced in pursuing a career in science as a Black man and how that can relate to women. At a panel discussion at the Center for Inquiry, he said:

My life experience tells me that when you don't find Blacks and women in the sciences, I know that these forces are real and I had to survive them in order to get to where I am today. So before we start talking about genetic differences, you've got to come up with a system where there's equal opportunity. Then we can have that conversation.

Neil DeGrasse Tyson's response starts around 1:01:31:

What if we cleared the roadblocks? If we featured more people who were intelligent first, beautiful second? Is there a way to change the culture of what is beautiful, or to redefine beauty?

Parisian fashion writer Sakina talks about how Elle magazine featured plus-size models on the cover in 2010:

Fashion has created a gap between itself and real women. From skinny, to curvy, to fat, the population is made of very different bodies and the contrast between the women represented in fashion or advertising has been so important that most women don't feel good about themselves. I, too, have had body issues: I tried to fight what I genetically am because I always thought that being beautiful could never mean being curvy.

It is said that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but maybe it should be said that your ears are just as important because that is where you hear the words of those around you.

What I'm asking for is variety. I want a real, genuine human being. Though athletes and musicians and actors and actresses' are great, where are the scientists? Where are the professors? Where are the brilliant minds who are changing society?

I want to see people from all walks of life, from all backgrounds and nationalities and religions and ages who have a passion for life and who desperately want to change the world.

We as a society need to stop looking skin-deep and need to actually dive deeper into ourselves and in our culture and find and listen to people who are changing the way things are done but aren't being heard.

We need to give those people a voice.

And they shouldn't have to "bare all" to get noticed.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why It's Unfortunate that 'Sex Sells' in Advertising and in Life

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Katy Perry and Madonna posed on the cover of the summer issue of V magazine for a "bondage-themed" photo shoot for photographer Steven Klein. Actor Neil Patrick Harris was completely naked except for a top hat and bowtie on the cover of a recent issue of Rolling Stone.

# data[].attributes.body
The impacy of advertising on our culture.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
We detected a high number of errors from your connection. To continue, please confirm that youâ€™re a human (and not a spambot).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This is a short film that was directed by the French animation collective H5, François Alaux, Hervé de Crécy + Ludovic Houplain.  It was presented at the Cannes Film Festival 2009.  It opened the 2010 Sundance Film Festival and won a 2010 academy award under the category of animated short.  

In this film there are two pieces of licensed music, in the beginning and in the end.  All the other music and sound design are original. The opening track (Dean Martin "Good Morning Life") and closing track (The Ink Spots "I don't want to send the world on fire") songs are licensed pre-existing tracks.  All original music and sound design is by, human (www.humanworldwide.com)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Donald Trump is still figuring out the art of the non-apology apology.

After more than a year of refusing to budge as he moved from one firestorm to the next, the Republican nominee surprised everyone Thursday night by declaring that he lives with some "regret."

But while he expressed remorse for the first time since getting into the presidential race 14 months ago, he steered clear of the S-word: "sorry."

Parsing the speech, which was read from a teleprompter, veteran campaign strategists and historians noted that Trump sounded much more like a conventional politician than he has all year. In their view, he's following a path of rhetorical evasion that has been well trod by candidates in both parties.

Linguists and relationship experts, meanwhile, said Trump's comments were ineffective and that his words cannot accurately be described as an "apology." In fact, the GOP nominee did not specify exactly who or what he was talking about. The targets over the course of his campaign are plentiful, including the parents of Capt. Humayun Khan, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Megyn Kelly, New York Times reporter Serge Kovaleski, Mexicans and Muslims.

[Trump expressed regret over causing 'personal pain']

Yet with his poll numbers sinking with 81 days left to go, Trump has finally decided to participate in a familiar ritual of penitence: asking the voters for grace after a headline-grabbing misdeed (or, in Trump's case, many). It's the same kind of public plea for forgiveness that U.S. Olympic swimmer Ryan Lochte also issued on Friday over revelations that he fabricated a story about being robbed in Rio (he didn't actually use the word "sorry" either). But there are many celebrities (actor Mel Gibson after his drunken tirade against "the Jews") and politicians (then-South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford (R) after "hiking the Appalachian Trail") who have been through it before.

Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton has also had to make some public mea culpas in her political lifetime - most recently, saying she was "sorry" for her use of a private email server as secretary of state.

[Clinton says she's sorry for using private email server]

Sometimes the public plea for forgiveness works; sometimes it doesn't.

The biggest problem for Trump, experts said, was the vague nature of his actual words.

"Sometimes in the heat of debate, and speaking on a multitude of issues, you don't choose the right words or you say the wrong thing. I have done that," Trump said. "And believe it or not, I regret it. I do regret it, particularly where it may have caused personal pain."

Asked if he'll apologize to the Khan family, newly installed campaign manager Kellyanne Conway said "he may."

"I certainly hope they heard him," Conway said on ABC's "Good Morning America." "I hope that everybody who has criticized him at some point, for being insensitive or for mocking someone, at least shows some recognition and some forgiveness."

New York University historian Tim Naftali, who previously directed the Richard Nixon presidential library, heard Nixonian echoes as he watched the tape of Trump's speech in Charlotte on Thursday night. Two men who Trump talks to - Roger Ailes and Roger Stone - worked for the former president.

After Watergate, Nixon never apologized for breaking the law, even in his famous interview with David Frost. He instead said that he was sorry for causing the American people pain and suffering.

"An apology involves contrition. Neither Trump, so far, nor Nixon showed real contrition," Naftali said. "Nixon, at least, believed apologies were a sign of weakness, which exposed him to more attacks from his real and perceived enemies."

Trump's insults have come fast and furious during the campaign, but he has never before apologized. "I don't have regrets," he said in March when asked about the charged rhetoric at his rallies.

After Khan's father said Trump does not understand what "sacrifice" means during the Democratic National Convention, the GOP nominee spent a week attacking him. Even following heavy criticism of his attacks on a Gold Star family, Trump told WJLA: "I don't regret anything."

Susan Wise Bauer, who wrote the "The Art of the Public Grovel," called Trump's language about regret "pretty pathetic."

" 'Regret' is about the weaseliest non-apology, non-confession word you can pick," said Bauer, who teaches American literature at the College of William and Mary. "You could 'regret' the fact it's raining outside and have nothing to do with it."

Perhaps that's exactly why so many public figures use the word so often, in lieu of more direct words like "apologize" or "sorry."

Last month, under fire for disparaging Trump as a member of the Supreme Court, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said: "On reflection, my recent remarks ... were ill-advised and I regret making them."

In 2008, after Joseph R. Biden Jr. called Barack Obama, at that point his opponent for the Democratic nomination, "the first sort of mainstream African American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy," the Delaware senator released a statement saying: "I deeply regret any offense my remark ... might have caused anyone."

For others, Trump's non-apology recalled then-Oregon Sen. Bob Packwood's mealy-mouthed response to sexual harassment accusations. "I'm apologizing for the conduct that it was alleged that I did, and I say I am sorry," Packwood said in 1992.

"Trump's not really able to name what he did wrong," said Edwin Battistella, author of "Sorry About That: The Language of Public Apology" and a linguistics professor at Southern Oregon University. "If you think about what a good apology is, you really want to name what you did wrong and apologize specifically for that - not just say I'm sorry for 'whatever.' "

Naftali says Trump is "testing the waters" to see if unspecified regrets is enough.

"That's a classic way for an unrepentant person to try to get us to move on," Naftali said. "What was unusual and new about what Trump did was that he actually took responsibility for the power of his words."

Lauren Bloom, who wrote "Art of the Apology: How, When, and Why to Give and Accept Apologies," said sincerity is a fundamental apology requirement. "I'm sure he sincerely regrets creating controversy that hurt his poll numbers, but that's not being sorry," she said.

Bloom argued that, if Trump was sincere, he would telephone some of the people he lashed into, including McCain (who he blasted for being captured in Vietnam) or Carly Fiorina (whose face he mocked).

But Republican strategists lack confidence that Trump has the self-discipline to stick with this approach.

"The speech was him trying yet again to send the same message - 'we're going to pivot' - which we've seen for well over a year now is meaningless," said Doug Heye, a former Republican National Committee communications director.

Besides her email server, Clinton has offered many non-apology apologies of her own. She defended her support for the Iraq War in 2008 before saying it was a "mistake" in 2014.

Bill Clinton is much more accomplished in the art of the non-apology apology. In April, he lectured Black Lives Matter protesters about his crime bill, angering some African Americans.

"I almost want to apologize," he said the next morning.

But he did not. He just kept talking.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Donald Trump's 'apology' sounds like a non-apology

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Donald Trump is still figuring out the art of the non-apology apology. After more than a year of refusing to budge as he moved from one firestorm to the next, the Republican nominee surprised everyone Thursday night by declaring that he lives with some "regret."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Pop quiz time. Who is the odd one out: Chris Evans, Joan Bakewell, Tesco or Samir Carruthers?

The answer is Carruthers. All of them have apologised recently, but only Carruthers should have.

We're now at 'Peak Apology'. From celebrities and footballers to politicians and corporations, we have an endless stream of people publicly saying "sorry".

Somewhere down around Freeview 267, you can probably find The Sorry Channel, which is fronted by a faded 90s boy band star and exists only to satisfy our appetite for contrition from those in the public eye.

Credit: ITN

But most of these people shouldn't be saying sorry at all. I hate Top Gear and think Chris Evans is an egomaniac and an idiot.

But why should he a pologise for Matt LeBlanc doing doughnuts near the Cenotaph? It's a public road and it was closed for filming.

The monument itself is surrounded by disrespectfully honking traffic on every other day of the year. And the fallen it commemorates fought for all our freedoms. Whether you like it or not, these freedoms include driving around like a disrespectful fool for a stupid TV show.

Next up is Joan Bakewell, who made a couple of ill-advised comments about anorexia, which attracted the hair-trigger fury of modern Britain.

"No one," she said, "has anorexia in societies where there is not enough food...I think it's possible anorexia could be about narcissism."

Do I agree with Bakewell's views? No. But she's entitled to them and they made me think about anorexia. So that's a good thing, right? Apparently not. The hapless Ms Bakewell was duly hauled over the virtual coals until she issued a grovelling tweetpology about how he was "full of regret."

Similarly, Tesco, in a rare demonstration of civic-mindedness, refused to sell alcohol to a woman who appeared to be self-harming and had arms covered in scars.

The checkout person in question undoubtedly acted with good intentions - and not being served booze really isn't that a big a deal. But the appropriate response was a huge public hooh-hah, a story in most papers, endless handwringing over the "humiliation" the woman had suffered, and then ... the inevitable apology.

Credit: Eddie Mulholland

Finally, Samir Carruthers is a silly footballer who pissed in a glass and then dumped it over a balcony at Cheltenham. This is pretty gross, so perhaps an apology was in order. Although I can't help but feel what we got may have been a bit de trop.

"I have completely let myself, my family, the fans, and the two clubs that I represent down and I am sorry," said Carruthers, before going on to apologise to a dozen other groups he may have let down in what felt a bit like an Oscars Acceptance Apology.

Mate, you pissed in a pint glass. It was gross and childish, but you're a footballer.

"The real game changer in our Brave New World of remorse is social media"

I suppose the first point is just how ridiculous all this is. Chris Evans has me mentally paraphrasing the most famous quote Voltaire never said: "I hate you doing doughnuts around the Cenotaph, but I would die defending your right to do them." Others have me thinking of Donald Trump.

The only thing I quite like about the Donald is that he speaks his mind - and so you know he's an offensive idiot. As Malcolm X said, " I have more respect for a man who lets me know where he stands, even if he's wrong. Than the one who comes up like an angel and is nothing but a devil."

Anyway, it's tempting to say that our appetite for 24/7 penitence is down to the new PC "call-out culture" which has given us the spectacle of Peter Tatchell and Germaine Greer being no-platformed by today's hypersensitive campus crybabies. There's probably something to this. A sizeable chunk of the left does seem to have lost its mind.

But it wasn't lefties who were squealing indignantly about burnt rubber at the Cenotaph - it was the self-righteous right. So clearly the modern desire for 'sorry' cuts across the political spectrum.

Why is this? Recently, I read a short, interesting article that may hold some of the answer. Being offended on behalf of others, the author suggested, is a subtle form of narcissism. By taking offence on behalf of person X, we make ourselves feel superior to person Y who supposedly caused the offence.

Of course, this is just human nature, but the real game changer in our Brave New World of remorse is social media. This allows the tediously, smugly self-righteous, who really are the great bores of our age, to unite and make everyone say sorry.

This is such a shame. Back in the good old days you didn't have to say sorry unless you'd been really, really naughty. In fact, as recently as 2007, the only way you could get most of our elite to apologise for anything was to have The Sun hound them mercilessly for weeks.

So, when social media first appeared, the promise it held out sounded rather good. It would give a voice to the public. If a celebrity or a politician or even a big company or a restaurateur did something wrong, we'd be finally able to hold them to account.

If ever there was an example of the law of unintended consequences, this is it. Instead of a brave and principled little guy holding the big people to account, you have an angry mob of the professionally offended wandering around with their virtual pitchforks looking for causes to co-opt with the ultimate goal of getting a public apology which they won't accept, anyway.

I myself have been forced to apologise after an online campaign. Four years ago, one of my bouncers didn't allow a girl in a wheelchair into one of my clubs.

There was a good reason for this. The club was full and plenty of other people who weren't in wheelchairs weren't allowed in either. But she was the daughter of quite a prominent left-wing journalist and...

"All of a sudden, sorry seems to be the easiest word"

She took to social media to complain. Initially I defended myself, pointing out that I had to comply with fire laws and health and safety, that everyone, disabled, able or otherwise was welcome in my clubs, and that I was heavily involved in a disabled charity.

Did this mollify the online lynch-mob? Of course not. It swelled their numbers to the extent that I could see it becoming a "proper story" in the 24/7 news cycle. So I called a mate who works in PR for advice.

"It's really simple," he said. "You'll have to apologise."

"But I did nothing wrong," I countered.

"It doesn't matter," he replied. "The only way it will go away is if you admit total guilt and say sorry."

So I did. And what's more, I performed a kind of public penance by going on a disability sensitivity training course with my door staff.

To me this illustrates the problem perfectly. Before social media, very few people in a position of "power" had to apologise for anything. Now, they have to apologise for everything and anything - and, quite often, nothing.

The trouble is that these apologies have become worthless. You can pretty much smell the exhaustion as a world-weary PR grinds out the hundredth cut 'n' paste "sorry" of the week to the supermarket customer who thought the satsuma display was sexist or the fan on Twitter who took exception to some celebrity's comment which they misunderstood.

Politicians and celebrities and sportspeople don't mean it when they say sorry and they don't care. They just want the baying mob of online morons to go away, and a worthless and insincere apology is the best way to make this happen.

It amazes me that the professionally offended haven't realised that, when you demand apologies all the time, soon, you get the apologies you deserve. All of a sudden, sorry seems to be the easiest word.

However, I'd like to end on a note of optimism. Recently Madonna (who seems rather "troubled" at the moment) pulled down the top of a 17 year old Australian fan on stage, exposing her breast.

The fan, Josephine Georgiou, would have been well within her rights to demand an apology from Madge - and possibly even sue her for harassment. Georgiou's response was brilliant. "Only I get to decide if I'm humiliated or not," she said.

"Why would people assume I am humiliated by my own breast, nipple or body? It's hilarious to me how much of a big deal it is to everyone."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Sorry, but we've reached Peak Apology and it makes me want to scream

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Pop quiz time. Who is the odd one out: Chris Evans, Joan Bakewell, Tesco or Samir Carruthers? The answer is Carruthers. All of them have apologised recently, but only Carruthers should have. We're now at 'Peak Apology'. From celebrities and footballers to politicians and corporations, we have an endless stream of people publicly saying "sorry".

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The chancellor, George Osborne, has joined Twitter just hours before he is due to deliver his budget .

@George_Osborne rapidly gained over 10,000 followers an hour after his inaugural tweet proclaimed he would "present a budget that tackles the economy's problems head on" and help those "who want to work hard & get on".

He also attached a picture of himself at a desk beside the ministerial red box briefcase, which will contain the government's fiscal and monetary plans for the next financial year as he stands before the Commons dispatch box.

There was initial doubt about whether the account was genuine, but then the HM Treasury Twitter account welcomed the chancellor to the site. Other ministers also joined in and the PM retweeted Osborne's message.

However, the BBC's Robert Peston said he would "eat his smartphone" if Osborne's fingers were pushing the buttons.

Former deputy prime minister and avid tweeter John Prescott instantly seized upon the chancellor's arrival to take a swipe at his policies, writing: "So @George_Osborne gets 3,745 followers in just 18 minutes. If only he could get that kind of growth in the economy. Or indeed ANY growth."

In what may be seen as a sign of deference, Osborne chose first to follow the prime minister's two Twitter accounts, then the Treasury and then fellow cabinet minsters.

The list soon expanded to include the German central bank, the IMF, the historian Niall Ferguson, Microsoft billionaire Bill Gates, and the Beautiful World account, which posts pictures of natural scenes from around the globe. He had yet to follow the Bank of England.
Topics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
George Osborne chooses budget day for Twitter debut

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The chancellor, George Osborne, has joined Twitter just hours before he is due to deliver his budget . @George_Osborne rapidly gained over 10,000 followers an hour after his inaugural tweet proclaimed he would "present a budget that tackles the economy's problems head on" and help those "who want to work hard & get on".

# data[].attributes.headline
Politicians in the public eye - embarrassing story

# data[].attributes.subject
Politicians in the public eye - embarrassing story

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Conservative MP Gavin Barwell thought he was exposing a particularly shameless piece of political moneyspinning when he clicked on a link tweeted by Labour and found a press release accompanied by an advert saying "date Arab girls".

He wasted no time firing off a tweet to the party's press team and shadow schools minister Kevin Brennan, saying: "I know Labour are short of cash but having an invitation to 'date Arab girls' at top of your press release?"

However, what seemed like an easy strike might have turned into a something of an own goal.

The press team's reply began "oh dear", followed by a link to an explanation of how Google Adsense functions - that is, based on the preferences of a web user.

The description on the Google website reads: "You may come across such ads when you're viewing a website, video, or app on Google's display network.

"In addition to seeing ads based on your interests, you may also see ads based on the types of sites you visit, whether you +1 something, and more."

The story was running on the LabourList website, a blog devoted to centre-left issues, which claimed that when its writers accessed the same press release they were greeted by an advert for a Samsung mobile phone.

The advert was posted alongside the line: "Oops...Barwell got a far more interesting advert than LabourList did."

Barwell stayed silent as other Twitter users expressed their amusement at his misfiring attack.

Jon Mundy wrote: "Oh - this is glorious, @GavinBarwellMP's browser history comes back to bite him."

James O'Flynn was similarly entertained, observing: "This did make me chuckle.

"Be careful before you question how appropriate an advert on a webpage is."

The original press release, posted on TwitLonger, was an attack on Michael Gove, claiming the education secretary was failing to provide enough school places for children.

It included a quote from Brennan calling on the government to "address the crisis in school places they have created".

Adverts featured above and below the short release, apparently tailored to the viewer's preferences.

The original link was tweeted by @labourpress on March 14, with Barwell's jibe following the same day.

The press team hit back the next day, with the MP for Croydon central staying unusually quiet.

However, a dating advert appeared to be fixed below the advert even when the page was accessed from different computers - though the enticement to date Arab girls was absent.

While there is no evidence Barwell, the party's former chief operating officer, spends his spare time sifting through dating sites, he has previously revealed wide interests as a fan of rappers Public Enemy, author Joan Collins and soap opera Dynasty.

He previously made headlines with a Twitter post after discovering that thieves had stripped metal from a memorial on his father's grave, writing that if he caught the culprits, they would "regret it".

However, this time Barwell seemed content to walk away and has tweeted about other events - such as a visit by Caterham School students to Westminster Cathedral.
Topics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Gavin Barwell in 'date Arab girls' Twitter storm

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Conservative MP Gavin Barwell thought he was exposing a particularly shameless piece of political moneyspinning when he clicked on a link tweeted by Labour and found a press release accompanied by an advert saying "date Arab girls".

# data[].attributes.headline
Clegg apologises for rise in tuition fees

# data[].attributes.subject
Clegg apologises for rise in tuition fees

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Nick Clegg tonight apologised for breaking an election promise not to increase university tuition fees.

Speaking ahead of the Liberal Democrat Party Conference in Brighton, the Deputy Prime Minister admitted he had broken a pledge not to support a rise in fees, which now cost students up to £9,000 a year.

In a new party political broadcast to be aired nationally on Monday evening, Mr Clegg said: "There's no easy way to say this: we made a pledge, we didn't stick to it - and for that I am sorry."

It is the first time Mr Clegg has apologised to his party for breaking the election pledge.

But aides close to the Deputy Prime Minister insisted he was not apologising for supporting the policy through Parliament but only for promising to vote against any prospective rise in tuition fees as he fought the 2010 General Election.

In the video clip to be broadcast on Monday, Mr Clegg admitted many voters had "strong and pretty mixed feelings" about the Liberal Democrats record in Government, adding his party had put aside political differences to "provide our country with stable leadership".

He said: "I also meet people who are disappointed and angry that we couldn't keep all our promises - above all our promise not to raise tuition fees.

"To those people, I say this: we made a promise before the election that we would vote against any rise in fees under any circumstances.

"But that was a mistake. It was a pledge made with the best of intentions - but we shouldn't have made a promise we weren't absolutely sure we could deliver.

"I shouldn't have committed to a policy that was so expensive when there was no money around. Not least when the most likely way we'd end up in Government was in coalition with Labour or the Conservatives, who were both committed to put fees up.

"I know that we fought to get the best policy we could in those circumstances. But I also realise that isn't the point. There's no easy way to say this: we made a pledge, we didn't stick to it - and for that I am sorry."

He added: "When you've made a mistake you should apologise. But more importantly, most important of all, you've got to learn from your mistakes. And that's what we will do.

"I will never again make a pledge unless as a party we are absolutely clear about how we can keep it. I accept that won't be enough for everyone. But I owe it to you to be up front about it. And I don't believe it should cast a shadow over everything else the Liberal Democrats are achieving in Government.

"When we're wrong we hold our hands up. But when we're right we hold our heads up too. We were right to leave the comfort of opposition to face the realities of Government."

It is understood Mr Clegg and aides had been considering an apology for the election pledge over the summer as part of an attempt to regain the trust of voters.

There are also doubts about the Deputy Prime Minister's leadership amongst the party faithful, with many supporting the Business Secretary Vince Cable, who is seen as being more to the left of the party.

Party aides insist the two-and-a-half minute clip, in which Mr Clegg appears at his home in south-west London, is aimed at the country, not just the thousands of voters who have deserted the party since the last General Election.

In the video, Mr Clegg, dressed in a pale blue shirt and not wearing a tie, looks directly at the camera as the shot crops his head and shoulders.

Labour Deputy Party Leader Harriet Harman said: "This was not just the small print of his manifesto, this was Nick Clegg's key election promise when he asked people to vote for his party.

"It is not good enough for him to just brush that promise aside. Instead of crying crocodile tears he should vote with Labour to bring these tuition fees down.

"If Nick Clegg does not back his words with action it will mean he is just weak and spineless."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Nick Clegg apologises over broken tuition fee promise

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Nick Clegg tonight apologised for breaking an election promise not to increase university tuition fees. Speaking ahead of the Liberal Democrat Party Conference in Brighton, the Deputy Prime Minister admitted he had broken a pledge not to support a rise in fees, which now cost students up to £9,000 a year.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Vote Leave Campaign Advert - Which NHS Would You Choose?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Most Recent ACTIVE Channel - https://goo.gl/EdgfFz HIGH ENERGY Channel - https://goo.gl/lVZX74 Back-Up Channel - https://goo.gl/dyt6yZ 2nd Back-Up Channel - https://goo.gl/ANIA7b Become A Patron - https://goo.gl/jUq5vL Donations - https://goo.gl/LwUKre My Twitter - https://goo.gl/Urzq7Z Facebook Page - https://goo.gl/mqlBZA European Reddit - https://goo.gl/sjNhiB

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Brexit: 10 Most Interesting Ads by the "Vote Leave" Campaign

# data[].attributes.headline
News Reporter Breaks 'Journalistic Neutrality'

# data[].attributes.subject
News Reporter Breaks 'Journalistic Neutrality'

# data[].attributes.body
Watch from 9.45

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Mika: 'I Can't Pretend To Cover' Donald Trump 'Fairly' | Morning Joe | MSNBC

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Top Talkers: Hillary Clinton responded to Donald Trump's recent appeal to minority voters, saying he has built a campaign on prejudice and paranoia and that he is helping the country's 'radical fringe.' " Subscribe to MSNBC: http://on.msnbc.com/SubscribeTomsnbc About: MSNBC is the premier destination for in-depth analysis of daily headlines, insightful political commentary and informed perspectives.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
While covering a Donald Trump rally, BBC reporter Rajini Vaidyanathan received a barrage of online abuse, some of it racist. Here she explains what happened, and how it sheds light on an ugly side to the US presidential race.

From the frozen cornfields of Iowa to the sultry summer streets of Cleveland for the Republican National convention in Ohio, I've taken the temperature of Donald Trump supporters.

Around kitchen tables in Alabama, at bars in Texas, and over coffee in Michigan, I've listened as they've told me why they're voting for the billionaire businessman.

Each and every supporter I've met has been nothing less than warm and friendly, and my coverage has always been fair, which is why I wasn't prepared for what happened at a recent rally in Fort Lauderdale.

As is part of my job, I was live tweeting from the event, over the course of the evening. I'd spoken to several supporters to find out why they loved their candidate, and was sharing a flavour of the rally through a range of pictures.

As I sat in the press pen, I took some photos of the arena. The seats were filling up, but some sections by me were empty. I took four pictures and posted them on Twitter. I thought nothing of it. I do this sort of live coverage of events all the time.

But then, my Twitter account starting going crazy.

At first I thought the notifications were because I'd mistyped the name of the place as "Sunshine", instead of "Sunrise". I quickly wrote a tweet clarifying this.

But the sudden interest had nothing to do with a geographical typo.

A local talk show host had shared my tweet, insinuating I'd doctored the images.

I'd done nothing of the sort, but that didn't stop the torrent of abuse which followed.

"This is obviously an attempt to undermine Trump."

"Go back to sleep filthy journalist," read one of the messages.

I was accused of being a Hillary Clinton propagandist, of posting from my "ugly ass" and of being a "servant" of the mainstream media.

One person even suggested I should be arrested and tried for treason.

I carried on with my job, sharing photos and video of the speakers and supporters.

But the talk show host, and others continued to bait me online, accusing me of lying, which of course I was not.

Earlier in the night, my colleague had posted a video, also pointing out that 40 minutes from the start of the rally, the arena was "far from full", yet he was not subjected to the same vitriol.

"Propaganda whore." "Bitch." The insults kept flying.

It felt like a virtual mob was hurling toward me. The language was rude, some of it was sexist, and in one case racist.

"Go back to India," wrote a user who had Nazi imagery on his timeline. "Leave this country now," he continued, as he described me as "disgusting and degenerate".

That account has now been suspended.

A female Trump supporter contacted me online to say how horrified she was by the white supremacist insults. She and a few others wanted to make clear that this wasn't the sort of language they, or their candidate, would condone.

Yet, anger towards journalists comes from the top. At the same Florida rally, Mr Trump himself, proclaimed the media was "crooked as hell". As he did, the audience chanted "Lock them up".

It felt uncomfortable as we stood in the small press pen surrounded by a hostile, baying crowd.

More from the BBC
Trump's shock troops: Who are the 'alt-right'? As a disparate, mostly online phenomenon that lacks a cohesive structure or any sort of central organisation, it's tough to pin down. But observers of the movement - both critics and supporters - agree on a few things. The alt-right is against political correctness and feminism. It's nationalist, tribalist and anti-establishment. Its followers are fond of internet pranks and using provocative, often grossly offensive messages to goad their enemies on both the right and the left. And many of them are huge supporters of Donald Trump.
This sentiment has grown as the campaign has progressed. Supporters I've met in recent weeks have told me they are unhappy with a narrative they believe paints their candidate in an unfairly negative light.

For some, it's become a licence to bully and harass. At a recent rally, writer Jared Yates Sexton tweeted how Trump supporters there had talked about beating up reporters.

"Guy just said he thought Trump would lock up dishonest press after election," he wrote "'You got to do something' his friend says."

Earlier this year Julia Ioffe, a reporter with GQ magazine who wrote an article about Melania Trump, received online abuse, including death threats.

The tone of the abuse was anti-Semitic. Some of the tweets directed at her included superimposed images of her at a concentration camp, with the title "CampTrump".

At the time, Mr Trump was asked on CNN to condemn the threats. He refused to, saying he hadn't read the piece.

"I heard the article was nasty," he told CNN's Wolf Blitzer. "I don't have a message to the fans. A woman wrote an article that's inaccurate."

At a rally in December, Mr Trump described NBC's Katy Tur as a "third-rate journalist." He didn't hold back, as over a number of days, he called her a liar, and said her tweets were "disgraceful".

The response from his supporters online was more alarming for Tur, who at one point needed Secret Service protection.

Some of the tweets she received incited violence: "MAYBE A FEW JOURNALISTS DO NEED TO BE WHACKED," said one.

"MAYBE THEN THEYD STOP BEI[N]G BIASED HACKS. KILL EM ALL STARTING W/ KATY TUR," were the words in another.

Mr Trump's distrust of the media has seen publications, including the Washington Post, banned from covering his events. His ire is somewhat ironic, given the oxygen of publicity he gets from all the airtime.

That strength of feeling towards the mainstream media, isn't unique to those who back Trump. Earlier this year, supporters of Bernie Sanders were accused of threatening behaviour on social media, after media outlets said Hillary Clinton had won the Democratic primary.

The strangest thing about my experience at the Trump rally was that a tweet I posted, showing crowds going wild as Donald Trump arrived on stage, was shared by nearly 700 people, and liked by more than 800.

Many of his supporters used it as a positive example of how the media should be covering Mr Trump.

One Twitter user even accused me of being pro-Trump. For the record, I'm neither pro or anti.

As journalists it's our job to look at all candidates with a critical eye, and evaluate their policies and statements for the benefit of our readers. Supporters who are loyal to a candidate might not always like what they see, but that should never give anyone a licence to use nasty or vicious language

I'll continue to be fair in my reporting of all candidates - and hope I don't encounter abuse or racism like that again.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
While covering a Donald Trump rally, BBC reporter Rajini Vaidyanathan received a barrage of online abuse, some of it racist. Here she explains what happened, and how it sheds light on an ugly side to the US presidential race.

# data[].attributes.body
Boris Johnson/Donald Trump

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The rich but dim scion of a wealthy family enters politics after a high-profile but not entirely successful career, much of which has been spent in the public eye. He's viewed first as a lovable buffoon but, increasingly, as a threat to the stability of the country he professes to love. He wages a populist campaign based on the demonization of immigrants and flirtation with the far right. It's questionable whether he actually believes any of the nonsense he's spouting, but he does it anyway, most likely because he wants power at any cost and/or his ego won't allow anything else. And he has stupid hair. Sound familiar?

Meet Boris Johnson, former mayor of London, leader of the "Leave" campaign in yesterday's British referendum on EU membership and now, after David Cameron's resignation, heir presumptive to the leadership of the Conservative party. Boris, it's fair to say, looks as surprised as anyone that he actually managed to win this referendum (although Boris also generally looks surprised that he managed to button his shirt correctly in the morning, so don't read too much into it.) Like Donald Trump, his clownishly-coiffed counterpart on this side of the Atlantic, he's run a campaign of self-promotion, one in which he probably expected a heroic defeat that he could carp about for years afterwards, duly taking the publicity that came with the campaign without any of the responsibility that comes with an actual victory. And what awaits Britain is a frankly terrifying preview of what we might expect from a Trump administration.

The air of bewilderment with which Johnson has responded to the "Leave" vote should tell potential Trump voters everything they need to know about what to expect if their hero ends up in the White House - as Esquire reported earlier today, "The spearhead of the Leave campaign, Boris Johnson, gave a speech this morning, in which he looked, frankly, terrified. It is so much fun to hate the expert class, to hate the globalized elites. But let's see what it's like without them. Already, Johnson is trying to backtrack."

There's no backtracking, though - indeed, like the spurned partner in any other messy breakup, the EU is already changing the locks. Nothing is set in stone until the UK gives formal notice of its intention to leave, which means there's potentially time for Johnson to wriggle himself out of the mess he's created. But probably not - any Tory attempt to backtrack on their commitment to honor the results of the referendum would be political suicide. The monster is up and walking, and it's showing no desire at all to lay back down on the table for further tinkering. It's up to Johnson and Nigel Farage to deal with the mess they've created, and their ability to do so is questionable, to say the very least - history has shown that when demagogues do manage to take power, they generally have no fucking idea what they are doing.

Of course, the Tories know this as well as anyone, which makes David Cameron's decision to stake the future of his country for short-term political gain even more cynical and ill-conceived. And, indeed, ill-conceived is the word here, because the result of the referendum also demonstrates another depressing modern trend, one that's manifested over the last 50 years everywhere from the hills of Afghanistan to the halls of Washington: a monster that the right has created has come back to bite it in the ass.

Sadly, Britain just voted to be the example that the rest of the world needs: an example of why listening to the populist, anti-immigrant sentiment of the far right is a terrible idea, both morally AND pragmatically.

For decades, the Tories have been stirring up populist anti-EU sentiment for cheap votes, just like the GOP here has been dog-whistling the far right - and in both cases, the lunatics have ended up taking over the asylum. It shows that the right is generally both super cynical and not nearly as clever as it thinks it is. Beyond its lunatic fringe, no-one in the Conservative Party wanted to leave the EU; but, at the same time, they were happy to complain bitterly about the EU in their rhetoric, because it's an easy target and an easy way to put into practice the time-honored practice of creating an Other. But you can only have your cake and eat it for so long; you can only portray the EU as the "real" cause of problems that you yourself are creating for so long before people actually vote to leave the EU. Whoops!

It'll be interesting to see what happens now that that particular strawman has been so comprehensively immolated. Perhaps the people of Britain will come to realize that their problem isn't one of sovereignty and racial purity; it's one of economics. The Brexit campaign has played on the fears of the disenfranchised working class, fears that are driven by declining employment, stagnant wages, and all the other first-world hallmarks of post-industrial, post-globalization decline. These problems are very real, but they're not the fault of immigrants; they're the creation of capitalism.

There are plenty of ironies here, not least that whatever else the EU is, it's an avatar of neoliberalism, as anyone in Greece who's suffered through the austerity policies imposed by the troika of the European Commission, the IMF and the European Central Bank will tell you. But leaving the EU isn't going to magically save the British working class from the effects of globalization (and certainly not while they retain a Conservative government; the Cameron government's brand of austerity is just as harsh, if not moreso, than anything Angela Merkel has championed). If anything, it's simply going to make it worse; without priority access to the European free market, Britain's combination of high wages and (presumably) a new tariff regime will make it even less of a competitor in the global economic stakes.

As ever, then, it's the poor that'll have to carry the can. The last thing English regional areas - who voted overwhelmingly to leave the EU - need is foreign employers pulling out. But that's almost certainly what's going to happen - as the Esquire report I linked above points out, "The Financial Times this morning reported that the proposed sale of Tata Steel and Tata Motors, Britain's largest steel producer and its sister car company, to foreign ownership has been stopped. The people in the towns where those steelworks function voted to leave the European Union by 57 to 43 percent. Now their employers, who will not be their employers for long, will have no access to the largest market at hand. This is what economic suicide looks like."

Sadly, Britain just voted to be the example that the rest of the world needs: an example of why listening to the populist, anti-immigrant sentiment of the far right is a terrible idea, both morally AND pragmatically. Hopefully it's an example that the USA will heed, because the fears that drove the Brexit are the same that are driving the supporters of Donald Trump in the USA; on both sides of the Atlantic, bad-haired buffoons who've enjoyed huge personal benefits from their membership of the 1% are exploiting the fears of the 99% for personal political capital. In the UK, the results have already been disastrous. Here in the USA, we still have a chance to pull back from the brink.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Bitter Lesson of Brexit: Don't Listen to Demagogues With Silly Hair

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The rich but dim scion of a wealthy family enters politics after a high-profile but not entirely successful career, much of which has been spent in the public eye. He's viewed first as a lovable buffoon but, increasingly, as a threat to the stability of the country he professes to love.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Donald Trump and 'Demagogue': The History of a Loaded Word

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
It's much more than an insult: It's a loaded word with a lot to say about the uneasy compromise of the American experiment.

# data[].attributes.body
Guardian article

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
What a thrill to see new life breathed into the buddy demagogue movie in Jackson, Mississippi, on Wednesday night. You only had to look at Nigel Farage's little face to see how thrilled he was at the chance to play the Danny Glover to Donald Trump's Mel Gibson. As for Trump, he was all over Nigel's cheap suit like a cheap suit.

I still find it impossible to imagine Trump touching anyone except his daughter without pulling the full Mariah Carey and screaming for the hand sanitiser the second he's offstage. But Mr Soon-They-Will-Be-Calling-Me-Mr-Brexit made an excellent fist of embracing Mr Brexit for his crowds of occasionally bemused supporters. A fanfare for the little people ensued.

I'm sure Farage's life wants him back and everything, but duty calls.

This week found the outgoing Ukip leader shaving off his gap year moustache and going all the way to that America. He was joined by his backer, Arron Banks - still growing into the role of kingmaker, it must be said - though the pair left their immigrant wives at home, so we were denied the spectacle of a bilateral with Melania. (Incidentally, why do so many of our most frothingly anti-immigrant elite populists seem to have immigrant wives? I find all my non-scientific answers to be entirely unprintable. Perhaps an academic study could put it mildly.)

Initially, alas, Farage's visit was not without its indignities. Barely hours out from the event, Trump's campaign spokeswoman, Hope Hicks, said she would "highly doubt" reports that such a joint appearance would happen, adding dismissively that the two men "don't know each other".

But it all ended in a populist form of triumph, when the day after their appearance in Jackson, Hillary Clinton devoted a passage in her speech denouncing the rise of the alt-right to Farage. "Just yesterday," she warned, "one of Britain's most prominent rightwing leaders, a man named Nigel Farage, who stoked anti-immigrant sentiments to win the referendum, to have Britain leave the European Union, campaigned with Donald Trump in Mississippi."

If this cast Farage as some distance to the right of Trump, it wasn't the only carnival mirror moment of the week. "You've got to have some weight to get someone like that to come out here," judged one member of Trump's audience of the candidate's success in pulling off the Farage booking. "It shows Trump is a heavyweight." Blimey. I hadn't realised quite how damaged America's self-esteem was.

That a significant section of people feel left behind by mainstream politics is clear from the rise of populist movements on both sides of the Atlantic. That Trump can make their lives better seems considerably less likely even than Farage being able to do the same. The only way these two men can show their supporters how much they care about them is to display how much they despise almost everyone else. Yet the suspension of disbelief holds, and shows no sign of breaking in the short- or even medium-term future.

A highly indifferent former City trader cosies up to the bizarre confection of megalomania that is Trump, yet the sense of rebellion against elites among their supporters is real. It may seem odd, considering he resembles a picture too hideous even for the attic, but Trump frequently reminds me of a line in The Picture of Dorian Gray: " You are the type of what the age is searching for, and what it is afraid it has found."

These two men show their supporters how much they care about them by displaying how much they despise everyone else

There is no need for a word cloud after a Farage event these days, because his shtick can be reduced down to about four phrases that would sound patronising in any less looking-glass a world. "Little people". "Ordinary people". "Decent people". "Real people". Farage thinks America's infinitely superior polling is as out of whack as the UK's, so you can see why Trump likes him so much right now. But on the off chance that the Donald isn't triumphantly landing his private jet on Pennsylvania Avenue on 9 November, I'd like to see Trump launch a range of colognes to go with his established lines, Success by Trump, and Empire by Trump. Why not market Little People by Trump, Real People by Trump, Ordinary People by Trump, and Decent People by Trump?

After all, Trump is incapable of having an experience without wondering primarily how it might be monetised. Persistent rumours suggest he is eyeing the establishment of a rightwing news network, post-election, which would allow him to maximise the opportunity of the audience he has acquired.

Perhaps Farage envisages a role for himself on this putative network. It would be something to fill the time and keep him in a version of the limelight before his inevitable return to lead Ukip - or whatever successor to the party Banks is planning - in time for the 2020 election. As Farage was saying with hilarious specificity by the end of his own resignation speech: " Let's see. Let's see where we are in two and a half years' time."

Any Farage show on the Trump network wouldn't be within four hours of prime time, obviously. I see him in the Alan Partridge graveyard slot - 3am till 6am - taking calls from deranged insomniac survivalists and consoling himself with the thought that there are far higher callings than spending time with one's family.

Then again, perhaps he prefers the smaller pond. Farage's failure to go as far as endorsing Trump suggests he has more than one eye on how it might play back where it really matters to him, while his reaction to Hillary's speech could scarcely have been more UK-centric, leading with: "She sounds rather like Bob Geldof and can't accept Brexit." If that line was designed to land anywhere in the States, then Farage probably wants to buy in some new writers.

Still, look at him now - all dressed up and doing the town. As I was sorry to have to observe before the referendum vote itself, all those who voted out for reasons of sovereignty or whatnot would eventually discover that what they really ended up voting for is something embodied in Farage. A lot of those same people are always complaining we don't make and export anything in this country any more. I beg to differ: we make desperately grateful straight men for Donald Trump.
Topics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Nigel Farage: from Brexit hero to Trump's little helper. That's some career path | Marina Hyde

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
What a thrill to see new life breathed into the buddy demagogue movie in Jackson, Mississippi, on Wednesday night. You only had to look at Nigel Farage's little face to see how thrilled he was at the chance to play the Danny Glover to Donald Trump's Mel Gibson.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The props for this pub-stool game: a grenade, a pregnancy, a person standing at a cliff and a gallery of pro-Leave pols.

Some use a heavy hand and others a subtle -- perhaps too subtle -- approach. Take a look at these five advertisements and decide which ones might have helped.

Strength: Emphasizes the oft-quoted danger of abandoning the European Union.

Weakness: It's untrue. The pin can be re-inserted as long as the strike lever or "spoon" hasn't been released. The ad wouldn't have any credibility with viewers who knew this.

Strength: This ad could have resonated with at least 48.7% of the poll goers in the United Kingdom who may not have liked the way these politicians look.

Weakness: Apparently, 51.3 percent of the voters were fine with being on the island with these guys (from right, Boris Johnson, Nigel Farage, Michael Gove and Iain Duncan Smith) at least on the day of the vote.

Strength: Conjures up warm feeling about the security of the womb while suggesting future generations will feel betrayed by a Leave vote

Weakness: It's confusing, especially regarding the target audience, since future generations weren't voting.

Strength: Emphasizes the uncertainty and danger of taking a leap of faith.

Weakness: It has a feeling of tranquility that sort of makes you want to jump.

Strength: Clearly spells out the dangers of a Leave vote as elites saw them.

Weakness: The majority of voters didn't trust elites.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
brexit: could these ads have changed the vote? - cnn

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Brexit: Could these ads have changed the vote?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The props for this pub-stool game: a grenade, a pregnancy, a person standing at a cliff and a gallery of pro-Leave pols. Some use a heavy hand and others a subtle -- perhaps too subtle -- approach. Take a look at these five advertisements and decide which ones might have helped.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The advertising watchdog will no take action over controversial ads run ahead of the EU referendum, such as the leave campaign's £350m NHS spending claim, despite receiving almost 400 complaints from the public.

The Advertising Standards Authority has received 374 complaints about what have been called misleading, inaccurate and discriminatory ads and claims made to sway voters ahead of last Thursday's Brexit vote.

Leading Brexit campaigner Iain Duncan Smith distanced himself from Vote Leave posters that stated the NHS should receive "the £350m the EU takes every week", a claim that was widely picked up by media and repeated during the referendum campaign.

An anti-migrant poster featuring Nigel Farage, who was not part of the official leave campaign but very much a face of Brexit, was reported to police with a complaint that it incites racial hatred and breached UK race laws.

The ASA received 177 complaints relating to ads pushing voters to back leaving the EU, the most of any group.

The advertising regulator received 45 complaints about the official remain campaign.

Operation Black Vote's "white thug" poster, one of a number of ads the group ran designed to try and galvanise ethnic minorities to vote in the referendum, prompted 145 complaints that it was racist and discriminatory against the white man featured in the advert.

There were also seven complaints about general advertising for the referendum.

The ASA said it is powerless to act against any of the campaigns, even though their unvetted claims are specifically designed to sway and influence voters, as political advertising doesn't fall within the regulator's remit.

Political ads are banned from being broadcast on TV; instead, parties are given airtime designated under the party political broadcast system which aren't classified as advertising.

In other media, from newspapers to billboards and posters, political ads are exempt from the UK advertising code.

"We can't therefore look into complaints that political ads are misleading, harmful or offensive," said the ASA.

Members of the public have turned to online petitions in their tens of thousands to express anger about the veracity of claims made by politicians and in ads run in the build-up to the referendum.

A petition on the UK parliament's website calling for it to be illegal for any political figure to knowingly lie or mislead the public has attracted almost 45,000 signatures.

If the petition reaches 100,000 signatories, the issue will be considered for debate in parliament.

More than 16,000 people have so far backed a petition calling for the creation of an independent regulator to "ensure truth in political advertising".

"The UK has taken possibly the biggest decision in its history based on large numbers of people being misled by political advertising," said Sam Walker,

"How can a democracy be expected to function if propaganda is legitimised through lack of advertising regulation?," said Sam Walker, the former senior executive at ad agencies Karmarama and Mother who now runs creative shop Faster Horses. "The UK has taken possibly the biggest decision in its history based on large numbers of people being misled by political advertising."

Until 1999, some political advertising was subject to UK ad rules.

However, factors including the failure to gain a consensus between the Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties to bring political advertising wholly within the UK ad code resulted in all of it being excluded from the code.

In 2003, an Electoral Commission consultation concluded that the ASA should not be responsible for regulating election advertising, but the commission did not establish a separate code.

A spokeswoman for the Electoral Commission said there were no plans to launch a new consultation reviewing the regulation of election advertising.
Topics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Ad watchdog powerless to act on controversial Brexit campaigns

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The advertising watchdog will no take action over controversial ads run ahead of the EU referendum, such as the leave campaign's £350m NHS spending claim, despite receiving almost 400 complaints from the public. The Advertising Standards Authority has received 374 complaints about what have been called misleading, inaccurate and discriminatory ads and claims made to sway voters ahead of last Thursday's Brexit vote.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Donald's Trump was back in Michigan Friday, physically and caustically.

Regardless of the dozen or so protesters who were booted from the Detroit Economic Club two weeks ago, Trump's last speech was relatively tame. Trump on a teleprompter.

But the speech he delivered in Dimondale near Lansing Friday evening was more familiar.

Trump the inflamer. Trump the vain rhetorician.

Politicians have made questionable claims while campaigning since the beginning of time. But I couldn't help but snort when Trump declared he would get 95 percent of the African-American vote if he wins in November and runs for re-election in four years. This is a man who didn't immediately and virulently refuse a former KKK grand wizard's endorsement.

"What do you have to lose by trying something new like Trump?" he asked black voters.

I should point out that Trump's support among African American voters has been in the single digit percentile.

Trump also retread many of his favorite topics that he skipped when unveiling his economic approach two weeks ago: the wall, NAFTA and how America will be a dangerous disaster zone until he is president.

He also continued his tiresome tirades against Hillary Clinton. He extrapolated on his comments about how she founded ISIS, hinting that she single-handedly caused all the strife in the Middle East while serving as Secretary of State. It seems 9/11 and the presidency of George W. Bush, who invaded Iraq, doesn't fit into Trump's version of history.

Trump's speech in Michigan Friday was alarmist, fear-baiting and divisive, per usual. His eyes hidden in shadows from the brim of a "Make America Great Again" ball cap, Trump came across as the off-kilter uncle no one wants to talk politics with at the family barbecue.

His grandiose, unbelievable claims are nothing new in the history of oration, though.

In the 16th Century, the French writer Michel de Montaigne wrote an essay called "On the vanity of words" about the art of deceitful rhetoric. His first example concerns two figures of ancient Greece. Even when beat in wrestling, one man "always persuades the spectators that he had no fall and carries away the prize."

Sound familiar? How about what Montaigne also writes about this style of rhetoric: "'Tis an engine invented to manage and govern a disorderly and tumultuous rabble...In those where the vulgar or the ignorant, or both together, have been all-powerful and able to give the law ... and where the public affairs have been in a continual tempest of commotion, to such places have the orators always repaired."

In short: the more power we give Trump, the more Trumps there will be in the future.

So please, proceed with caution.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Donald Trump's vanity of words and his deceitful rhetoric

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Donald's Trump was back in Michigan Friday, physically and caustically. Regardless of the dozen or so protesters who were booted from the Detroit Economic Club two weeks ago, Trump's last speech was relatively tame. Trump on a teleprompter. But the speech he delivered in Dimondale near Lansing Friday evening was more familiar.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.entities[].name
John Oliver Tears Into Donald Trump & Billy Bush

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
From HBO's Last Week Tonight with John Oliver. All rights belong to HBO. Check out the official channel here: https://www.youtube.com/user/LastWeekTonight)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Putting Donald Trump Supporters Through an Ideology Test: The Daily Show

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
During the first Republican debate, Donald Trump attempts to tell a story.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Donald Trump talks funny. You've probably noticed, but can't quite put your finger down on why. Does he use unique words? Weird rhetorical tics? Maybe it's the way he seems to emphasize the first vowel of every word: L-ooo-ser. M-ooo-ron. Ch-iii-na.

Whatever it is, Trump is still surging in the polls, so it's clear something about him is resonating with voters. Many have attributed this to his anti-establishment, outsider persona, and as it turns out, that also extends to his use of language. Two professional linguists told ThinkProgress that Trump is unlike other presidential candidates in almost every way in terms of his speech - his word choice, his way he tells stories, and even how he uses his hands.

We'll be hearing a lot from Trump this week, as he literally takes center stage at the second Republican presidential debate on Wednesday. Beyond his favorite insults, here's what the experts we talked to find particularly fascinating about Trump's way of talking - and what that might say about why he's so popular.

Politicians use big words. Trump does not.

When ThinkProgress asked University of Pennsylvania linguistics professor Mark Yoffe Liberman about Trump's speech, he decided to do a rough comparison to another presidential candidate: Jeb Bush. We sent him the transcripts of both Trump and Bush's announcement speeches, plus some press conferences and one-on-one interviews.

What he found was that Bush talks, predictably, like most politicians. His most-used words are rather big and policy-like - "strategy," "government," "president," and "American" all placed in his list of top 13 words. Six out of those 13 are one syllable, like "growth" and "state." His favorite word is "the."

Trump's favorite word, however, is "I." His fourth-favorite word is "Trump." Eight out of his 13 favorite words are one syllable, and the two syllable words are simple - "very," "China," and "money." His only three-syllable favorite word is "Mexico."

"These words bespeak a world of difference between the mentalities of the two men," UPenn professor of Chinese language and literature Victor Mair commented on his colleague Liberman's findings, which he posted on his popular blog Language Log. Later, Liberman published another post finding that, while Bush uses more complex words than Trump, Trump actually talks way more than Bush.

"Bush displays his vocabulary at a greater rate; that is, he uses a larger number of distinct word types for a given number of word tokens," he wrote.

Trump can sound 'incoherent.'

Word choice isn't the only way Trump differs from his presidential candidate contemporaries. Jennifer Sclafani, an associate professor at Georgetown University who studies the construction of political identity through language, said Trump is an enigma - the "anti-politician" when it comes to talking.

"The impression from people I talk to just casually is that he comes off as incoherent, that you can't really grasp the core of what he's saying," she said. "A lot of that has to do with the way he opens his answers."

In a debate setting, Sclafani observes that most politicians begin with what's known as discourse markers - words like "well," "now," "what," and "so." In the presidential debates before the 2012 elections, the most often-used discourse marker was "well," most likely because it allows politicians to divert their answers away from the core of the questions. For example, if the question is, "How should we deal with the refugee crisis?" a politician might say, "well, here's what I think is wrong with the whole middle east."

[H]e comes off as incoherent, that you can't really grasp the core of what he's saying.

According to Sclafani, Trump doesn't often do that. Usually, she said, he starts his answers with "I." But when Trump does want to divert his answers, however, Sclafani says that's where he gets tripped up.

For example, in the first debate, he was asked to explain why he once supported a liberal, single-payer health care system. He responded: "First of all, I'd like to just go back to one. In July of 2004, I came out strongly against the war with Iraq, because it was going to destabilize the Middle East. And I'm the only one on this stage that knew that and had the vision to say it."

Trump was trying to illustrate that he has had stances contrary to the Republican party before, and that they were correct. But at the time, Sclafani said it came off "totally incoherent," because he combined the discourse marker "first of all" with a complete change of subject.

"This is a case of, he's getting a hang of these types of moves where he needs to refocus, but he does it in two different ways at once, which makes for an incoherent answer," she said.

Trump is bad at storytelling.

Stories are good. Voters like stories. For politicians, stories can put a personal touch on complicated policy answers. So even if viewers don't know if they agree with the policy solution, they remember whether they liked the narrative.

Mitt Romney was good at this, particularly during debates. Sclafani remembered one story from 2012, when Romney defended his stance against a federal "bailout" for Detroit automakers. Watch it here:

ABC News Video Edit descriptionabcnews.go.comThere is so much good about this story linguistically, Sclafani said. "He uses a story to show himself solving a problem," she said. "It's very vivid. There's a lot of imagery involved. Even if you know next to nothing about what was going on on Wall Street, it's all these details. ... It's got orientation, it uses real people that you can imagine doing things. There's conversation - there's direct speech. A very successful story."

Now, compare this to a story Trump told at the first Republican debate earlier this summer:

Trump's story begins out of nowhere: "Border Patrol. I was at the Border last week," he says. There's no orientation, no setting the scene. He then says, "The people that I deal with," changing from past to present tense. He mentions no specific conversation, no specific person. He ends with, "and that's what's happening whether you like it or not," totally removed from the narrative.

"I think of that response there as a failed or missed opportunity," Sclafani said.

Big hands make a big man.

Back in 2008, language experts began to notice something about Barack Obama - his hands.

The then-presidential candidate was consistently doing this thing where he put his index finger against his thumb and pointed down whenever he was saying something important. Deemed his "most frequent gesture" by the New York Times, Science of People's Vanessa Edwards noted that he was "quite literally 'making a point.'"

Obama's "precision-grip" gesture vs. Trump's "big hands" gesture. CREDIT: AP Photo

Michael Lempert at the University of Michigan called this Obama's "precision-grip gesture," and asserted in 2011 research that this actually made Obama appear more "sharp" to the general public. Sclafani said a similar thing might happen with Donald Trump's most frequent hand gesture - a big, open-palm, double-hand motion downward.

"People think of him as having a big personality, he's all over the place," Sclafani said. "Well, his fingers are also all over the place. He makes himself physically wider. Those gestures add to the perception of his character."

***

Overall, when it comes to the political world, Trump's language defies precedent. But for Sclafani, she thinks she may know where it all comes from.

"He's turning political discourse into reality TV," she said. "I'm sure if someone did a study on discourse structures of reality television shows, and compared it what he's doing, there might be some overlap."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What Language Experts Find So Strange About Donald Trump

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Donald Trump talks funny. You've probably noticed, but can't quite put your finger down on why. Does he use unique words? Weird rhetorical tics? Maybe it's the way he seems to emphasize the first vowel of every word: L-ooo-ser. M-ooo-ron. Ch-iii-na.

# data[].attributes.body
Bias 2

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Augusta Chronicle: Local & World News, Sports & Entertainment in Augusta, GA

# data[].attributes.body
Bias 1

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
It's finally, blessedly over. As expected, Hillary Clinton's anticlimactic acceptance speech capped off a Democratic convention at which two of the weakest primetime speeches were delivered by the the two members of the nominated ticket. There were powerful moments earlier in the evening -- including an impactful address by the father of a Muslim US soldier who paid the ultimate sacrifice for his country in Iraq, and an address from a valorous Medal of Honor recipient, who was shamefully heckled by some DNC delegates. But when the lights shone brightest, we got a perfectly nice little talk by Chelsea Clinton, an over-the-top 'Heroine Hillary' introductory video, and a over-long, mediocre, robotically-delivered address by the woman of the hour. Pete Wehner, a senior speechwriter for President Bush and an exceptionally harsh conservative critic of Donald Trump, rendered this assessment of her performance:

What a dismal speech -- poorly written, even more poorly delivered. In the biggest speech of her life, she fell flat.
- Peter Wehner (@Peter_Wehner) July 29, 2016

Some bits were better than others, but Clinton only seemed to truly come into her own when she was attacking Donald Trump -- her longtime friend and donor, whose wedding she attended. Hillary quoted Trump's infamous statement that he understands ISIS better than our generals. She looked into the camera, ice cold, and unleashed one of several stinging lines:

"No, Donald, you don't."
- Guy Benson (@guypbenson) July 29, 2016

"A man you can bait with a tweet is not a man we can trust with nuclear weapons."
- Guy Benson (@guypbenson) July 29, 2016

"There is no other Donald Trump. This is it."
- Guy Benson (@guypbenson) July 29, 2016

Alas, there is also no other Hillary Clinton. This is it. If only she and Donald had taken some voice modulation lessons -- maybe (stronger) together? -- a few weeks ago, things might have been better. They weren't. In any case, even if you're inclined to agree with her temperament critiques of Trump ( as I am), it's quite rich listening to a woman who knowingly compromised high-level secrets for her own selfish reasons and lied repeatedly about it lecture anyone about trust and national security. The rest of her speech was almost entirely unmemorable -- although newscasts will love her 'break the ceiling, sky's the limit' formulation. She talked a little bit about her upbringing and family, she tossed a few bland rhetorical scraps to independent and Republican-leaning voters, and she rattled off a laundry list of liberal-left agenda items. She made sure to highlight her strong opposition to Citizens United -- because this woman is so terribly offended by money in politics, you see -- failing to mention that the ruling she abhors literally overruled the government's censorship of a film that was critical of...Hillary Clinton. She also condemned "mean and divisive rhetoric," which seems apt in an age of Trump. But once again, physician, heal thyself. As I predicted, Donald Trump earned a clear polling bounce out of Cleveland. It may or may not be receding. I would be surprised if Clinton doesn't garner one from the program in Philadelphia, too. But because this is 2016, and because the commentariat was largely enamored with the Democrats' gathering, this is a reasonable caveat:

Most pundits doubted how disjointed RNC could produce a Trump bounce. If pundits blown away by DNC, doesn't guarantee a Clinton bounce.
- Dave Wasserman (@Redistrict) July 29, 2016

By mid-August, the polls will likely have 'settled' a bit, and we'll have a better sense of the dynamics of the post-conventions horserace. And then come the debates. I'll leave you with a sentiment I felt acutely while watching the final evening of the DNC proceedings, and some sorely-needed levity:

I cannot support most of their agenda or their lying nominee.

But (with exceptions), the Democrats are totally outclassing us.

It hurts.
- Guy Benson (@guypbenson) July 29, 2016

The most amazing thing about tonight is that Hillary is giving this speech for free.
- John Podhoretz (@jpodhoretz) July 29, 2016

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Analysis: Charmless Vessel Shouts Acceptance Speech at America

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
It's finally, blessedly over. As expected, Hillary Clinton's anticlimactic acceptance speech capped off a Democratic convention at which two of the weakest primetime speeches were delivered by the the two members of the nominated ticket.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Melania Trump and Michelle Obama side-by-side comparison

# data[].attributes.body
The Benn speeches

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Tony Benn v Hilary Benn on war votes - BBC News