Latest odds on presidential election: Donald Trump would beat Hillary Clinton if election were held today

If the 2016 presidential election were held today, Republican Donald Trump would be headed to the White House.

Top pollster Nate Silver’s FiveThirtyEight daily update gives GOP presidential nominee Trump a 50.3 percent chance of winning the November general election. Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton’s chances have dropped to 49.7 percent, according to the polling site.

The site still gives Clinton a fraction of a margin of victory in the popular vote – 45.6 percent to 44.6 percent. Forecasts earlier Monday shows Trump winning the Electoral College but that was revised later in the day to show the two locked in a dead heat. A candidate needs at least 270 electoral votes to clinch the White House.

The changing numbers mark the first time since July that Trump has overtaken Clinton. On July 27, Trump’s chances were at 55.4 percent only to drop to an abysmal 3.6 percent just two weeks later. Clinton’s chances of winning peaked at 96 percent on Aug. 8.

The changing numbers come just ahead of the first presidential debate, an event seen as key for both campaigns.

Clinton maintains her lead in most polls but only by the smallest of margins. A Washington Post-ABC poll published yesterday has Clinton and Trump tied at 41 percent in a two-candidate race. The Real Clear Politics poll average has Clinton at 42.3 percent; Trump at 40.1 percent; Libertarian Gary Johnston at 8.3 percent; and Green Party nominee Jill Stein at 2.7 percent.

The improving numbers for Trump are reflected in stronger showing in key states. FiveThirtyEight now has Trump leading in Florida (2.4 percent advantage); North Carolina (2.9 percent advantage); Ohio (3.5 percent advantage) and Nevada (2.8 percent advantage.)

Florida looks as if it once again will be the key state in deciding the next president. FiveThirtyEight puts its chances of deciding the race at 19 percent, 7 points higher than second-place finisher Michigan.


Tics and tricks: Here’s what Trump and Clinton’s body language reveals


When speaking, he sometimes holds his elbows into his body as if protecting something. He repeatedly gestures with an “A-OK’’-type sign, and waves his open palms back and forth, like he’s playing an accordion. He forces a smile — mouth corners up! — looks self-satisfied and insincere at the same time.

When speaking, she emphasizes a point by shaking a right fist with her thumb out on top — a gesture that wouldn’t be so distracting if it weren’t so reminiscent of the one from whom she apparently picked it up, her husband, the former president, at his most didactic.

When Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton debate Monday night, they’ll express themselves physically as well as verbally. Their body language — movements, posture, facial expressions — may inadvertently reveal as much about them as their words. Consultants call it “leakage.’’

It’s one thing to repeat talking points; it’s another to control the message you convey with your body. And it’s one thing to be coached on such nuances, as both candidates have been; it’s another to remember it with 100 million people watching.

Ruth Sherman, a prominent communications consultant and speaking coach, analyzed the candidates’ body language for the USA TODAY NETWORK.

Trump’s body language

Although Sherman admires Trump’s communications skills, some of his ticks and tendencies drive her crazy, because they distract an audience from his message (“It’s called ‘noise.’ You just get sick of it.’’) or contradict it.

Trump’s forensic sins:

• The self-hug. Trump gestures with his arms stuck out and elbows held unnaturally close to his sides. “It looks like he’s protecting something,’’ Sherman says — undesirable in one who claims to be a strong leader.

• The A-OK. To the point of distraction, Trump forms his thumb and forefinger into the A-OK sign, except that the extra three fingers are curled instead of sticking out straight.

• The chop. It’s what it sounds like, an annoying hand reflex that’s drummed out of every novice scholastic debater.

• The accordion. With his palms open toward each other, he moves his arms back and forth for emphasis, evoking those mechanical monkeys crashing the symbols.

• The grimace. With seemingly Herculean effort, Trump turns up the corners of his mouth. But the rest of his facial muscles are not cooperating — check the eyes. It undercuts credibility and looks incredibly uncomfortable.

Clinton’s body language

Sherman says Clinton is well dressed and well groomed, uses her hands effectively and moves well. She particularly liked the way Clinton took the stage for her acceptance speech at the Democratic convention, moving from right to left and basking in applause from around the hall.

Among her flaws:

• The thumb-over. When most people make a fist, they tuck their thumb across their knuckles. But Clinton rests her thumb on top of her forefinger, which is fine — she doesn’t look like she’s going to slug anybody — but reminds us that the gesture was popularized by the 42nd president.

• The shrug. Clinton sometimes gives a little shrug while she’s making a point, which suggests subconscious uncertainty about what she’s saying.

Comparing the candidates

Sherman has more technical complaints about Trump’s body language, but feels he’s a much better performer and communicator than Clinton — partly because he practiced before a national reality TV show audience for 14 years and partly because he’s a natural.

However grating his Queens accent or distracting his idiosyncratic gestures, Trump has trained his audience to accept him as he is — “that’s Donald.’’

Since in a televised debate performance tops content, Sherman says, “it’s his to lose. Content is not enough. Words are not enough.’’But didn’t words sink President Gerald Ford in 1976, when he said in a debate with Jimmy Carter that the Soviets didn’t dominate Eastern Europe? She chuckles. “Gerald Ford was no Donald Trump.’’

[Source:-USA Today]

Analysis: Donald Trump Would Win Election Today Based on Current Polling


NEW YORK CITY, New York — As the first presidential debate looms later Monday evening just an hour from here on Long Island at Hofstra University, a Breitbart News analysis of current polling in the presidential election shows that Donald J. Trump—the Republican nominee for president—would win the election if it were held Monday and the polls are correct.

It takes 270 electoral votes to win the election. With the exception of two states—Maine and Nebraska—the winner of a state wins that state’s electoral votes on Election Day in the general election.

The reliably red Republican states—Alaska, Idaho, Utah, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas, Missouri, Indiana, Mississippi, Kentucky, Alabama, Tennessee, West Virginia, and South Carolina—are all expected to easily vote for Trump for president. That totals 164 electoral votes.

Despite initial polling scares during the darkest days of Trump’s campaign in also reliably red Georgia and Arizona, both of those states—per recent polling—have seemingly moved solidly into the Trump column. That’s another 27 electoral votes, for a total of 191 electoral votes with the other red states.

From there, add in Florida with 29 electoral votes. Most recent polling out of Florida—with a couple rare exceptions—has shown Trump with a slight or modest lead. One outlier poll from Monmouth drags the RealClearPolitics polling average in the four-way race between Trump, Democratic nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton, Green Party nominee Jill Stein, and Libertarian Gary Johnson down to a 0.1 percent Trump advantage in the Sunshine state. But the billionaire real estate mogul leads in four out of the last seven surveys, and the only other two where Clinton has any lead it is inside the margin of error. Trump has had a comfortable cushion in Florida since Labor Day, and in the last poll conducted partially before it, he tied Clinton. Assuming Trump can lock down Florida and its 29 electoral votes that he will need to win the White House, and add that to the rest he already has, he then hits 220 electoral votes.

Move from there out to Nevada and Iowa for a total of 12 more electoral votes—six per each state. In the three-way race in Nevada—Stein is not on the ballot in the Silver State—Trump has led in every poll in September, according to RealClearPolitics. During the course of the month, the man whose name is emblazoned across the top of a golden building just off Las Vegas Boulevard has steadily increased his lead from just a point in the first September poll by NBC News, The Wall Street Journal, and Marist, to two points in a Monmouth poll a week later, to three points in the latest two surveys from Fox Newsand KTNV/Rasmussen. His polling average is a 2.3 percent advantage over Clinton. It is so bad for Clinton in Nevada right now that even Politico ran a headline saying the state is giving Democrats “heartburn.” Iowa is the battleground state where Trump is most comfortable right now. Trump has had a comfortable lead in all three Iowa polls this month—from Emerson, Monmouth, and Quinnipiac—and the RealClearPolitics polling average currently gives Trump a 6.3 percent advantage in the Hawkeye State walking into the debate. Fit Iowa and Nevada in the Trump column and he is up to 232 electoral votes.

Next up is Maine’s Second Congressional District. Maine is one of those two funky states that splits its electoral votes by congressional district—Nebraska, which is solidly in Trump’s column, is the other—and Trump is polling significantly ahead of Clinton there. The only three public surveys done in Maine’s second district—all of which were done in September—give Trump massive leads outside their margins of error. The first, byEmerson, showed Trump with a five-point lead over Clinton at the beginning of the month in a four-way race. A second poll from Colby College/SurveyUSA done mostly after Labor Day gave Trump a ten-point lead, and that finding was confirmed by a later poll from MPRC—a progressive group—that had Trump up 11 points in Maine’s Second District. Hewas also trending upward statewide, and in the RealClearPolitics average statewide only trails Clinton by 3.8 points. But for now, let’s just give Trump the place that’s firmly in his column—the Second District—and that is just one electoral vote. With that picture, he is at 233 total electoral votes.

North Carolina, another state where Stein is not on the ballot, has seen Trump trend upwards in polling during September. There has not been, according to RealClearPolitics, a single poll conducted entirely in September that has shown Clinton leading in the Tar Heel State. Trump has been leading, or the two were tied, in every three-way race poll since a Quinnipiac poll conducted partially in August and partially in September was released. RealClearPolitics has Trump’s polling average at a 1.8 percent advantage over Clinton in North Carolina, but his most recent poll—from Fox News—put him at a five-point lead there. If Trump locks down North Carolina’s 15 electoral votes on top of everything aforementioned, that puts him at 248 total and in striking distance of the presidency.

This brings us to the all-important state of Ohio. The Buckeye State is another where Clinton has not seen a lead in a public poll since the beginning of September in a CBS News/YouGov poll conducted from September 7 to September 9 that showed her up seven points. That outlier poll, the only one from Ohio this month showing her ahead in the four-way race, drags the polling average for Trump down to a two-point Trump advantage. Every other Ohio poll this month has shown Trump up, including separateBloomberg, CNN, and Fox News polls that show Trump up five points each. The Suffolk University poll mid-month shows Trump up three, and the new Breitbart News Network/Gravis Marketing survey just out on Sunday evening shows Trump holding onto the lead, up a point on Clinton. CNN’s Jeff Zeleny on Sunday noted that Hillary Clinton has essentially given up on Ohio, saying, “So long, Ohio: It’s been 20 days since Hillary Clinton stepped foot into this classic battleground state, and she’s not expected to visit it again in the month of September.” He said that while Hillary Clinton’s campaign is still spending money there, “Ohio, the mother of all battleground states, is not in her wheelhouse anymore.” If Trump locks up Ohio’s 18 electoral votes, and adds them to everything else, he is at 266 electoral votes.

That means he would be one state away from the presidency. From where is it going to come? New Hampshire, Trump’s first primary state win with four electoral votes? Virginia, the Old Dominion from where his opponent’s running mate hails, with 13 electoral votes? Michigan, a blue collar state where American workers are seeing core companies part of their history like Ford move huge chunks of their to business to Mexico, with its 16 electoral votes? Wisconsin, where a bevy of recent surveys have shown a tightened race and from where the Republican National Committee (RNC) chairman and Speaker of the House hail—along with being a stronghold of his former rival-finally-turned-supporter Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX)—and its ten electoral votes? Or Colorado, ironically the original birthplace of the so-called “Never Trump” movement, which has been, perhaps more than Wisconsin, a thorn in Trump’s side, with its nine electoral votes?

For now, it appears the answer is first and foremost Colorado. The most recent Breitbart News Network/Gravis Marketing survey from Colorado shows Trump up four points over Clinton in the four-way race. The results—with the exception of a mini-surge by Stein, who seems to be taking Johnson’s supporters away—mirror similar polling from Boston’sEmerson College earlier in the month. A CNN poll out Monday morning also confirms a Trump lead in Colorado, as it has him up a point over Clinton. That means two polls from Colorado this month have Trump up by four points, while two other polls—from CBS News/YouGov and Quinnipiac—have Clinton up one and two points respectively, negligible leads inside those surveys’ margins of error. The only reason why Clinton currently leads in the RealClearPolitics polling average in the state—a meaningless lead of 0.2 percent in the spread—is an outlier poll from a couple weeks ago done by Rocky Mountain PBS that showed Clinton up 7 points.

If Trump secures Colorado’s 9 electoral votes, along with everything else considered, he would win at least 275 electoral votes—without even considering Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, Virginia, New Hampshire, or even other places where he has been seen trending upwards in polls like New Mexico—on November 8. That’s the ballgame. Of course, this depends on what happens in the four debates. The first presidential one is Monday evening in Hempstead, New York, while next week will see the vice presidential debate in Virginia, and the following two presidential debates, in St. Louis and in Las Vegas, will occur in the next few weeks. The course of public events also play a factor, of course. But the race is Trump’s to lose at this point, if the polls in the battleground states are accurate.


As social media thrives, why is Twitter falling behind?

Twitter users pen some 500 million tweets a day, and that would seem to bode well for the success of the social media service. But a closer look at Twitter’s economic standing shows that the platform could be at risk of losing its relevance.

After years of slow advertising and user growth, Twitter has begun to question its future as an independent company, and reportedly entered into talks with possible buyers. Despite Twitter’s popularity among celebrities, politicians, news outlets, and users across a range of ages, the service hasn’t been able to continuously expand its audience or grow revenue in the ways that other social media platforms have. Instead, Twitter has become a digital-first company that’s merely limping along in the digital age.

While Twitter has not acknowledged a pending sale, the news that the service could be contemplating an acquisition caused the company’s stock value to jump by 21 percent, indicating that interest in the platform remains, especially under different management.”We’re in a strong position now, and as a board member we have to consider the right options,” Ev Williams, a co-founder of Twitter, told Bloomberg last month when asked about the possibility of a sale.

One of the companies reportedly interested in taking over Twitter is Inc., which provides software services to businesses. Analysts say Salesforce could use data from Twitter to gather information its clients find valuable, including how customers talk about products and brands.

Twitter’s struggle to attract new users and advertisers contrasts with the success of other social media platforms like Facebook, Instagram, and Snapchat, which have all upped their number of advertisers and rolled out smartphone services that have appealed to users. Meanwhile, Twitter’s stock has dropped by about 30 percent in the past year and the company’s value fell to $13 billion. The service peaked nearly three years ago when it was valued at just over $40 billion, The Wall Street Journal reported.

Despite disappointing numbers, many think Twitter’s reign is far from over, and plans to introduce live video with highly-sought-after advertising blocks have piqued the interest of big name brands like Ford and the NFL. Doing so will require Twitter to compete with Snapchat, a service that has seen nearly a 50 percent growth in users and could soon exceed a worth of $20 billion.

“Pictures have become free,” Forbes columnist Adam Hartung wrote, explaining Snapchat’s success as a new trend. “And if you can replace a thousand words with one photo, it is far more efficient – and thus from a resource perspective photos are far cheaper (think of how long it takes to write an email as opposed to taking a picture).”

While Facebook, Instagram, and Snapchat have added expanded features to their products, Twitter has seen far less innovation over its 10-year lifespan, and missed an opportunity to capitalize on messaging in the ways that Snapchat and Facebook have.

A CEO shakeup also hit the company last year, with many hoping that the return of co-founder Jack Dorsey would refocus Twitter’s direction. Instead, the company saw an exodus of talent, as several key employees departed for other ventures, and user growth remained at an all-time-low of 1 percent.

But after years of thriving in the social media world, Twitter could make a comeback – if it can capitalize on the initial aspects that made it appealing to a large group of users.

“The core ideals that made the product great are not lost, yet, even if they’ve been obscured,” tech journalist Joshua Topolsky wrote in a New Yorker piece early this year. “The directness and power at the heart of Twitter – short bursts of information that can make you feel that you’re plugged into a hulking hive mind – are still its greatest asset. The company just needs to find the right way to show the power of those connections to a bigger audience, and the value of that audience to advertisers and partners. Not a simple task, but for Twitter an unavoidable one.”

[Source:-The Chirstchan Science Monitor]

Social Media In Turmoil

Between Facebook, Twitter, and Snapchat, the social media world has had an interesting week or two, with revelations of big mistakes, possible acquisitions, and surprising forays into apparel. The turmoil is more evidence that while social platforms have become a fixture of our everyday lives, the business side of social media is a work in progress and will remain so for some time.

The most troubling news comes from Facebook, which admitted recently that it had exaggerated online video viewing by its users by a substantial margin over a two-year period. Facebook revealed that the numbers it gave marketers for average time spent viewing videos was inflated because the social network’s methodology only counted views lasting three seconds or more in the denominator (the number of views), even though views lasting less than three seconds were included in the numerator (total seconds watched). In other words, all the seconds of “scroll-by” not-really-viewing were inappropriately included in the total time viewed.

According to a letter sent to agencies cited by TheWall Street Journal, this elementary arithmetic error meant that Facebook overestimated average video viewing times by 60% to 80%. While the company emphasized that the mistake won’t affect billings, as advertisers only pay for views of ten seconds or longer, the skewed results could raise questions about the true popularity of Facebook video – which in turn could make marketers reluctant to spend more in future.

Ultimately, the video measurement error probably won’t affect Facebook’s profitability, as the world’s biggest social network is just too important for marketers to stay away in the long term. But it shows just how much social media remains a “Wild West” for marketers, with virtually no industry-wide standards for measurement and uneven external verification. It also shows how many marketers, typically pressed for time and money, are failing to do their own due diligence when embarking on social media campaigns: in fact Facebook did disclose the three-second standard for average video viewing when it first launched its video dashboard in 2014, although this fact seems to have been lost in the shuffle during Facebook’s endless introduction of new video features, placements and formats.

On a somewhat more positive note, in less than a week Twitter went from no suitors (according to news reports) to four potential buyers, as Salesforce, Google, Verizon and Microsoft are all said to be considering acquiring the struggling microblogging and live events platform. While this is obviously good news for Twitter, which has mostly failed to revive its lackluster user growth rate despite numerous changes over the last year, it also suggests that the day of fresh-faced social media startups may be past, giving way to an era of consolidation and lowered expectations.

Indeed, it’s hard to avoid the feeling that a sale would basically be a death knell for the unrealized promise of Twitter, as the new owner (whoever it turns out to be) is unlikely to wager much on innovative programs and new products. Google’s previous forays into social media have mostly been notable for their failure, while Microsoft and Verizon have even less experience in the field; all three are more likely to treat Twitter as a useful adjunct to their own core services than a platform in its own right. Similarly, Salesforce would likely view Twitter as a source for data on its 300 million+ existing users rather than focusing on trying to win new ones.

Last but not least, last week Snapchat revealed a new name, “Snap,” reflecting the messaging app’s expanding ambitions as it experiments with wearable mobile technology. The flagship product, “Spectacles,” are smart glasses with cameras that allow users to automatically record what they see, in 10-second installments and up to 30 seconds total, without having to fumble with their phone.

Of course, the hi-tech glasses immediately summon memories of Google Glass, the ill-fated attempt to introduce wearable tech to consumers, but Snap hopes a number of features will help avoid the pitfalls which led to social ostracism of Glass-wearers (who became known, not at all affectionately, as Glassholes). For one thing a circle of lights around the camera will illuminate whenever the wearer is recording, supposedly making it obvious to other people when they are being filmed. Whether this is enough to banish the “creepy” factor remains to be seen: personally I don’t want to have to monitor my neighbors’ eyewear to determine whether my actions are being recorded for posterity.

[Source:-Media Post Communication]

Why you should be skeptical of science on social media

Internet commentators love to shout their opinions, but the loudest might not know what they’re talking about.

Jacob Groshek, assistant professor of emerging media studies at Boston University, has written about how online discussion can distort facts and disrupt science communication, including a recent essay in The Conversation.

Specifically, tracking how information about antimicrobial resistance spreads online, he and colleagues found that people who post about science online most often are likely to be the most misinformed.

He recently discussed how both scientists and citizens might be able to combat the troubling spread of science misinformation on social media.


Your article in The Conversation discusses how information about science—for example, antimicrobial resistance—spreads on social media. How did you get interested in that topic?


Our question there was: what do people know about antimicrobial resistance—AMR—and are there some factors that help explain why some people know more and some people know less?

We were particularly interested in social media and the way that using it related positively or negatively to knowledge, and also behavior. Were people reporting using antibiotics in an appropriate or recommended fashion? The idea was not to get into the debates but rather to talk about the experience of how people are communicating science in an online media environment that can at times be contentious. At some times, it can be a little overwhelming as to what really are the facts. AMR is one topic in a larger field of study where we’re trying to push forward a bit more.


You found that people who posted the most on social media had the highest level of misunderstanding about AMR. You also found that they tended to consume a lot of traditional media, too, like TV and talk radio. Are people misunderstanding the news articles they read or are reporters misunderstanding the scientific data?


Well, that’s the trouble, right? I’m going to talk a bit speculatively here, but … I think there’s a problem that sometimes people will self-select certain kinds of traditional media that may oversimplify things, as in they might focus on outliers. And then the media reports on findings, right? There’s a tension that exists there, in that journalists, of course, want to have the most interesting information to capture a large audience, but in the end that might not be the most important finding. So I think it’s certainly possible that there’s a distortion that can take place in the traditional media creation, but also in the consumption.


How does social media play into that process?


Even if people are exposed to accurate information, there’s a whole psychological processing system where they might choose to reject what they hear or what they read, or they might confuse it. There are many levels here where people can get the facts mixed. Especially when they talk in a cacophonous sort of arena, where you hear many different voices and many different social media users who are perhaps saying different things.

It becomes difficult for a non-expert to really decipher what’s correct. I think interpersonal relationships also come into play in terms of what they believe from other people they know directly or personally. That is the level where social media becomes important.


Is the realm of social media just doomed to be full of misinformation?


Like I said in The Conversation, social media is definitely a double-edged sword. It can run the risk of being a source of misinformation, but it can also be an effective way to redirect that information. Making the space more factual instead of cycling or recycling … I think there are a lot of opportunities.


Should scientists step in directly to correct some of the incorrect facts flying around? Do scientists, in your opinion, trust in social media as a good way to talk to their audience?


That’s a very interesting way to think about it. I don’t know if they really trust social media; I mean, it’s just a tool, right? I think they value it and understand it as a way to be directly involved.

Most scientists at the very least use it to help disseminate their research to a broader audience beyond just experts in their field. I’ll just speak for myself—I feel that it’s really imperative that, as scholars or scientists, we try to make a contribution to broader public understanding of issues like AMR—and social media is a very direct way of doing that.

But, of course, there are pitfalls and risks that come along with that particular area. You can be exposed to some nasty messages and you can get caught up in debates that can be time-consuming and that aren’t always productive. I think that it’s something every scientist has to weigh the pros and cons of and think very carefully about.


Scientists are sometimes stereotyped as sounding condescending or even incomprehensible when trying to talk to a lay audience. Do you have tips for researchers who want to speak directly over social media?


The best thing I can suggest is to stay close to your data. Don’t overreach what your findings really are. And when you have regular followers on Twitter or Facebook, I think it’s really important to respond to their messages.

If somebody mentions you on Twitter, take the time to mention back, to answer questions. Reddit is another good forum where scientists can present their work, and there’s some really great moderation that takes place there. It’s always easier to say, ‘well, go read the article!’ But even then, it doesn’t guarantee that a reader of the article will walk away with a correct understanding. So the best advice I can give is be thorough, be direct, be accessible.


Alternately, do you have any advice for a non-expert who is seeking science information online? How they might be able to avoid the pitfalls of misinformation?


Suspend your previous biases if you’re able, and seek out new scholarship. In terms of detecting misinformation, I think there are certain things you can look for, like, ‘does it sound true or is it so over the top?’ Like some of the studies on whether wine and chocolate are good for your health. Or does the information come from an institution that has no legitimacy? That’s a red flag. Always double-check things.

[Source:-Science & Technology]

‘Goat,’ ‘Audrie’ tackle bullying in social media age


What if Lord of the Flies took place in a frat house?

That’s the question director Andrew Neel wanted to explore in Goat, one of two new movies turning the lens on bullying in its many forms. Netflix’s Audrie & Daisy (now streaming and in select theaters) is a documentary about two high-school victims of sexual assault, while Goat is a college-set drama based on Brad Land’s 2004 memoir of the same name. The film (available through video-on-demand services and in select theaters) follows Brett (Nick Jonas), a womanizing fraternity brother who becomes disillusioned with Greek life as he watches his younger sibling, Brad (Ben Schnetzer), endure humiliating and potentially fatal hazing rituals.

“The desire to belong, especially as a young man, is a very powerful thing,” Neel says. Pledging a fraternity is particularly important to Brad, who was attacked and robbed coming home from a party the summer before college. He turns to excessive drinking and partying as he wrestles with his masculinity, even watching violent porn in the days following the incident.

“He’s been thrown into a very uncertain place and he’s re-examining who he is as a man,” Neel says. “It’s part of this amorphous male experience that he’s going through.”

Goat doesn’t address sexual assault on college campuses. But the standard of male behavior in some fraternities “certainly encourages an environment in which misogyny and potentially sexual assault may be more likely,” Neel says. “When the most violent, aggressive, negative parts of the male psyche are exaggerated, that probably spells trouble for women.”

Which is why filmmakers Bonni Cohen and Jon Shenk hope Audrie & Daisy will help educate young men and women about rape culture and consent. The documentary shares the harrowing stories of two teens whose sexual assaults made headlines in 2012. Fifteen-year-old Audrie Pott killed herself after she was assaulted while passed out at a party in Saratoga, Calif., and naked photos of her went viral on social media. Daisy Coleman, then 14, was similarly cyberbullied and attempted suicide after speaking out against her alleged rapist (a high-school football star) in Maryville, Mo.

“These cases are the effect of a society that hasn’t quite figured out how to deal with the new tools of social media, and how to guide our young boys and men into healthy views of relationships (with) girls and women,” Shenk says. Having assaults broadcast on social media is especially devastating for victims, who “wake up Monday morning and go to school, and this thing that they’re still processing is suddenly floating out among their peers.”

But social media can also be an invaluable tool in driving the conversation around assault. Rape survivor Delaney Henderson reached out to Daisy online and invited her to a support group of teens who had gone through similar experiences. A young woman’s powerful letter to her attacker, former Stanford University swimmer Brock Turner, went viral this summer, while the cast of The Birth of a Nation (in theaters Oct. 7) has used filmmaker Nate Parker’s college rape trial (he was acquitted) as a jumping-off point to discuss sexual assault in interviews and columns.

Social media “has given us an opportunity now to have this conversation more boldly,” Cohen says. “There’s enough outrage, enough discussion on the national level, that we believe things are going to have to change.”

[Source:-USA Today]

Local Clicks Pro Launches the Customized Web Design to Boost Corporate Identity

(MENAFN Press) Small, medium-sized businesses across the state of are gearing up for better online branding experiences as they seek to cement their presence on the internet. All these experiences are now a reality after the launch of integrated web design services by California”;s leading web designing company, Local Clicks Pro. The comprehensive services are intended to empower enterprises and other organizations to transition from the tradition of just securing a web address to a new realm of achieving a visible and distinct online identity.

According to one of the senior programmers in the company, ”Many companies, and especially small businesses, have ended up frustrated after wasting their hard-earned to get a web address. The challenge comes when that address is not optimized to translate into a distinct identity that its customers and prospects can identify. Our company makes the whole difference between a barren web address and an online identity that can generate you traffic that translates into sales and desired results.”

One of the most outstanding qualities of this Santa Barbara Graphic Design Company ( ) and its services is they enable customers to make optimal use of the latest design and marketing techniques to keep their online identities distinct. The company uses some of the latest and most efficient programming languages and tools. The reason behind this approach is that as the web continues to grow and enlarge, many threats and challenges are growing with it hence the need to come up with proactive ways of dealing with them.

While echoing the sentiments of his colleague, one of the company”;s senior designers had this to say about corporate identity, ”The World Wide Web is like a forest; and carving an identity for your business can be challenging. It is like a group of monkeys in the woods; the fact that a tourist is in it does not mean that he will automatically see every monkey in there. Unless the monkey is in a strategic position where the explorer can see him, the visitor may never know that such an animal ever exists. That is how it works in the ever-increasing jungle called the Net. Thus, when we design your website, we make sure that it is optimized using the latest marketing techniques so that the right visitors on the Web can quickly locate and identify it.”

The other key feature of this Bakersfield Web Design Service is that it is diverse in every way. For instance, the service covers all types of industries and not-for-profit organizations. Besides, customers can get different types of marketing services based on their specific industries such as live chats, ad banners, and search engine marketing. This diversity of services means that every business can market and solidify its corporate identity using tools that best suit its needs at every given moment in time.

About Local Clicks Pro

Local Clicks Pro is a leading online marketing company offering Web Design Service in Ventura and other regions across the larger USA. Local Clicks Pro provides marketing services such as SEO, SEM, banner ads and many other modern tools designed to boost online marketing and visibility. Moreover, its services cut across diverse market segments and industries such as finance, automobile, telecoms, and education.


6 Reasons Why Web Designing is Not a Dying Profession


There has been a tremendous evolution in the practice of web design over the last two decades. Even some of the critics prophesying about the dead of web designing as a profession still comes to the conclusion that the work of designers will continue to be relevant in our world. Here is an example. In his controversial article published in UX Magazine in 2015, Sergio Nouvel used five symptoms to make his case on why web design is a dead profession. It is, however, surprising that Sergio’ conclusion in the same article still stress that fact that the demand for UX designers will continue to be on the rise. I agree with the fact the days where web developers and web designers will create designs using Photoshop and later slice them into HTML are long gone. However, I am of the opinion that web designers with vast experiences and the knowledge will continue to remain highly valuable. Here are six reasons why we cannot at any time consider web designing as a dying profession:

1. Web Security And Maintenance

Having secure websites is essential for safeguarding the reputation of any serious company. Similarly, website design, structure, and maintenance are crucial to search engine optimization (SEO). Hacker always seeks to take advantage of vulnerable websites that have outdated security details. Vulnerability in security may either leak sensitive information of clients or infect the computers of the website visitors. Therefore, one of the requirements a firm need to consider in choosing an SEO company or web designer is the maintenance of their website and the frequency of security updates. Since not many people are technically shrewd to patch up the security of their websites and perform maintenance activities they require the services of a professional web designer. Complex websites such as those that collect customers’ information or the e-commerce websites, require having an experienced web designer who is always updated.

2. Specialized Online Branding

In a recent conversation with Nirmal Gyanwali, a web design experts in Sydney, he made the submission that the roles of a web designer are facilitating the delivery of quality content and specialized branding messages to website visitors. I came to agree with this because it explains why large corporation’s web designers are part of the marketing team and not the IT department. In her recent articles on web design trends of 2016, Nicole Boyer, a professional web, and graphic designer made the point that the ability of a web designer to design pages that forward the brand of the company is very vital. This, therefore, leads to the integration of the marketing and web design. Since the wall that existed between marketing and technology has long been broken down, web designers should diversify their skills by learning about content, marketing, and branding.

[Source:-Huffington Post] Reveals Tips for Selecting Web Design Companies, a platform for reviewing and ranking design and development companies, has released a guide assisting those in search of web design services. The tips outline key strategies businesses can use to identify web design companies most likely to design a website which meets their needs and objectives. While the tips are not a guaranteed guideline for selecting the right web design company, the tips can help reduce the risk of selecting a web design firm which doesn’t consistently meet their customer requirements.

First, recommends that buyers consider web design companies which have in-depth reviews written about their work online. As the Internet has become a primary source for researching vendors, it has also become an opportunity for vendors to create reviews which may be biased towards the side of the provider. It is recommended for buyers to not only try to identify reviews which may be critical of web design companies, but to utilize multiple reviews and review sources. Many web design companies will offer testimonials and examples on their own website; houses reviews written by actual customers of web design services. also recommends for buyers to find vendors which have experience in designing websites similarly to what they are expecting. Many web design companies feature examples of their design work on their own website or have links to websites they have completed design work on. It can be beneficial to not only review past designs completed, but to connect with the customers to confirm the work was completed by the design firm and to obtain additional testimonial towards the credentials of the web design firm.

[Source:-Market Wired]