Influencer Marketing is a magic bullet, it’s going to solve all your problems, it works every time, but it increases your odds. And in marketing, that’s all you can ask for. And if you can break even or turn a profit two times more than you fail, guess what?That is a remarkable record. The value of Influencer Marketing , Lots of other data is out there in the marketing statistics. As a society were the passive tool for a business to kick start at its worse and become better we’re also going to help you develop a business case for Influencer Marketing in your organization because , Because ultimately, you’re going to need some funding. One of the things that unfortunately is happening in most businesses today is there are little experiments going on with Influencer Marketing, and they’re all underfunded. And so, one of the things that goes beyond strategy and tactics is to say how do you explain this to top management in such a way that they’re going to give you a budget to actually implement it. There are other ways to spend your money and they are much more likely to be effective, and we’re going to explore that. But we want you to know what, let’s just say the suckers, are falling for, what the rubes, the naive people, who think, “Oh, if I just give enough money to the right influencer, magic happens.” That’s a total story , no magic is gonna happen until unless you make yourself up for being a tool for a tool , as a rational human beings we’ve all got bigger stuff to do than just being someone who just keeps up with anything.

When the right influence hits the top most elite button that’s when actual productivity starts to show up in the phases of marketing influences and strategies. It’s not a big deal to cut yourself off from something that makes you feel like anything less than a tool , being helpful is way more different from being a tool for a tool. Actual and authentic magic happens when you put your actual self out there and step out of your comfort zone.

The gist of the problem is simple. Most of the content that most of the marketers are creating on most of their social media platforms is, pardon me, corporate propaganda. It’s not something that you would share with a friend.The alternative is not to try to get people who have learned to write one way over their entire marketing career and they create brochureware. And put it on a social platform and expect magic to happen, it doesn’t. Boring content is still boring content. But boring doesn’t mean to make up hideous content and end up causing mental illness to the viewers out there , there’s toxic consequences of each ugly marketing strategy that’s taken up by all these people who are desperate enough to make it up to their organization. Here the joke is on us , it’s literally on the people who believe that everything’s that put on to a certain platform is true which actually is not. But there is a different group of people out there who are creating engaging content, amazing content. Content that people are commenting on. Content that people are sharing. Content that people are liking like mad. And who are these people? For lack of a better term, we’ll call them influencers. We as society are blinded up by all the appealing phony things that have been put out on the cyber platforms which isn’t something of authentic content and we are forgetting how pathetic the interaction is with people in the social platform. There were very few shares. There were very few likes. There were incredibly few comments. I don’t know how much you’re paying your staff to create this content. But if nobody’s interacting with it, if it isn’t engaging anyone, why are you doing it? What’s the big deal? Of course when some activity of that such is engaged through many means with the society it makes a big deal and people need to route for healthy influences.

Indecisiveness in any area of business organizations are a common thing , in a society like today times we need to actualize certain factors that effect the underrated things in business. Yes or no decisions are very common in business problems. In prescriptive analytics, yes or no decisions are modeled with binary variables.Each publisher breaks down the subscriber base into a number of groups based on demographics and location. The company has set a budget for the advertising campaign and wants to maximize the number of subscribers exposed to its ads. The company wants to determine which publishers to select and how many groups to purchase from each publisher but there comes the actual issue , business is a chain which isn’t guaranteed of transparency and assured loyalty. Clearly, the selection of a publisher requires a yes or no decision. That is, a publisher is either selected or not. Once a publisher is selected, a second decision must be made regarding the number of subscriber groups to purchase. The model for this problem must take into consideration that no subscriber groups can be purchased from a publisher that has not been selected. It also must consider that when two publishers are competitors, the company wants to select amongst one of them. Finally, the model should take into account that there is a fixed cost for engaging a publisher. These analyzing contributions to the business benefit the subordinates and defining chances of minimizing the indecisiveness which causes to the loss of business.

Subordinates or the superiors who are utmost torn between a yes or no often end up having serious doubts about the overall subjecting of several other aspects effecting the business’s There are many more in areas such as network design in supply chain management, portfolio selection in finance, and power generation in energy. Energy contributing into the organization must be cut into rational and fair parts of the business , it keep the game on.

The famous Netflix series “Money heist” is setting for fifth season,Money heist stars Alvaro morte,Ursula corbero,alba Forbes,are gearing for the final season

Money heist all four seasons are streaming in Netflix,the four seasons contains 31 episodes

The season started from 2 May 2017 in Netflix

The spread of the COVID-19 has proved deadly, and this is a challenging time for the union as well as state governments as they work to address this health emergency. However, shows that in times of crisis, democratic governments may take a dangerous autocratic turn. In such a situation, journalism has a great role to play in a democracy, as it has been ideally visualized as a platform for objective information and critical-rational discourse. Thus, the health of journalism in a country can be examined in the times of a crisis. 

Corporate control over most media bodies also means that they become an instrument of the ideological apparatus of the state. There are many concerns associated with the COVID-19 crisis: ill-equipped public health systems, policies to combat the pandemic, and the lack of planning and support to the vulnerable sections. These issues demand serious examination, but the mainstream media, barring some courageous exceptions, seems to be forgetting its democratic role.

Manipulation of Discourse

Just before the announcement of the nationwide lockdown till 14th April 2020, Prime Minister Narendra Modi reportedly called upon print and electronic media owners and editors of the country and asked them to support government efforts to combat the pandemic and also advised them to present “positive news” related to COVID-19 (Sagar 2020).

Plainly put, these were the owners and editors who control most of the Indian media at the national and regional levels who were advised to abide by the official narrative and present information as provided to them by the government about COVID-19.

Why would media houses follow government diktat rather than investigating the real state of affairs, unless they have associated business interests? Journalism is considered to be an ethical communicative practice in a democracy, but corporate ownership subverts the autonomy of journalism and the freedom of the press. Unfortunately, this conflict of interest has become a common feature of Indian journalism.

However, even though a majority of Indian media is under corporate control, there are many counter-voices both within and outside this grouping. Thus, the Indian mediascape has become a battleground of ideologies. Many of these alternate counter-voices have raised genuine issues of social concern during the pandemic outbreak.

The prevalence of international media on the internet and small media organizations in the country has played an important role in disseminating factual and more nuanced information, but unfortunately, these platforms do not have the vast access that big corporate media platforms are privy to. 

Media shoes its Islamophobic side

Media’s ugliest moment, however, was its coverage of the news surrounding Delhi’s Tablighi Jamaat Markaz (meeting). Many participants had left after the markaz, but many were stranded in the mosque due to the lockdown and were later found infected. However, the media outrage that followed was clearly an extension of the already prejudiced and polarised coverage, as the Tablighi Jamaat was blamed for violating lockdown rules and for “corona jihad,” “Islamic insurrection,” and “corona terrorism.” This is clearly an example of fake news propagated by the mainstream media to further the predominant agenda (BBC 2020; News Laundry 2020). Muslims were also attacked in various parts of the country. 

People of other religious groups also gathered at religious places in large numbers even after the lockdown, but they were not criticised in a similar manner. However, when some journalists did raise questions, they were threatened with legal action (Scroll 2020).

The need of Greater Accountability

Since most of the people are at home during the lockdown, it is natural to see a growth in media consumption. People are using various media platforms for COVID-19-related information,   but what is provided is far from factual and does not further a critical rational discourse.

Some television news channels see a Chinese conspiracy in the spread of COVID-19. In such a “positive” atmosphere, the news related to labourers’ mass exodus and the markaz was mostly presented due to its sensational value.The pandemic is also threatening an already-deteriorating economy, which also demands a thorough investigation beyond the official narratives. The media, however, has worries related to its own economic situation. Print media, especially, is dealing with a resource crunch, dwindling advertisements, and worries of reduction in circulation and readership.

With concerns of job security, inadequate resource support, and abuses faced by the police, many journalists are putting their health at stake to cover the COVID-19 situation. This scenario does little to add to the morale of honest and responsible journalists. Some media houses have already begun cutting wages; an extension in the lockdown can create a new crisis in Indian journalism. 

The role of larger media as observed during the pandemic, however, is not an overnight shift. It has been visible for some time now.  The media has seen phenomenal growth during the last three decades, and India has become one of the biggest media markets in the world.

The Union Government passed a Presidential Order under Article 370 (1) of the Indian Constitution, to supersede the 1954 Presidential Order, which, along with several other Presidential Orders, specifies which provisions of India’s Constitution apply to Jammu and Kashmir. This Presidential Order is unique in that it lays out most of the details on the special status accorded to Jammu and Kashmir under the Indian Constitution.

As described earlier, Article 367(4) as applied to Jammu and Kashmir will in turn make Article 370(3) apply to Jammu and Kashmir (by modifying the reference to the “Constituent Assembly of the State” to mean “Legislative Assembly of the State” as described above). Thus, if the Presidential Order cannot cause Article 370 to apply in a modified form to Jammu and Kashmir directly, the Order cannot achieve the same outcome indirectly, through the funnel of Article 367(4).

But if the Indian Constitution says that Article 370 can be applied to Jammu and Kashmir, then why does Article 370(1)(d) prohibit applying a modified version of Article 370 to Kashmir?

Article 370 of the Indian Constitution provides all those elements of the Indian Constitution which will apply to Jammu and Kashmir, namely:

• the powers of the Indian Parliament that shall extend to the territory of Jammu and Kashmir;
• Article 1 and Article 370 of the Indian Constitution will apply to Jammu and Kashmir;
• provisions other than Article 1 and Article 370 can be made to apply to Jammu and Kashmir in a modified form by a Presidential order provided either concurrence or consultation of the Jammu and Kashmir Government is taken, depending on what is being modified.

Clause (3) of this Article 370 clarifies that all of the above requirements can be overridden by the President in a “public notification” declaring that Article 370 of the Indian Constitution shall have no force or have partial force in the Indian Constitution, so long as the Constituent Assembly of the State of Jammu and Kashmir also consents.

The force of Article 370’s text lies along two vectors:

– One vector of Article 370 is in clause (1), which can cause provisions in the Indian Constitution other than Article 1 and 370 to apply to Jammu and Kashmir (in Article 370(1) and (2)) and;
– Another vector of Article 370 is in clause (3), which applies within the Indian Constitution, and also applies to Jammu and Kashmir in an unmodified form, to sustain the special status of Jammu and Kashmir as delineated in the rest of Article 370

By the Presidential Order, modified Article 367(4) as applied to Jammu and Kashmir causes Article 370(3) to be applied to the State of Jammu and Kashmir by replacing “the Constituent Assembly” with the Jammu and Kashmir “Legislative Assembly”. However, Article 370(3) applies to India too, in the Indian Constitution. So even if this Presidential Order modified Article 370(3) as applied to Jammu and Kashmir, the Indian Constitution’s Article 370(3) continues to require the Jammu and Kashmir Constituent Assembly’s concurrence. This Presidential order cannot modify the text of the Indian Constitution, even if it modifies the text of the Indian Constitution as it applies to Jammu and Kashmir. Therefore, for any action under Article 370(3) to be valid for India, we would still need the Constituent Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir to consent.

In short, for the purposes of the Indian Constitution, any modification of Article 370(3) as applied to Kashmir, even if it were valid, would not touch Article 370(3) as it applies in India.

But the Constituent Assembly no longer exists in Jammu and Kashmir, so is there anything India can do now?

Many hold the view that Article 370 may not be abrogated at all, legally. This idea merits some exploration.

The constitutionally legitimate way to abrogate Article 370 will be for the President to issue a public notification abrogating Article 370, under Article 370(3) of the Indian Constitution as applied to India. In fact, the Rajya Sabha has attempted to recommend that the President pass such a notification in its “Statutory Resolution”. Such a notification would only have been valid, in India, if the Constituent Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir had consented to the abrogation — which needless to say, no longer is in existence.

One conceptual way of thinking about this issue is that Article 370 embodied the terms of a treaty between the State of Jammu and Kashmir (under the Maharaja) and the Dominion of India which laid out the terms on which Jammu and Kashmir would join the dominion. The embodied form of the treaty in Article 370 of the Indian Constitution, represents the coming together of two sovereign territorial units. Therefore, it is important to remember that the Indian Dominion was not bestowing a concession on Jammu and Kashmir, as commentary sometimes propagates. In this background, the Constituent Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir would have been the representative of the sovereignty of Jammu and Kashmir, on questions of whether Article 370 would stop having force in the Indian Constitution.

Therefore, one can argue theoretically that Jammu and Kashmir is free to decide that it will be represented by any legislative body instead of the Constituent Assembly, on the question of ending Article 370’s operation — which is a question of ending the treaty between Jammu and Kashmir and the Union of India. There is no situation in which India can decide for Jammu and Kashmir that a State Assembly can stand in for the Constituent Assembly. This is because, as shown earlier, Article 370(3) continues to apply to India regardless of how the Presidential Order modifies it for Jammu and Kashmir.

In short, only if both Jammu and Kashmir and India were in consensus could Article 370 have been abrogated, and that too by proceeding under Article 370(3) and not Article 370(1) of the Indian Constitution. So long as Jammu and Kashmir wants to retain special status in regard to the Indian State, Article 370 is effectively incapable of revocation or abrogation. The Supreme Court has thus also heldthat Article 370 is permanent, effectively.

Is there any way in which President’s Order can be considered constitutionally legitimate?

Even if we can somehow ignore that the President’s Order attempts to extend Article 370(3) of the Indian Constitution to Jammu and Kashmir — which Article 370(1)(d) does not allow the President to do — there is no way to save this Order. This is because a Presidential Order under Article 370(1)(d) requires the “concurrence of the Government” of Jammu and Kashmir, if it aims to extend the Indian Constitution to Jammu and Kashmir on matters not covered by the Instrument of Accession. This is specially provided in the second proviso to Article 370(1).

We know that Jammu and Kashmir has been under President’s rule for over a year now. This implies that Jammu and Kashmir is not governed by its own elected representatives, but is being run by an officer of the President of India — presently Governor Satya Pal Mallik. Therefore, it remains unclear as to how the Indian Government can argue that it has obtained the “concurrence” of the Government of Jammu and Kashmir.

The Governor of a State shall be appointed by the President by warrant under his hand and seal (Article 155). A person to be eligible for appointment as Governor should be citizen of India and has completed age of 35 years (Article157).The Governors of the states of India have similar powers and functions at the state level as that of the President of India at Union level. Governors exist in the states while lieutenant governors or administrator exist in union territories including National Capital Territory of Delhi. The governor acts as the nominal head whereas the real power lies with the Chief ministers of the states and his/her councils of ministers. Although in union Territories real power lies in lieutenant governor or administrator, except in NCT of Delhi, Puducherry and Jammu and Kashmir where he/she shares power with a council of ministers headed by a chief minister.

In India, a lieutenant governor is in charge of a union territory. However, the rank is present only in the union territories of Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Ladakh, Jammu and Kashmir, Delhi and Puducherry (the other territories have an administrator appointed, who is usually an IAS officer or a retired judge of a court). However, the governor of Punjab acts as the administrator of Chandigarh. Although lieutenant governors do not hold the same rank as a governor of a state in the list of precedence.

QualificationsEdit

Article 157 and Article 158 of the Constitution of India specify eligibility requirements for the post of governor. They are as follows:

A governor must:

• be a [citizen of India].
• be at least 35 years of age.
• not be a member of the either house of the parliament or house of the state legislature.
• not hold any office of profit.

The governors and lieutenant governors are appointed by the president for a term of five years.