bias – Media Matters

January 11, 2021January 11, 2021

Big Tech, Political Polarization, and the Assault on Democracy

The Age of Surveillance Capitalism by Zuboff and Why We’re Polarized by Klein

I’ve been catching up on some reading over the holiday break and two books that caught my attention are proving to be quite helpful to understanding the recent events in our nation’s capitol. What we’re witnessing is shocking, but not surprising, to those who have paid attention to the ever-increasing power exerted by Big Tech over every detail of our lives, including our political identities.

Big Tech is shorthand for the companies that control much of our everyday lives through their use of software and hardware designed to capture and hold our attention. And speaking of attention, if I were to add another recent title that addresses this concern it would be The Attention Merchants, by Tim Wu.

By gathering the massive amount of data generated every minute of every day by billions of users, these companies have tapped into a resource that they have turned against us to predict and control our future behavior. Siloing, creation of filter bubbles, nudging users towards certain behaviors, shadow-banning (and now more overt actions to disenfranchise users) are just some of the ways that Big Tech is meddling in the political process. If that sounds like a radical conspiracy theory to you, I urge you to read these books and then we can have a conversation.

And while all of us can agree that what transpired this past week in the halls of congress was both dangerous and disgusting, reasonable people continue to disagree about how to respond to controversial political speech on the leading tech platforms. The ban of the President of the United State by numerous platforms, regardless of your opinions about Trump himself, is cause for concern and should not be taken lightly.

Similarly while the attack on right-wing alternative platforms, e.g. Parler, by Amazon, Apple and Google, may feel like a reasonable and perfectly legal response to unhinged speech that calls for political violence, the danger is to further marginalize and force underground a movement that has enormous popular support.

I’m not suggesting that racists, white-nationalists, and anarchists should have a seat at the table, but I am suggesting that unelected leaders of a few massive tech companies cannot be trusted to make decisions about who gets to participate in our political discourse. This time they may appear to be on your side, but what about when the tables are turned? We’ve given these tech platforms enormous power over the future of our democracy…and that makes me very concerned.

October 20, 2020October 20, 2020

Section 230 is Under Attack

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, a law passed during the Clinton administration, is under attack from both the left and the right. President Trump wants to revise Section 230 because of what he believes is unfair throttling of conservative news by liberal tech platforms. And liberal legislators want to revise Section 230 to make it more difficult to post “hate speech” on these same platforms.

Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey and Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg have been blamed for everything wrong about these leading social media platforms. We could debate whether they deserve the blame, but we can’t deny that they are caught between a rock and a hard place. One one hand, they love Section 230 because it removes corporate responsibility for content published on their platforms by users. On the other hand, they worry about the future of a platform that could becomes a free-for-all without any ability to control the most poisonous content. They want to be free to limit obscene pornography, dangerous speech, libel, and other content not protected by the 1st Amendment, but they don’t want to be responsible for damage that might be caused by speech that comes close, without crossing, the line. According to the Recode website…

FCC Chairman Ajit Pai announced that his agency would “move forward with a rulemaking to clarify” the meaning of Section 230, which gives internet platforms like Facebook and Twitter immunity from lawsuits over content their users provide. That is to say, if someone defames you in a tweet, you can sue the Twitter user but not Twitter itself. This 25-year-old law is what allows websites that rely on third-party content to exist at all. It also allows those sites to moderate that content as they see fit, which has been a source of ire for conservatives who believe they are being censored when Facebook bans them, YouTube demonetizes them, or Twitter appends fact-checks to their tweets.

The most recent fuss over Section 230 involves Hunter Biden’s laptop that was left with a computer repair shop. The shop owner turned the contents of the hard drive over to an attorney with connections to former NYC major Rudy Giuliani, who turned the information over the the New York Post, a tabloid newspaper with a less-than-sterling reputation. The last-minute release of Hillary Clinton’s emails by Wikileaks, (amplified by James Comey and the FBI), just days before the 2016 election is believed to have been a factor leading to the election of President Donald Trump, and social media platforms don’t want to facilitate a repeat of that outcome. Twitter prevented sharing of the New York Post’s stories based on the idea that the data was obtained by hacking, (not technically accurate), but a few days later apologized for not communicating more clearly and then reversed their policy. Facebook continues to restrict sharing on their platform because they claim that they are unable to verify the accuracy of the claims alleged by the NY Post.

As you can see, there is no easy solution to this dilemma…and many other current debates. Facebook just recently announced they will take a tougher stance on holocaust denialism, anti-vaccine posts, and QAnon conspiracy pages. But this is a slippery slope for platforms. Once you begin deciding what is true and appropriate and permissible, you open yourself to criticism from all sides.

September 19, 2020September 19, 2020

That’s Unbelievable

Have you found yourself wondering just what to believe? Biased and agenda-driven journalism, disinformation campaigns on social media and widespread conspiracy theories make it nearly impossible for the average media consumer to know what to believe. Our brain and heart are in a constant battle, or so it seems, to sort out facts and feelings. Our natural inclination to think fast instead of slow is part of the problem. But so is our inclination to confirmation bias and its various manifestations. These cognitive deficiencies rob us of our ability to be rational and make us more likely to fall for faulty logic.

Like many memes featuring a celebrity, it’s safe to assume that the celebrity is NOT in any way associated with the message contained therein.

This is a time of great uncertainty and conspiracy theories are thriving: 9/11 was an inside job, vaccines cause autism, the Clintons have had political opponents murdered, Antifa members are setting wildfires in the Pacific Northwest, and Covid-19 is a bio-weapon developed in a lab. These are just a few of the recent conspiracy theories that are widely dismissed as untrue. ¹

Media literacy is one of the goals that I hope to achieve with the Media & Society class. And by “achieve” I don’t necessarily expect fluency after a 14-week course but rather an appreciation for the idea of media literacy and a foundational understanding of what it means to be an informed consumer and producer of media content. So much of what we know (or think we know) is based on the media we consume. And like food consumption, media consumption can be improved with a few simple practices.

Eat slowly (chew before swallowing)
Avoid junk food (e.g., sources lacking credibility)
Add fiber/roughage (difficult-to-digest material that actually cleanses the digestive system)
Practice occasional fasting (a constant connection to the information stream can be toxic)
Don’t share found food unless you know what you’re doing ( those mushroom may be tasty, magic, or deadly).²

With conspiracy theories so prevalent we need to be extra vigilant avoid becoming a believer, or worse, an evangelist for conspiracy theories and disinformation.

¹Worth noting that the phrase “conspiracy theory” is also a rhetorical device used to discredit an idea or belief that someone else holds. If I think your belief is unfounded, calling it a conspiracy theory is my way of dismissing your view as irrational. Take, for example, the idea that Trump’s behavior and interactions with Ukraine amounted to an abuse of power. While some (mostly Democrats) believe that the President’s actions justified impeachment, his supporters dismissed their accusations as a conspiracy theory.

² If you’re not a mycologist, eating that fungi may change your status from “fun guy” to “dead guy.”

July 10, 2020July 10, 2020

Cancel Culture Just Got Real

Remember the saying “live and let live”? Another variation was, “to each his own.” Those were quaint ideas. I suppose the latest iteration is “you do you” or something to that effect. However you choose to express it, the idea is to give individuals personal space to hold their own opinions, ideas, preferences, and even actions (to a point) without judgement or condescension. Those days are long gone.

You may have heard the phrase “cancel culture” bandied about in conversation. Depending on who’s wielding it, the phrase itself can be a put-down intended to stifle an opposing view. But at its core the idea of cancel culture is the illiberal or fundamentalist notion that opinions and ideas outside of the accepted norm must be squelched. Fundamentalism is another useful idea to explain what’s going on. Fundamentalism is often used to describe religious extremism, and in fact the Taliban and other extreme religious groups demonstrate the kind of intolerance that we’re talking about. One might even think of this current movement as a type of religious adherence to modern tenets of “faith” that privilege feelings and identity over contrary facts. Cancel culture results in speakers being disinvited or shouted down. It results in reporters and editors being dismissed from their jobs for writing or publishing something that is interpreted as hurtful. It results in academics and researchers being reprimanded for researching or teaching ideas that have fallen out of favor among the “woke” class.

A very recent example of this “illiberal” mindset can be seen in the reaction to A Letter on Justice and Open Debate, to be published in the October edition of Harper’s magazine. A firestorm of controversy erupted when it became apparent that the letter, and its signatories, transgressed the bounds of accepted thought…which, of course, was inevitable since the letter was intended to push back on narrow-minded views of what is acceptable discourse. Jesse Singal, one of the signers of the letter, wrote an interesting piece in Reason that makes this point. Twitter has been abuzz with opinions on the letter and the fallout from both conservative and progressive points of view.

This debate is really about the conflict between traditional liberals and those to their left who have prioritized social justice reforms. Freddie de Boer addresses the tension between those who traditionally support free speech and those who see free speech as an unfortunate feature/bug that allows their adversaries a platform. But ultimately, like most cultural debates, it comes down to power. Who has it, who wants it, and how traditional and new media can be harnessed to shape the narratives that tip the balance.

Sources:
* https://harpers.org/a-letter-on-justice-and-open-debate/
* https://reason.com/2020/07/08/the-reaction-to-the-harpers-letter-on-cancel-culture-proves-why-it-was-necessary/
* https://fredrikdeboer.com/2020/07/07/ending-the-charade/

April 13, 2020April 13, 2020

Reporting on the Pandemic When Experts are Wrong

It is still early to be performing a critical analysis of the handling and reporting on the Covid-19 pandemic of 2020. But that won’t stop others from doing so…so let’s take a minute to reflect on how journalists are doing, and whether there are lessons to be learned.

Lesson #1: most journalists are woefully unprepared to report on complex medical issues under crisis-induced deadlines. Economic realities on the ground mean fewer reporters overall, and fewer with the kind of specialized training needed when reporting on the most complicated topics, e.g. science/medicine, international policy, and economics, all of which are part of this complex story. That’s why we need more specialized journalism outlets like Stat to turn to for expert reporting.

Lesson #2: experts consulted by journalists were either intentionally or unintentionally misreporting the data, and the level of skepticism by journalists was insufficient. Taking the word of China’s authoritarian leadership, the World Health Organization, and our own medical experts and policy leaders has turned out to be, on some level, a mistake.

Lesson #3: political partisanship has clouded the reporting. The hyper-partisan climate in our country, and the partisan divide that separates news consumers into left/right echo-chambers, has made it extremely difficult to separate fact from opinion. The collage below was put together for partisan reasons by someone who was trying to deflect the current blame game about “who knew what and when did they know it.” It is easy to see how bias creeps into reporting when so much is at stake in an election year.

There are plenty of additional lessons to be learned, and there will be plenty of time to learn them once the crisis has been averted. But for now it would do us all well to have a bit more humility when confronting what we don’t know, and a bit more skepticism when “experts” declare their “truth” about this deadly pandemic.

UPDATE: This quote from Recode captures another dilemma facing journalists.

This core challenge for journalists won’t go away after the pandemic: There are always going to be threats that could eventually lead to disaster, but most of them don’t. If we holler every time we see one, we’ll be wrong and no one will listen to us. If we don’t holler when there’s a real one, we will have let down our audience.

November 6, 2019November 6, 2019

Zuckerberg v Dorsey, round 1

Jack Dorsey, head of Twitter, just announced that political advertising will not be allowed on his platform. Meanwhile, Mark Zuckerberg, head of Facebook, will allow political ads and has taken a hands-off approach to policing political ads for false or deceptive content. The stakes are high and the debate is contentious.

Regardless of your political views, you can easily see how these different policies are complicated by very real and important foundational issues. First up is freedom of speech. In the US Constitution, freedom of speech as enshrined in the First Amendment is at the center of this debate. First and foremost the First Amendment protects political speech…which includes political advertisements. Those who are First Amendment absolutists argue that the solution to wrong speech is not banning speech. Rather, the solution is to allow MORE speech. In the end, they argue, truth will win out as long as everyone is free to speak and present their views. Score one for Zuckerberg

If you have a lower view of human nature you might argue, yeah, but advertising is paid speech, and those with the most money can afford the most advertising and most sophisticated advertising strategies and campaigns. Free speech is great, but allowing people with money to distribute political messages to the masses without any responsibility to speak truthfully will result in many people being deceived and manipulated for political ends. Score one for Dorsey

I could go on but am more interested in your thoughts. Which of the arguments articulated by Zuckerberg and Dorsey resonate with you?

September 20, 2019September 19, 2019

What’s Going on at the New York Times?

In a stunning display of poor editorial choices last weekend, the New York Times appears to have done serious harm to the integrity of their own brand, and of journalism at-large. In a tweet and a piece published on Sunday, the NYT managed to offend both defenders of Supreme Court justice Brett Kavanaugh and his most ardent critics.

The controversy over recently nominated justice Kavanaugh is well known, as is the political angst felt by many on the left over the current administration’s success in appointing conservative justices at all levels of the judiciary. The fact that two NYT journalists found evidence of new accusations against Kavanaugh and published a book about their research was not surprising to many who believed that Kavanaugh’s appointment over the objections of Christine Blasey Ford was a miscarriage of justice.

But what was surprising, even to fans of the New York Times, is that the recently published review of the book failed to disclose that the woman at the center of the new allegations denies any knowledge of the event and was unwilling to talk to the reporters. And another controversial matter that was ignored was that the person bringing the accusation was a member of Bill Clinton’s legal defense team when he was accused of sexual misconduct.

None of these facts proves or disproves the accusations, but the failure of the New York Times to disclose these facts to the public goes against every rule designed to protect journalistic integrity and fairness. When a trusted institution like the New York Times makes mistakes of this magnitude, and fails to offer satisfactory explanations that might defuse the appearance of bias, it does harm to journalism and journalists everywhere.

And just to make sure that everyone had something to complain about, a [now deleted] tweet from the New York Times managed to offend the sensibilities of everyone who thinks that sexual assault is anything but “harmless fun.”

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/09/16/new-york-times-brett-kavanaugh-book-1498153

September 9, 2019September 9, 2019

Why Local Investigative Journalism Matters

Last month in Colorado Springs, 19-year old De’Von Bailey was shot and killed as he ran from police. Bailey and his cousin were stopped by police after a 911 caller reported an armed robbery in the area. After being stopped (but before being patted down) Bailey fled. According to police, the shooting occurred after Bailey reached for what was later identified as a gun.

Still frame from bodycam footage just before the shooting of De’Von Bailey. Link to video is to the right.

The Gazette newspaper in Colorado Springs published edited and condensed body camera footage of the incident. You can see it here, but be warned that the footage is graphic and disturbing.

Bailey’s death is a tragic outcome of a very unfortunate event and it is critically important to understand how and why the shooting occurred if we are to understand how to prevent similar incidents in the future. According to the Gazette, 5 of 7 police-involved shootings in Colorado Springs in 2019 have resulted in fatalities. Community activists in Colorado Springs point to a number of similar events around the country in recent years where police use of deadly force resulted in the death of minority suspects. Other names you might recognize include Michael Brown of Ferguson and Eric Garner of New York City.

The highly-respected journal Nature recently published an article calling attention to the shortage of scientific data on the topic of police use of lethal force. According to the article, “In the United States, police officers fatally shoot about three people per day on average.” And while it is essential that objective research be gathered, analyzed and published it is also critically important that journalistic investigations continue to shine a spotlight on any sign of injustice and abuse of power. This is why local journalism exists and why it matters.

To carry out their duty journalists must be dogged and relentless in their pursuit of truth. And once they find truth, they must present it to their readers/listeners/viewers in a way that is informative, compelling, and unbiased. Anything less is an abdication of their purpose and mission.

I’m being honest when I say that I don’t know enough about this tragic event to have formed a strong opinion on whether this shooting was justified. I hope that investigative journalism, and an independent investigation, will step up to provide the necessary context to help us process this tragedy. Without that we will be left to our own biases and interpretations of what happened on that evening of August 3rd in the 2400 block of East Fountain Blvd. in Colorado Springs.

Additional links to media coverage of the shooting

August 15, 2019August 15, 2019

Reporting on Racism

Journalists are struggling to figure out how to cover President Trump, and more specifically his recent tweets about four democratic representatives who also happen to be persons-of-color. The President’s Twitter stream, and his public comments made at campaign events and press conferences, have crossed a line for some reporters and editors who are now grappling with how to talk about the President who is accused of saying things that they interpret as racist.

The New York Times has taken heat recently from politicians and other media outlets for not calling out the President as a racist. According to critics, the NYT’s failure to call Trump a racist is enabling and promoting the rise of racism. But according to CNN, Executive Editor Dean Baquet, “has opted to explain what Trump has said, allowing readers to decide for themselves whether they consider his comments racist.” This approach has been the standard approach to non-partisan and objective journalism over the years, but one that leaves more progressive advocates calling for a change.

In a related issue, the NYT was criticized for a headline published, and then changed, in the aftermath of the El Paso and Dayton shootings. According to The Independent, “The first headline read, “TRUMP URGES UNITY VS RACISM”, but was changed to, “ASSAILING HATE BUT NOT GUNS” following outrage as the portrayal of the US president as a unifier.” In response, Democrat congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez tweeted that the NYT’s initial take was a reminder that “white supremacy is aided by – and often relies upon – the cowardice of mainstream institutions”.

What do you think? Should journalists call out racism by naming it, or should they report on what was said or done and let the readers decide for themselves? And, if you’re a working journalists, take a survey to let them know what you think about the debate.