politics – Page 2 – Media Matters

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.

March 11, 2020March 11, 2020

The Coronavirus “Infodemic” and Social Media “distancing”

What travels faster and farther than a new virus that causes sickness and even death? Answer: Fear and panic about said virus. Below is a chart that illustrates our current situation.

And guess what viral story about Covid-19 generated the most engagement (likes, comments, shares): a story from Vice about how some people think the virus has a connection to Corona beer. Just for the record, the article’s premise does not appear to be supported by data and is, sadly, another example of hype outperforming credible reporting. And don’t even get me started about ingesting bleach or colloidal silver as a remedy.

Here’s what we do know. The new virus, which is related to the common cold and flu, was first discovered in Wuhan province in China at the end of 2019 and has since spread to dozens of countries, including the hard-hit nations of Italy, S. Korea, and Iran. Because of global trade and travel, the virus quickly began spreading illness, and even death, around the world. The most vulnerable populations are seniors and those with underlying health conditions. But unlike the seasonal flu, with which we’re relatively familiar (even comfortable), this new virus “feels” much more dangerous and has incited widespread panic.

Because of the fact that this coronavirus appears to spread rapidly via droplets (sneezing and coughing), and that a vaccine is likely 12-18 months away, people are justifiably concerned. However, the fear and panic that has accompanied the outbreak is frequently driven by the mis- and dis-information spread via social media.

But here’s where we can have a positive effect. Instead of paying attention to speculation and rumors, and instead of sharing headlines that may be misleading, let’s try to be as careful with our social media behavior as we are with our personal hygiene.

Bottom line: 1) engage in personal hygiene and social distancing to minimize spreading the virus, and 2) on social media take care to “distance” yourself from fear mongering and misinformation. We owe it to each other to do the right thing.

Here are a list of websites providing reliable information:

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?

October 17, 2019October 17, 2019

With $B at Stake, NBA Not Sure Freedom is Worth It

How much is freedom and free speech worth to you? You may never know until it costs you something. That’s what the National Basketball Association and star players are discovering in the wake of a tweet-storm that began with a statement by Houston Rockets general manager Daryl Morey in support of the Hong Kong protestors. Because of the nearly 300 million NBA fans, political statements about China come with a price-tag.

First a little background. Hong Kong was a British colony for 99 years and was returned to Mainland China in 1997. China, known for its record of authoritarian rule and suppression of human rights, has been criticized by much of the Western World for imprisonment of dissidents and persecution of religious and cultural minorities. The current protests in Hong Kong have been widely embraced by those around the world who want China to end its battle against human rights.

In response to the tweet from Morey, the NBA issued its own statement calling it “regrettable.” A few days later LeBron James said that Morey spoke too soon, that he “wasn’t educated on the situation.” What situation exactly James was referring to is unclear.

LaBron has a history of speaking out about social issues here in the USA. If he believes that human rights deserve world-wide respect, he owes it to his fans, and to the people of China, to stand for the protestors in Hong Kong. Yes, standing up for human rights and free speech does come at a cost…in this case the cost is more than lucrative contracts and endorsement deals.

According to an editorial in Slate,

The league has certainly not covered itself in glory in its handling of the blowback over the Morey tweet and, in the process, reminded fans across the U.S. that the NBA is, at its core, still a profit-seeking international organization serving multiple constituencies of which the most important one is money.
Elliot Hannon

LeBron was right about one thing…before you wade into politics on social media you need to consider the cost.

October 16, 2019October 16, 2019

Facebook Takes Down Political Ads…

..but not for reasons that you might suspect. According to an article in BuzzFeed, Facebook has taken down a slew of political ads from most of the leading Democratic candidates, and President Trump, for reasons that have some political observers shaking their collective heads.

The leading reason for taking down ads? Fake buttons. That’s right, building the appearance of an interactive button into your ad is grounds to have your ad “banned” by Facebook. And I have to say, as someone who has a personal vendetta against fake media player buttons (see below), this is a well deserved take-down.

Clicking on the Play button above doesn’t do anything (sorry to disappoint you) and if I were really sneaky I would have created a link to another website where I would have tried to sell you something.

But back to political ads…fake buttons is just the leading reason for being disqualified by Facebook. Other reasons include profanity, broken links (aka bad landing pages), and violating local disclosure rules.

The one thing that will not get your political ad banned from Facebook? Lying. That’s right, if your campaign makes a statement that doesn’t check out with reality…well, that’s left up to FB users to decide. So it’s on you to figure out who’s telling the truth. As they used to say in Ancient Rome, caveat emptor.

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