August 2017 – Media Matters

August 14, 2017August 14, 2017

The “many sides” of the Moral Equivalence Fallacy

When engaging in political debates it is quite common these days for one side to attempt to shut down an argument by arguing that the opposing view is creating a moral equivalence when one does not exist. It goes something like this: X is terrible, but Y is also terrible. So for you to support Y while criticizing X makes you a hypocrite and your critique of X invalid.

Need a practical example? The founder of PETA is well known for her statement shown below. Taken to it’s logical conclusion, a rat deserves just as much protection as a human child because they are morally equivalent.

Now consider a recent example. The widely-reported violence in Charlottesville this past weekend resulted when protestors and anti-protestors clashed in the streets. This was followed by President Trump saying,

“We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence, on many sides. On many sides.”

The phrase, “on many sides” drew harsh criticism for implying that the “hatred, bigotry and violence” was not limited to those protesting the removal of the Robert E. Lee statue. While extremists on the right (e.g. white supremacists) were met by extremists on the left (e.g. antifa), few would argue that there is a moral equivalence to their motives and tactics.

Here’s another example. The recent escalation of rhetoric between President Trump and North Korea led some reporters and pundits to criticize both Trump and Kim for heightening the risk of conflict. While both leaders’ statements have tended towards the bombastic, to suggest that North Korea and the USA are contributing equally to the rising tension in the region is making a false moral equivalence.

So what does this have to do with mass media? Journalists and reporters need to be constantly vigilant for faulty logic and tortured arguments made by newsmakers. To simply accept these comparisons without pushing back, or to introduce your own moral equivalences into a story, is a rookie mistake that can be avoided once you understand the logical fallacy called moral equivalence.

August 11, 2017August 12, 2017

Hacking, Leaking, and Weaponized Data

The press, and by that term I mean the media industries devoted to journalistic enterprise, love a good leak. Inside information not intended for public consumption that suddenly appears in a package tied with a pretty bow is a gift of great value and consequence.

Leakers come in every form imaginable, and do so for a wide variety of reasons: true whistleblowers looking out for some greater good, disgruntled employees who don’t like what they see happening behind closed doors, an injured party to a dastardly deed, or hackers looking to profit from rich corporations (e.g., the hack of HBO and threat to leak spoilers for upcoming episodes of Game of Thrones)…all find reasons to go the the press with their inside scoop.

It strikes at every level of nearly every organization or power structure. It is one of the power levelers—a way for those near the bottom to inflict damage on those near the top. Presidents, CEOs, celebrities, and clergy…all are susceptible to a well-timed leak.

Sometimes the leaker is passing along information that they came by honestly, and other times it may involve a breach of security protocol or even illegal hacking.

Recent leaks have been widely reported, including: the DNC emails hacked (or were they?) and released to Wikileaks last year, transcripts of President Trump’s phone calls to heads of state, Jared Kushner’s off-the-record meeting with congressional interns (see Wired magazine), FBI director Comey’s anonymous leak to the press, and the leak of an internal memo at Google that ignited a firestorm of controversy over sex discrimination in the tech industry (see more here and here). The last example also raised questions about when and where it is safe to speak out when speaking out may be controversial and politically incorrect.

In all of these cases the leakers were only part of the equation. The leakers need the assistance of a willing journalist and a willing publisher to distribute the information to the public. Journalistic history is filled with stories about investigative reports that broke because of leakers; perhaps the most infamous being Deep Throat of Watergate fame. But these symbiotic relationships are risky when the motives of leakers are unclear. Leakers may be seeking revenge, or may even leak information in an attempt to promote their own agenda. Sometimes those in positions of power use leaks through intermediaries in order to advance their own version of events. Without corroborating evidence, a leak is simply a rumor…or worse.

The legality of leaking to the press is complicated. Prosecution of illegal leaks that compromise national security is rare but does happen, e.g. Chelsey Manning’s conviction and sentence, which was later pardoned by President Obama. But more often than not the leaker and the news organization escape punishment. This inclination to protect journalists, and their sources, is part of our First Amendment tradition.

For more information about leaks and the media, see this page at the Newseum and listen to this podcast at On The Media.

August 3, 2017

Did They Really Say That?!

Soundbites have a way of coming back to bite us. Whether we’re a politician, celebrity, or just an average person, we sometimes wish we could take back something that slipped out in an unguarded moment. For those in the public spotlight, these “hot mic” moments have lasting repercussions. An errant comment caught on tape can have disastrous consequences.

For a top 10 list of “hot mic” moments, see Time magazine.

But new technology may make these moments seem, well, so 2010. Adobe is developing, and may soon release to the public, software that will bring the manipulative potential of Photoshop to the world of audio editing. We’ve grown accustom to questioning “Photoshopped” images, but now we’re going to have to question every soundbite as well. This applies to news-makers as well as consumers. When confronted with accusations about an inflammatory statement, public figures will now be able to cast doubt on any recorded evidence that casts them in a negative light. “You must have misunderstood me. I never said that, and here’s an audio soundbite” (that my staff just edited) “to prove that I never said it!”

The folks at RadioLab recently recorded an episode in which they explored the ethical implications of technology that allows not only for audio files to be manipulated, but video files as well. Combining the potential of audio editing with new video morphing software allows technicians to, literally, put words in the mouth of a target of interest. Here’s a video that demonstrates this new technology.

And here’s another demonstration video.

For those concerned about the future of news and the potential for manipulation of documentary evidence, this is a very frightening development.