Media Matters – Page 6 – Mass Communication, [multi]media, methodology and much, much more!

October 2, 2019October 2, 2019

Concern over Movie is no Joker

According to the MPAA movie-ratings site, Joker is “rated R for strong bloody violence, disturbing behavior, language and brief sexual images.” Scheduled to open in theaters this Friday (Oct 4th), Joker is not an appropriate film for youngsters who may be fans of the Batman franchise.

“Starring Joaquin Phoenix and directed by Todd Phillips, the movie has already been deemed dangerous by its vocal critics, akin to an incel training manual. To some of the movie’s fans, those critical reviews and negative reactions are just another example of social justice warrior overreach. “
Vox

Concerns over dangerous media content have a long history going all the way back to the ancient Greek philosopher Plato who warned about the dangers of writing. Plato was concerned that writing would be a substitute for memory and over time result in forgetfulness. Centuries later, photography was seen as facilitating the sin of idolatry. Motion pictures (film) introduced young audiences to all sorts of vices including lust and violence. Comic books, radio, TV, internet and video games have all suffered the same accusations of endangering young hearts and minds.

But just because we’ve come to dismiss the dangers and fears associated with each new technology does not mean that we should dismiss real threats when they arise. Bullying on social media, addiction to video game play or pornography, and racism and misogyny promoted in anonymous chat rooms and forums: each of these are real threats to physical and mental health and, one can argue, a threat to community.

Based on the trailers for Joker some are questioning whether the film gives too much attention (and cover) to “disaffected white men” whose alienation leads them to act out to get attention. The following tweets capture this sentiment.

In response to criticism the Warner Bros. studio offered this statement.
“Warner Bros. believes that one of the functions of storytelling is to provoke difficult conversations around complex issues. Make no mistake: neither the fictional character Joker, nor the film, is an endorsement of real-world violence of any kind. It is not the intention of the film, the filmmakers or the studio to hold this character up as a hero.”

Not being a big fan of superhero movies–and not one to enjoy gore and extreme violence–I’ll likely sit this one out. But if you see it I’ll be interested to hear what you think. Is it a dangerous film, or are the critics who are passing judgement a greater danger to our collective well-being?

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 19, 2019September 19, 2019

Cokie Roberts Will be Missed

Longtime NPR and ABC News reporter and correspondent Cokie Roberts died last week and her presence will be sorely missed by those who believe in journalism. A woman who rose to prominence in a male-dominated industry, Roberts was an advocate for journalists at large, and for female journalists when their numbers were few.

According to NPR, “Roberts won numerous awards during her long career in journalism, including three Emmys and the Edward R. Murrow award. She was inducted into the Broadcasting and Cable Hall of Fame. She was recognized by the American Women in Radio and Television as one of the 50 greatest women in the history of broadcasting.”

Her advice to young journalists still rings true today…”Don’t get all involved in the politics of your institution, or competition in your institution. Just do your work and get it on the air, and then people will see if you’re good,” she said.

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 21, 2019August 21, 2019

If You Build it They Will Come

If you build the most powerful propaganda platform in the history of communication and make it available for free to a global audience, don’t be surprise when anyone and everyone shows up to use (and abuse) your platform. That’s what social media giants Facebook, Twitter and Google are discovering as yet another attempt to manipulate users has been revealed.

According to recent reports, Twitter said it will no longer accept advertising from from “state-controlled news media entities” after it was discovered that China was attempting to use Twitter and Facebook to engage in orchestrated misinformation around the ongoing protests in Hong Kong. This comes on the heels of repeated reports of Russian use of social media to influence political campaigns and elections in the USA and elsewhere.

The question now is whether these huge tech companies can put the genie back in the bottle. Or will regulation, new AI technology, or some other solution have to appear before we can feel confident that freedom and democracy are safe from the actions of nefarious state actors?

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.

July 7, 2019July 7, 2019

Mad Magazine Pulls the Plug

After 67 years of publication, Mad Magazine is calling it quits. With their gap-toothed spokesperson Alfred E. Neuman (and his tagline, “What, Me Worry?”) the satirical magazine poked fun at everyone and everything that tried to be respectable. With a combination of teenage irreverence and silliness, the writers and editors used humor to address topics with serious political implications.

Launched as a comic book before becoming a magazine, Mad hit its peak circulation in the mid ’70s. As a teenager during that time period I remember the magazine well…although I was not allowed to have copies in the house. The contents of the magazine pushed the limits of what was, according to my parents, acceptable for young men. And as you can imagine, that made the idea of reading it all the more attractive.

Besides the news of their decision to end regular publication, the magazine has been getting attention for the uncanny likeness some see between Alfred E. Neuman and Democratic Presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg. I’ll leave that one for your to decide.

June 18, 2019June 18, 2019

Content Moderation and Shadow Banning

If you’ve spent any time on social media you’ve no doubt seen and heard things that were offensive and, quite possibly, even dangerous. Assuming you live in the USA, you also know that the “constitutional” right to Free Speech is a well-established right that goes to the heart of who we are and what we value. The challenge then is to know the fine line between constitutionally protected speech, and speech that is so harmful or dangerous as to pose a credible threat to actual life or property.

Social media platforms know that they do not have an obligation to grant users their “constitutional” rights. While their very size and oligopolistic nature give us cause for concern, they are not the government* and users are free to pick and choose which platforms and services they want to use. Those platforms are, likewise, allowed to make policies that allow certain types of speech and disallow others. Users who fail to abide by those policies can be warned, suspended, or banned.

So what to do about reports that platforms like Facebook, Youtube, Twitter, and even Pinterest are banning or demonetizing users who have come to reply on these platforms for their livelihood? In extreme cases such as death threats, doxing, and online bullying/harassment, the actions taken by these social media platforms appear to be justified. But what about provocative posts that deploy humor or satire to make a political statement? And what about users who fail to adhere to a standard that is difficult (some say impossible) to understand because it is so subjective?

According to a recent essay by Will Oremus,

The underlying problem of our platforms is not that they’re too conservative or too liberal, too dogmatic or too malleable. It’s that giant, for-profit tech companies, as currently constructed, are simply not suited to the task of deciding unilaterally what speech is acceptable and what isn’t.

On top of this is the fact that these are global platforms struggling to satisfy laws and regulations in an extremely wide range of contexts. Political, cultural, religious, ethnic and racial differences make it nearly impossible to avoid offending some segment of a potential audience that could reach into the billions. And too often it is the loudest voices, regardless of the strength of their argument, that get the most attention.

Again, according to Oremus…

In a good legal system, decisions may be controversial, but at least the rationale is clearly laid out, and there’s a body of case law to serve as context. But when Facebook decides to de-amplify a doctored video of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, or YouTube opts to demonetize Steven Crowder’s channel, there’s no way to check whether those decisions are consistent with the way they’ve interpreted their rules in the past, and there’s no clear, codified way to appeal those decisions.

So, if you’re easily offended by either gritty content or over-aggressive thought policing…or if you’re counting on a social media platform to help you build an audience and then treat you fairly when you want to push the envelope, remember…you get what you pay for.

*For more about the distinction between government and private industry and the legality of regulating speech, see this article by Reuters.

June 14, 2019June 14, 2019

Deep Fakes and Other Threats

You’ve probably heard the term “deep fake” in recent months and perhaps you’ve seen a video of a famous politician or celebrity “saying” things that they didn’t actually say.

This video report from CBS about deep fakes includes a House Intelligence Committee meeting this week in which the chair shows a clip of a reporter from Bloomberg “faking” his mom with a computer simulated voice designed to mimic his own. Other clips show AI programs manipulating videos of world leaders having them say things that they didn’t really say.

Deep fakes are not new, but they’re getting better…and therein lies the rub. As the technology improves, our trust and confidence in what we’re hearing and seeing begins to erode. Sometimes the threat doesn’t require that millions of Americans believe a lie, but just that they don’t believe anything.