Data Hacking Elections

Democracy Now has an interview with a Cambridge Analytica whistleblower and others about data hacking of elections on the lines of Cambridge Analytica and Facebook. The cost to democracy and even self autonomy is very high... we are all being manipulated by our information consumption in ways we cannot untangle. It's very much worth viewing.

https://www.democracynow.org/2020/1/7/the_great_hack_cambridge_analytica

Keith Ellison on Democracy Now!

Keith Ellison was interviewed on Democracy Now!

He doesn't frame the problem exactly as I do: concentration of power. But he does link concentration of financial resources to political power and that's rare for a politician. It's worth a viewing.

A bit from it:

These huge corporations that give executive compensation with no bearing, no connection at all, to the people who actually make the products on the ground. 

And this is hurting our economy. And it’s—and you asked where it all ends, Juan. You know what? It doesn’t end well, because what it means is that they use all that extra money to buy political influence in Washington, to try to influence people like me to give them even more benefits.

Biased journalism

Ben Norton at TRNN introduced a segment with Gideon Levy with the following: "Today I’m joined by the award-winning journalist Gideon Levy. Gideon is a columnist for the major Israeli newspaper Haaretz, and a member of its editorial board. We’re going to be discussing the protests that have been going on in Gaza for the past six weeks, the so-called “Great March of Return,” which have been very brutally repressed violently by the Israeli military. On Monday, May 14, at least 60 Palestinians were killed, and more than 2200 were injured in a brutal crackdown. That is in addition to the dozens more killed over the past six weeks and the thousands who have been injured."

My comment:

The host of this segment made a big mistake by labeling the Great March of Return the "so-called “Great March of Return”." 

Gazans were exercise the right to protest their repression by the Israeli government. They organized and gave their social operation a name. I do not know Israel's laws regarding free speech but if Israelis have freedom to speak, Israeli's violent response to the Great March of Return was a flagrant violation of the right of Gazans to speak out against their treatment. Labeling their name 'so-called' further denigrates and invalidates their attempt to speak out. Freedom to speak and the free press is under attack in many places of the world, including the U.S. with DJT's 'fake news' moniker. As one of the first countries to codify the right to speak freely into the Constitution, all Americans should respect the right of a people to self-identify, self-organize and freely associate for the purpose of expression. As a [so-called] journalist, the host of this segment should have, at minimum, done the same.

A discussion at TRNN asked if a universal basic income were Progressive or Regressive?

My comment:

"What do you think of this basic income, and is it progressive or is it a regressive tool?" 

Her answer already says it's the wrong question. The right question: does basic income change the balance of power in that a few people become more powerful? The answer is yes; the people charged with the power to collect and distribute these monies become more powerful. Further concentrating power is dangerous because those in control will never give up power and eventually power corrupts their original good intentions... just look at the U.S.... many social problems intended to assist/benefit the needy/low income are under constant assault by politicians of both major parties. Instead of creating (political) solutions to inequality (collect and redistribute money), change the system so capital is distributed more equally in the first place. 

"...the idea is that, if the minimum wage were eliminated, then hiring workers would be less expensive and firms would be more likely to hire them, as opposed to investing in labor-saving technology." 

Robots do not eat food, buy shelter nor wear clothing. No-income people cannot eat food, buy shelter nor wear clothing. How do robots which don't earn money and people without money build a functioning economy which requires movement of money? Mass automation will create a class of people without access to traditional money who survive through an underground economy, likely with a lot of bartering... the implosion of capitalism.

This is a huge error in reasoning on part of the interviewer!

What makes for good journalism...

I just listened to a story on NPR by Ofeibea Quist-Arcton about The Boko Haram 'Brides' and it struck me the stigma these girls face on returning to their families and homes might be shared by the journalists and translators reporting their stories, after all, like all people, journalists are the products of their environments... so...

(1) do foreign reporters bring a useful outsider perspective to reporting?
(2) do local/native reporters bring better insight?
(3) what biases are brought by each group of reporters and (a) how to minimize its effect on reporting and (b) would it help to inform the audience of reporters' biases?
(4) similar issues of editorial bias...

BTW, I am not accusing Ofeibea Quist-Arcton of bias. I know I consume information with my own bias and wondered how bias in journalism can be managed to best serve news consumers.

Truthout has disabled comments

It's sad but apparently they couldn't moderate quickly enough to maintain civil exchanges.

Need transparent elections

My comment a C&L post decrying legitimacy of elected officials in light of their lack of transparency:

The intent of the first amendment's free speech right is the freedom to speak truth to power without threat of imprisonment. In a democracy, power lies in the voters, so speech directed at voters (press) is free of government intervention. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has allowed media to lie in supposed news programs. The damage to media credibility is amplified by accusations of liberal bias and fake news. We now have a President whose every word has questionable veracity.

For years I have said the greatest reform to our political and economic system can only come about through a massive increase in transparency. Markets aren't free because consumers don't buy with full knowledge of the products (pollution controls, worker's rights/safety, etc). Citizen's aren't free because voters don't vote with full knowledge of candidates (candidates lie, financial support, etc).

Great post.

Sign of fear

The New York Times published an op-ed by Mark Penn and Andrew Stein arguing that Democrats need to shift to the center if they want to win elections. At TRNN, Nina Turner says Democrats lost because they've lost touch with their voters. My thoughts (comment at TRNN link):

As I see it, the Penn & Stein op-ed in the NYT was a pre-emptive attempt to frame the debate. In other words, the only news worthy of print ("All the News That's Fit to Print") is defined by the tiny ideological differences between Republicans and establishment Democrats. All other ideas and positions are 'extremist' views and unworthy of print. An excellent example of this bias was the way the NYT covered Bernie's campaign - by not covering it, they deemed his positions and policies 'not fit to print'. The galvanized resistance to the GOP healthcare plan and growing calls for single payer probably has the establishment quaking in their boots.

Political consequences of ignorance

TRNN spoke with Robert English about the FBI leaking the Comey Memo, the one where he recounts DJT asking him to drop the Flynn investigation. I left a comment:

"let's not fall off the cliff here over Trump sharing some intel about terror attacks with the Russians..." 

After watching this *twice* over two days so this would not be a knee jerk response, I am not reacting to Trump's idiocy; that speaks for itself. I am very angry at my own ignorance of many of the events/actions described. This reflects a major failing of the American news media which I have consumed for decades and major efforts of the American state to keep its citizens ignorant of its actions. We are fed small simple good-guy/bad-guy stories by the media. Our ignorance is constantly manipulated by the state and media; we've become sheep in the face of propaganda. I'm angry and sad and I want *much* *much* more transparency.

When we are constantly lied to by the state and media, we get sham political parties with similar candidates from mock elections. The front people change but the power never changes hands; it's always the powerful elite who call the shots.

Update: It's getting worse, the rollback of net neutrality will further impede transparency.

Culture of Harassment

NPR review Hulu's adaptation of Margaret Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale ends with this:

In a country where sexual harassment scandals regularly land on the front page, the patriarchy of The Handmaid's Tale doesn't feel so far-fetched, which is the most horrific thing about it.

In light of the ousting of Bill O'Reilly from Fox News over sexual harassment, Alisyn Camerota of CNN recently talked about the harassment culture at Fox News. So three questions:

- Do news women have any responsibility to expose the news that they are subject to sexual harassment?

- Some these women at Fox News - Megan Kelly, Gretchen Carlson, Alisyn Camerota - were at the top of their careers at the time. Yet they did not feel they could safely challenge the harassment culture of Fox News. What about that culture made it so irresistible? 

- If women who are at or near the top of the power structure like the Fox News women can't challenge/expose sexual harassment, what tools do women with less power have to counter/defend from harassment?

Sexual harassment is also a mechanism of economic division - the divide and conquer strategy by demeaning women to a lesser status. United we stand, divided we fall.

Press failure

Comment at Crooks and Liars with video clip of Sean Spicer 'gaslighting' the press:

I blame the press for the sad state of affairs. Right wing news grew, profited and flourished under the failure of the mainstream press to contain their lies and doublespeak through benign neglect. Now we have a press secretary whose starting premise is a half truth which he follows with a ninety degree pivot to a full lie which rotates in a different direction to increase the base of the lie then he turns back around to accuse the press of misdirecting/misleading. Even a partial description of the spin is dizzying. 

I'm tired of DJT and company telling me what 'the real story is' and what's important. I want the truth.

What is Journalism?

My comment at a piece Lewis Wallace wrote called Objectivity is dead, and I’m okay with it:

In no particular order: 

    1.    Textbooks are carefully vetted for their content. In recent years, there have been any number of partisan battles to rewrite a historical bent but these seldom occur in backrooms. This means what schoolchildren learn has undergone some degree of scrutiny. The information available to adults by way of media does not undergo an equivalent degree of scrutiny for accuracy; in fact, it is legal for media to outright lie. This placed the burden of critical evaluation on consumers who more often than not, do not have the wherewithal to carry out that responsibility. ‘You decide’ is by definition, not journalism. I am not knowledgeable of most topics, I need knowledgeable journalists to accurately *and* pointedly highlight lies, mis-directions and distortions. 

    2.    Today’s news in tomorrow’s historical record. Consider how little we know about the past (very little is known about lives of slaves, women and poor) because only white male voices were recorded, often silenced by deliberately and maliciously enforced illiteracy. There’s is no excuse or justification for that in this day and age of near universal literacy and vast mechanisms of information dissemination. 

    3.    Some examples of false binaries that the media promulgates by never deviating beyond their boundaries: (a.) Political ideology is not fully covered by the Democratic Party’s definition of ‘liberal’ and the Republican Party’s definition of ‘conservative’. Alternate models of organizing health insurance (user pays vs single payer) or childcare (private vs. state subsidized) or criminal justice (reform/punitive) for example. (b.) Social gender is not biologically defined by sex; neither is biological sex always clear cut. All issues related to sexual identity and sexuality. (c.) Socialism is always public and capitalism is always private. Private insurance providers run by socialist principles; publicly owned utilities operate much like capitalist corporations. 

    4.     What it means to be ‘objective’ or ‘neutrality’, journalistically speaking? (a.) to not insert any voice outside of the news item — journalism by stenography or “ ‘you decide’ journalism”; (b.) insert ‘opposite’ voice of news item — journalism as sports commentary; (c.) insert corrections of specifically mentioned lies; (d.) insert relevant factual context — for example, “…the millions of dollars mentioned by the Senator lost to fraud accounts for less than 1% of the overall program.”; (e) insert long term context — future cost/savings; past injustices. 

Your essay was couched primarily in terms of journalistic integrity; it’s critical to also include the responsibility journalism has to public and social integrity.

He was fired for posting his piece. I hope things work out well for him. We need journalists of his caliber.

Nation or people

There's a post at DailyKos titled 'New Poll Reveals The Eight CRAZIEST Things Trump Voters Actually Believe'. It would appear that non-Trump voters, presumably Democrats, are less stupid/crazy... except the numbers don't reflect all that well of non-Trump voters, presumably Democrats.

If anything, this further reveals a failure of the U.S. Constitution. The ignorance reflected in these poll results is a measure of the lack of a free press. The failure of Congress to confirm Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court is the failure of the Constitutional power/duty of the sitting President to nominate Supreme Court justices. The Constitution is a 'living document', capable of revision, modification and change in order to strive for 'to form a more perfect Union'. Yet for all this built in flexibility, it has not been sufficient to correct a major representation imbalance in the presidential election system because not all votes for president carry the same weight.

Democrats needn't be smug over their seeming superiority over Republicans when little divides them in terms of their actions.

The U.S. Constitution essentially defines the nation of the United States of America. A major cause of its failures can be attributed to the elite advancing nationalistic themes to gain more power, economic and otherwise. It's high time to carefully consider the priorities of the larger population of any nation... is it the responsibility of citizens to support (pay for and populate) a country or is it the responsibility of a nation to support the wellbeing of its citizens? Bear the difference in mind after DJT becomes president; he will likely define 'what is profitable for DJT' as 'good for America'.

Swedish injustice

I jut read an article about the years long persecution of Julian Assange by the U.S. by way of Sweden. It seems Swedish prosecutor Marianne Ny has been abusing the law to her (and her handlers) end. If the law requires everyone to be treated fairly and impartially, isn't she violating the law and her rules of professional conduct in this campaign? The high ups in Sweden should seriously consider impeaching and disbarring their prosecutor for judicial misconduct.

News triggers

There have been studies documenting differences between liberals and conservatives. And studies have shown a relationship between news source and understanding of current events. Now there's even a documentary 'case study' of the relationship between news consumption and political ideology.

I'm curious if anyone has ever looked to see what emotions are triggered by news source. Do partisan news media deliberately use emotional triggers to skew consumers to their ideology? If so, what emotions? Do liberals and conservatives fear the same issues depending on their source of news? This really goes to the question of the fine line between news/information and propaganda.

‘You Decide’… pure claptrap

One sure sign of dishonest or lazy journalism is the tag of ‘you decide.’

In most research professions, the job of the researcher is to find or discover facts and construct a story or narrative around those facts. A journalist functions in reverse. They are given a story and their job is to collect connected stories, identify the facts and then verify those facts. The credibility of their final report (written or otherwise) depends on proper validation or refutation of the facts of the original story. It is human nature to collate facts (any string of facts) into a narrative… this is how humans make sense of the world. When a journalist presents a list of ‘facts’ and instructs their audience to ‘decide for themselves’, they  nudging their audience to reach a certain conclusion by the facts given. This is not journalism and anyone who takes this road should be barred from the practice of journalism.

Let me set this up as a set of contrasts...

A lawyer…

… is given a set of facts: (1) house has been burgled; (2) no forced entry; (3) some stolen items found in local pawn shop; (4) nephew of homeowner who has been unemployed for some months, is spotted with a new motorcycle

In court, the prosecutor’s job would be to take these facts and stitch together to tell a compelling story that a jury would believe (nephew burgled house and pawned items to buy motorcycle). The job of the defense attorney would to cast doubt (ideally, disprove) on some of the facts so the story doesn’t work or persuade the jury with a better story to fit the facts (nephew can’t get in house; nephew has never been to pawnshop; nephew’s motorcycle is gift from wealthy parents/girlfriend…).

***

A biographer (similar for historians, anthropologists, social scientists…)...

…starts with some readily available facts: (1) person born __year, __day, __county; (2) grew up in affluent part of town; (3) died a highly regarded statesman…

…and searches available resources (diaries, school records, newspaper articles, interviews…) for additional information ...

… (1) always unkempt as a child; (2) no father of record and mother never married; (3) mother employed by owner of house they lived in…

These biographical facts along with additional historical context (a) limited public education available at that period; (b) unwed mothers were looked down on...

… would be used construct a narrative of the life and times of this person. They would use the facts and historical context to make a compelling story about this person (An illegitimate child of wealthy man who had him privately educated…).

Should additional facts emerge or current events call for reflection, the prevailing narrative about individual and events can change. An example would be Socrates, a founder of western philosophy, who was seen, in his time, as a criminal and executed by the state. And in modern times, contrast the approval ratings of Jimmy Carter just after losing the 1980 presidential election to Ronald Reagan to that of today.

***

Charles Darwin (a natural scientist)…

…collected a series of facts (by observation): (1) small birds collected on a particular Galápagos Island were all the related; (2) they had highly variable beak morphology; (3) beak morphology correlated with foraging behavior (see here and links within)…

… and developed his Theory of Evolution by natural selection.

And facts discovered by scientists in many fields (biology, geology, paleontology, etc.): (1) age of earth; (2) transitional fossils; (3) genetic inheritance…

…have all served to confirm evolution by natural selection.


***

All people...

…when given a set of facts...

-baby gets vaccinated; baby diagnosed with autism

-many people hospitalized with acute flu-like symptoms had direct contact with domestic chickens

…readily draw a narrative…

-vaccines cause autism (false; there is no evidence of this)

-chickens are infecting humans with something (true; multiple outbreaks of bird flu in Asia)

Such narratives (or stories) is how humans understand our world and direct the way we relate to those around us.

***

To bring this back to the role of a journalist…

The information gleaned by journalists is more often than not, already in the form of a story. Their job is to identify and verify the facts and report on the accuracy of the narrative(s) provided by their sources (see here). It is human nature to construct a narrative when given a series of facts, a narrative which can easily distort the truth by careful pre-selection or distortion of the facts. When a journalist writes a piece, supposedly presenting all the facts as provided by their sources and tells their readers ‘you decide,’ they completely abrogate their role as responsible journalist. Audiences do not have the tools (sources, references, time) at their disposal to critically evaluate the validity of news reports they consume. When reporters do not, they do no more than hold a megaphone up to the mouths of ’newsmakers’.