Crowd-sourcing Political Persuasion in Social Media

Update: Although this post was written a while back, people are still finding it and reading it. I have updated it here and there to reflect the post-Trump realities.

Right after the 2016 US election, we heard a lot about the "echo chamber" that saw a lot of people talking about issues in social media, but mostly to people of similar beliefs.

Why did neither side have much success persuading people of conflicting beliefs and what should we do differently for the futute?

Why I Voted Against Trump in 2020

Note: I wrote this in October 2020, well before the January 6, 2021 riot and so-called insurrection in the US Capitol building. Trump's role in that fiasco is not reflected in my analysis.
     -----
I have returned my completed absentee ballots for the 2020 elections and I did not vote to reelect the president.

Conservatives like to characterize opposition to the president as "they hate Trump."

The truth is that people who are committed to voting against reelection have generally made well-thought-through decisions based on solid moral and ethical frameworks.  In addition, they're tired of the chaos, bluster, and incompetence.

For the record, I am not a member of any political party and have not been for 40+ years. I, however, have a well-developed framework of what I expect from a politician in terms of critical thinking, ethics, and public policy. My years in journalism led me to decide what I think about politicians in complex terms, judging their ethics, their words, their actions, and their behavior holistically. 

So, according to my evaluation, here are the fundamental reasons I voted against Trump.

1. Policy - I disagree with virtually every major policy position of the Trump Administration.

• Rejection of evidence-based decisionmaking and well-established science in favor of wishful thinking or profit motive
• Woefully mismanaging the US coronavirus response 
• Out-of-control spending and skyrocketing deficit
• Diverting Congressionally-allocated money to unrelated pet projects
• Unprecedented interference with private businesses that goes way beyond OSHA, FTC and FDA norms
• Withdrawing from the world climate agreement and WHO for petty reasons
• Fostering fear and intimidation among legitimate refugees, a massive violation of Christian teaching
• Trying to scale back the social safety net, as if the poor were not worthy of receiving help
• Abandoning allies and tacitly supporting enemies of the US, in violation of all recommendations from the military and intelligence agencies
• Encroaching on national parks and other anti-environmental decisions, in most cases to boost profits of corporate campaign contributors
• Regressive attitudes about health care policy, as if the poor were not worthy of receiving health care
• Interfering with military justice processes 
• Pardoning friends who are convicted of serious crimes
• Politicization of federal agencies that are not supposed to be political, particularly the Justice Department
• The high-pressure rush to seat a new supreme court justice less than a month before the election, so that the justice can vote on cases he brings before the court
• Even going to the Moon and Mars, which I like, is being forced at such a break-neck pace that safety may be compromised 

2. Management practices - No management class teaches doing things anywhere near the way Trump does, much less the prestigious Wharton School of Business at the University of Pennsylvania where he has a bachelor's degree (but no evidence of the MBA he claims)

• Continued bungling of COVID-19 crisis communication
• Appointing key people who have no relevant experience, or who were lobbyists for the industry they are now supposed to regulate 
• Reliance on unqualified ACTING leadership in important positions to avoid the Congressional confirmation process; never nominating permanent replacements
• Failure to give clear policy directives to subordinate agencies so that they misunderstand or are not properly prepared for implementation (this started almost from day one with his travel ban)
• Undercutting coordinated policy he previously approved
• Firing people by public tweet
• Non-disclosure agreements for public employees
• Failure to comply with legitimate subpoenas (which even Nixon did)

3. Morality and Ethics - We cannot tell what ethics are in the president's heart, but we can evaluate his morality (judgment of right and wrong) based on his public behavior.

• Suppressing vital information that has led to over 200,000 COVID-19 deaths
• Constant threats, bullying, intimidation, name-calling, insults, and general lack of civility
• Amplifying debunked conspiracy theories
• Constant false claims and superlatives that fail fact-checking
• Frequent appeals to racism; encouraging hate against minority groups
• General lack of respect toward anybody outside his inner circle
• Using HLS (or other unidentified federal personnel) as a secret police force
• Vindictive reprisals against political opponents
• Profiting from his government position 
• Intentional Hatch Act violations 
• Anti-democratic, authoritarian tendencies (compromise is the moral foundation of democracy, not strong-man tactics)
• Ordering violent assaults on peaceful protestors
• Misunderstanding or deliberately disregarding the law and Constitution
• Consuming focus on self-aggrandizement
• Highest criminal indictment rate of political appointees in a century
• His personal tax returns show huge ethical problems and national security vulnerabilities

4. Aptitude - Certainly, Trump came into office with no experience, but he hasn't gotten any better while in office.  The "give him a chance" argument didn't result in improvement.

• Lack of insightful leadership on critical issues like pandemic relief and climate change
• Little evidence of critical thinking and an apparent lack of ability to comprehend complex issues
• Mercurial, unstable temperament 
• Inability to stay on topic
• Inability to articulate his ideas and policies clearly when "live" on camera
• Inability to admit error
• Inability to be "presidential" i.e. injecting inappropriate partisanism in situations that should be nonpartisan
• Reliance on right-wing pundits for policy guidance
• Wasting hours each day on "rage tweeting"
• Almost daily conduct unbecoming a president

To be honest, I saw these things coming and did not vote for Trump the first time.  He has given me no reason to change my mind, and in fact, revalidates my original 2016 decision almost daily.

Is the news media liberal? Yes, but not the way you think.

We've heard accusations for years about the alleged bias of the "liberal news media." Professional journalists are trained to keep their own opinions out of their work, but in the broader (non-political) context of "liberal," having a liberal news media is good for everybody. 

Read to find out why.

Does The Wall really make sense?

As a college teacher, I avoid expressing political opinions in class.....but the new semester has not yet started yet, so, here are my comments on the proposed border wall, which is the consuming sticking point on the federal government shutdown.

1.  Big/long walls are not effective.  The full extent of the Berlin Wall required watch towers and guards, and people still got across.  The Great Wall of China (I've been there) is really a series of watch towers and an elevated road connecting them, not a barrier.  A good extension ladder would get people over The Great Wall pretty easily. 

2.  A border wall would require intensive guarding.  It would cost billions annually  for cameras, drones, aircraft, and ground patrols along nearly 2,000 miles of fence.  It would require hundreds of not thousands of guards.

3.  In spite of that, people WILL find a way over, under, around, or through the wall, when guards happen to NOT be looking. Humans are ingenious, particularly when their lives are in danger.  

4. The real cost of The Wall would be $30+ Billion, which that does not include the huge ongoing personal and programmatic costs mentioned in #2 above.  

5.  The wall would require condemnation of private property and destruction of wildlife sanctuaries.  In Texas, at least, one-third of the land needed for the border wall is owned by the federal government or Native American tribes. The rest is owned by states and private property owners, some of it owned before statehood. 

6.  The proposed wall would violate Christian teaching and whether or not you are Christian, it is hard to defend in terms of ethics and morality, particularly since the focus of stopping people is refugees seeking asylum because their lives are threatened back home.  

7. Drugs do not come in via refugees seeking asylum, but rather come hidden in luggage through legal checkpoints, or tunnels, drone flights, etc.  Any drug argument related to advocating for the wall is specious. 

8.  Illegal immigration has been down every year since 2007. I don't like the family separations and internment camps of the Trump administration, but what we have been doing for the last decade is working. 

9.  Most "illegal immigrants" have been in this country for more than a decade, such as overstaying their visas. A high percentage of them have children who are citizens by birthright.

10.  I am sorry, buy I do not trust the president to make wise decisions.  His constant logical fallacies, outright lies, and the way his actions reveal his morality have left me feeling that virtually everything he does lacks any semblance of critical thinking. So I am suspicious of his rationale. 

The conservative Cato Institute says, “President Trump’s wall would be a mammoth expenditure that would have little impact on illegal immigration.”

For the president and the current GOP, the Wall is a symbol of fear that would cost a huge amount of money and would not be effective, because it is not based on evidence or a solid plan.

The better solution is comprehensive and realistic immigration reform, period.

Judging Ethics and Morality based on Behavior

All of the news about separating children from their parents keeps bringing me back to questions of ethics and morality, and the ACTIONS of the current administration, which many are judging to be immoral.

Behavior stems from ethical principles and moral judgments about right and wrong.  Thus we can evaluate a person's (or government's) ethics and morality by observing their behavior and actions.

I teach ethics in most of my media classes, so here are some definitions:  Ethics are general principles, morality is the ethical judgment of good and bad, and values are actions based on ethics and morality.

I don't like being partisan. I am registered without any party affiliation and I have said for years that I base my election choices on my perception of the ability of the candidate to perform critical thinking, as well as stance on specific issues of importance to me. Critical thinking, applied to ethical principles, is where morality and behaviors come from.

The morality of separating children from their parents is not defensible, particularly since they apparently have no plan for how to reunite the parents and children.  Adults who have been released still can't find out where their kids are.

The attempts at rationalization do not hold up and are often logical fallacies:

• "They broke the law."  Sorry, but many of them did not, because they stopped at the border and requested asylum. And even if they did, first-time violations are no more than misdemeanors. Separating children from parents in a way that they may not be able to find each other again is cruel and unusual punishment, particularly when it is done before conviction. Even felony convicts can have family visitation.
• "Obama (or somebody else) did it too."  Sorry, but alleged past infractions are irrelevant to current unethical behavior. Morality must stand on its own, not through "whatabout" logical fallacies about the past. 
• "The Democrats made me do it." Sorry, but the Trump administration's policy changed in April 2-18, through a directive from the Republican administration.  Nobody MADE them do anything. You have to take personal responsibility for your actions.
• "The Bible made me do it."  Sorry, but narrow out-of-context Bible verses, particularly verses that have been used to justify immoral actions in the past, cannot be a basis for ethical policy today. Holistic reading of the Bible makes clear that you do not mistreat foreigners or children.
• "We need the WALL, wah, wah, wah..." Sorry, but this is a policy question that is unrelated to tearing families apart. Republicans have not been motivated to pass funding for The Wall, so the Trump administration tried blackmail (although the GOP is trying). 

The list of rationalizations and logical fallacies goes on and on, but the point is that immoral behavior cannot be lessened by weasel words. Actions tell the tale about ethics and morality.  We judge a person's (or government's) ethics by ethical or unethical actions.

This is exactly why we need organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).   We need organizations that are willing to TEST the morality of the "groupthink" that can lead policymakers astray. The causes ACLU champions are often not popular, but the way to push back against immoral governmental behavior is to challenge it in the courts, and that's what ACLU does well.

By the way, I wonder if it has occurred to Trump supporters that if they LIKE the separation policy as a deterrent, they should be thanking Democrats, who they feel are responsible for the wording of the law.

So, if you, or politicians you support, make immoral decisions, and act accordingly, don't be surprised if YOUR ethics and morality are found to be lacking.

Trump: Masterful Control of the Narrative

More than ever before, political operatives struggle to influence what people talk about, and thus influence what they believe.  More than ever, it's done by making assertions that are, at face value, false.

Why do they do this and how does it work?

Many years ago, I watched an election campaign in which a member of Congress was seeking reelection.  His opponent had been active in local causes but was not well-known statewide.  The incumbent's campaign staff thoroughly researched the opponent for past public statements, such as letters to the editor.  For the last 45 days of the campaign, the incumbent blasted the challenger about every three days for some past public comment. The result was that the opponent was always defending himself, and never got to go on the offensive.  He lost the election in no small part because what people believed about him was defined by his opponent, not himself.

In all manner of public relations, practitioners want to maximize the positive and minimize the negative.  That's why negative news is often released after 3 pm on Fridays - because fewer people will see it Friday evening and Saturday, so any reaction will be smaller, and less intense.

Years ago, when Donald Trump became a celebrity, he learned that when he said outrageous things, they would be reported by journalists. He learned about the news cycle, in which his statements would be reported for a day or so, and then any reaction would be reported over another day or so. He learned to influence what the media talked about.

When he became a political candidate, reporters were guaranteed to report what he said in campaign rallies/interviews, particularly when it was something other than a standard stump speech.  It was the same pattern - inflammatory statements reported for a day or so, and reaction for another day or so, always repeating the original claim and thus validating it.

And on top of that, the more inflammatory the Trump statement, the more it, and reaction to it, would dominate the news for a couple of days, often marginalizing other stories having less controversial content.

Lesley Stahl's report that Trump has admitted attacking the news media so that negative stories about him won't be believed is just another way of using the news cycle to control the narrative.  It's not really a new tactic.  Vice President Spiro Agnew was famous for attacking the press (before pleading guilty to tax evasion, resigning from office, and serving felony probation).

Singling out of people and media employees for personal attacks uses the ad hominem logical fallacy, and while all of our teachers tell us that we should avoid logical fallacies, they can be highly effective in persuasion, because most people do not detect that the logic is flawed.

So here is the pattern:

1. A claim is made, with either no evidence or faulty evidence, but is reported by many media outlets because of who said it.
2. Other people react, repeating the original assertion, denying it or supporting the assertion, so the original claim is reinforced from many directions, creating doubt about the truth in the minds of the public.
3. When there has been enough talk, allies then say "we need a formal investigation into whether this is true."
4. The investigation repeats the claim endlessly, making it seem more and more plausible, or disappears into the background static of the news, and gets little attention when conclusions are finally released (if ever), because they are not as inflammatory as the original claim, thus leaving the original claim as the strongest thing most people remember. 

You can criticize this strategy of controlling the media.  You can make an excellent case that the use of falsehoods and exaggeration makes it unethical (along with a lot of other things in politics).

BUT...

It is a sly, crafty, and highly strategic way of manipulating the media and controlling the narrative, making sophisticated use of the fundamental ways in which journalists work, public psychology, and ways in which people consume news content.

Lost in Space; Lost in Science

The new Lost in Space from Netflix is an ambitious project with likable characters, but the show runners could have benefited considerably from a science adviser.

There are a few minor spoilers below about situations, but not about the characters or story line details (unless they have already been shown in trailers).

As in the original 1960s Lost in Space, the Robinson family is on a colonizing expedition to Alpha Centauri.  This time, the Jupiter 2 is a landing craft from a larger vessel, which ends up in the wrong place and runs into trouble, requiring evacuation.

The production, based in Vancouver, uses beautiful locations and elaborate sets to produce an authentic feel.  The characters are generally likable, although they have different and more complex family relationships than in the original Lost in Space.

At face value, it is an enjoyable season with nuanced characters, a complex villain, and good action sequences, partnered with thoughtful character development.

But time and again, I was taken out of the story by having to say "that's not right" or "it doesn't work that way" about things related to science.


Ice doesn't freeze that way

Early in the series, we see a lake freeze solid in an instant, causing problems for the characters.  But water freezes at the surface first.  Yes, the script established that it was really cold, but there is liquid water under the ice on the moons of Jupiter and Saturn, not to mention probably at Pluto, which has been very cold for a long, long time.  Ice freezes by forming a thin crust of ice, which slowly gets thicker and thicker.

There are other scenes (hinted at in the trailers) in which the Jupiter 2 is also stuck in ice, and the way the ice works in those scenes doesn't seem right, either.


Forests and critters don't grow that way

Like in the original Lost in Space, the planet the Robinsons are on is in a funny orbit that will cause it to get VERY hot and pretty much kill all life.  At one point, a character notes that the trees only have one growth ring.

The life clearly has ways to recover, but the series was shot in a typical BRitish Columbia forest, with tree trunks several inches in diameter.  You are telling me that the trees get that big in one growing season?

Plus we see several indigenous animals, some of which are very large.  How do they survive the heat?

Oh, and in one scene, we see a fallen tree and stump that was clearly cut by a chainsaw.


Radio doesn't work that way

One of the main points of the overall story line is that part of the colony ship is still in orbit and and the remaining crew there is transmitting, but can not hear the landing craft on the planet, because the colony ship's dish antenna is missing.  But if you know ANYTHING about radio, this breaks down.

A broken dish antenna WOULD prevent one from receiving, but it would also prevent one from transmitting, which they were doing just fine. Plus one would not use a big dish antenna for general coverage of the entire planet, which is what the folks in space wanted.  Dish antennas are directional and the colony ship did not appear to be in a high enough orbit to be able to cover the entire planet with a tight beam dish antenna.

True, they could have been using a different omni-directional antenna to transmit, but such an antenna would also work fine for receiving signals from the surface.  Astronauts on the International Space Station use five watt portable (handheld) radios to talk to ham radio operators on Earth, transmitting through a window and using nothing but the built-in antenna of a few inches long.  Because of the altitude, and nothing in the way, it doesn't take much.

In addition, if the transmit antenna is not working right (or missing) the transmitter in the ship would not work right.  The radio operators would realize immediately that they had an antenna problem.  For purposes of talking to and from the planet, jury-rigging a replacement would not be at all hard.

Without this "the ship can't hear us" plot point, the entire rest of the story breaks down.  It is clear from the dialog that the landing ships don't have the fuel to go back into space, to save themselves from the heat, but that if the colony ship could hear them, it would send down fuel.

So the whole rationale of the ten episode story arc breaks down.


Biofuel production doesn't work that way

At one point, the folks on the planet talk about using the biowaste (manure) from animals on the planet to create fuel to power their ships.  I can't say much more, in order to avoid spoilers, but the plan is to produce huge amounts of fuel in a very short period of time, and I am not convinced that they can produce enough fuel to do what they want, starting from scratch, in the time available.


[Sigh]

I still liked the new Lost in Space and if they make a season 2, I will watch.

It has a rich production design, character-based scripts with lots of interesting character development.  It generally does a nice job of promoting the "willing suspension of disbelief" that is needed in science fiction.....

Except for these troublesome "it doesn't work that way" problems with the science part of the science fiction that significantly undercuts the story arc of the series.

Facebook

There has been a lot of angst recently about how Facebook uses data from user profiles. But pretty much every organization that uses advertising does essentially what Facebook does, i.e. collecting information about customers and using it to target advertising messages to them.  So how do we make sense out of current events in social media?

Yes, Everybody does it

It is a standard postulate of advertising and marketing that we respond most favorably when the messages we receive are relevant to our interests. So ALL advertising companies do research to find out where their preferred customers (and prospects) hang out in the media, and they advertise in those locations.

They also do various kinds of research to understand us better.  For example, the bar code scanning in our favorite supermarket.  Everything goes into a database, and if we pay by credit card for check, they know a lot about us, personally.  Have you ever noticed that the coupons that print out while we're checking out are usually for something we already buy (or a competitor)?

Data collection about customers is not new, by any means.

• For centuries, newspapers and later radio and TV created interesting content in order to get people to also see advertisements.
• Starting in the 1970s there was an explosion of specialty magazines, allowing advertisers to reach audiences they knew was already interested in the specialty products the advertiser sells. 
• The hundreds of cable channels now provide this same pre-selection of specialty interests for advertisers.
• When businesses started using the WEB, the same thing happened -- specialty websites sprang up allowing advertisers to find the audience interested in their particular specialty products.

Modern mobile technology has certainly taken this way of doing business to new heights, like knowing your exact location so they can text you discount coupons when you are near a certain store. But it is more of the same and NOT something unprecedented.


How does Facebook Advertising work?

When you make a post on a Facebook business page, some people see the post "organically" because they already follow the page, or they see a friend comment or like the post.

But as page administrator, you also have the opportunity to pay money to extend the post so more people see it.  You can select friends of your current followers, or use a variety of other criteria, such as geographic area, age, and gender.  Facebook also watches what members post, like, and share, so you can select people based on a variety of interests which Facebook has identified, resulting from your history of posting.

In doing this, Facebook does NOT actually share your data.  The advertiser provides the criteria, and Facebook does the match internally in its system, and "serves" the post (advertisement) to the people who match the criteria.


So how did Cambridge Analytica get the data?

According to this article, the researcher, Dr. Kogan, made an agreement with Facebook which allowed collection of data for research purposes, but forbade transferring the data to third parties.

At face value, this is reasonable.  Academic researchers collect personal data all the time, but ethical research does not allow the identities of the participants to be known by anyone outside the study. Institutions have mechanisms in place to ensure this, called "Human Subjects Institutional Review Boards."  I have served on HSIRB at my school and have written proposals seeking approval for my research plans.

In keeping with this, Facebook prohibits collected data from being sold or transferred “to any ad network, data broker or other advertising or monetization-related service.” Dr. Kogan apparently collected the data, then violated the agreement with Facebook and transferred the data anyway.


What was the real failure here?

One can certainly argue that Facebook needs a stronger way of enforcing it's terms of service policy than simply trusting people to comply.

One can argue that websites and apps on which we post personal data should not be allowed to use that data, but this has been happening for 20 years or more on almost every commercial online platform you visit.  It is the REASON they exist, i.e. to make money (not to "serve the public.")

One can argue that users need more warnings about "the information you are about to post may be used for advertising, and delivered back to you in individually-targeted messages."  Most people will still ignore the messages, as they do the terms of service and other warnings.

One can argue that the people in Congress who are charged with regulating this stuff have no clue about what they are trying to regulate (a fact made clear by the questions from members of Congress to Mark Zuckerberg).

I wish I could boil this all down to a single failure with corresponding solution, but the social media environment is too complex.

The vast majority of these web and app systems are for-profit undertakings, meaning that they either need to charge fees, or depend on advertising.  The tried and true business model is to attract an audience with interesting content, and then expose them to advertising, ideally focused to the interests of the audience because what is advertised aligns with the content.

But most consumers conceptualize these content sources as "services" and do not understand that they, themselves, are an audience being sold to advertisers.  This makes them gullible and prone to impulse when they encounter memes, quizzes, and other means of data collection.

There is no simply way to change this paradigm, but public education is part of it.  Caveat Emptor (let the buyer beware) is critical.  Stop and think what information you are entering into the app or website.

If you don't want the entire world to know something, don't put it on the Internet (including ANY communication transmitted via technology).

Did Spock attend Starfleet Academy?

I have been reviewing what we learned about Spock and
Sarek from the first half of the Star Trek Discovery season, and now I am wondering whether Spock actually attended Starfleet Academy.

I have always assumed that he did but it has never been explicitly stated (except in the JJ Abrams movies, which are a different timeline).

Here's what leads me to this conclusion:

We know that Michael Burnham graduated from the Vulcan Academy of Science circa 2249 or 2250.

The episode Lethe tells us that Sarek secretly chose to keep her from joining the Vulcan Expeditionary Group (i.e. the Vulcan space service) in a deal to allow Spock to join instead.  The Vulcan snobs didn't want two human/half-human people in their space service and gave Sarek the choice of one or the other.  Spock, of course, did not take advantage of this opportunity and joined Starfleet instead. 

Sarek turned around and found Michael a post on the USS Shenzhou.  Within two years, Spock was a lieutenant on Enterprise during the Talos IV incident.  He prosumably could not have attended the academy AND risen to the rank of lieutenant in that time.

That implies that neither of them attended Starfleet Academy, because they got the equivalent of their college education on Vulcan, and that they are about the same age.  He may even be a couple of years younger than her.

Note that Sarek is revealed in Discovery to have sought a position for Spock in the Vulcan Expeditionary Group, however in the Original Series episode Journey to Babel we were told that Sarek was upset with Spock for 18 years because Sarek wanted Spock to join the Vulcan Science Academy, which is presumably something different.

I had always assumed that a) Spock was quite a bit older than he appeared, several years older than Kirk, and that he did attend Starfleet Academy.

Now it appears that he did not, which resolves questions about Spock's statements in The Wrath of Khan that he never took the Kobyashi Maru test.

One of the things I have always enjoyed about Star Trek has been the way the over 700 TV series episodes and the movies actually hung together in their continuity. 

I wonder if the Discovery writers KNEW what they were establishing on Star Trek continuity with respect to Spock and the Academy?

What is a reporter's job, really?

Many people today misunderstand what a reporter does, and how the reporter is supposed to do the job. The reason is that there are so many people out there writing things that seem like they are journalism, but are not.

The pictured tweet is a reminder to reporters to be persistent, but for those of you who have never BEEN a reporter, let's try to understand more about the job really is.

News Judgment

The definition of what is, or is not, news is complex, because it can vary from day to day.  When a hurricane hits Texas or Florida, most other things are not news.  The same stories might get a lot of attention on another day, when the weather is fine.

But my working definition of news is things that are out of the ordinary.  Another way of saying that is things that are "new, different, or changing."  Same-old-same-old is not news.  "Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead" is not news.

Reporter's Opinion

The reporter is not supposed to be part of the story.  In particular, the reporter's opinion is not supposed to be stated, or even allowed creep in.

Any opinion or value judgment in a professionally-writtten news story must be attributed to someone.  If no source for a value judgment is stated, then the "story" is not news.

The only things that do not need to be attributed in journalistic writing are facts that are "widely known or easily verifiable." We don't need to quote a source as saying that a hurricane hit Texas, but we DO need to quote sources concerning details of damage, etc.

Furthermore, if there are multiple legitimate sides to the story, they must all be told, and in a way that each side perceives the story as fairly representing their position. But note the word "legitimate."  We do not need to place the Flat Earth Society on an equal footing with astronomers in our eclipse stories.

Be persistent

As the Overheard in the Newsroom quote suggests, a reporter must be persistent. A reporter cannot be helpless, just because some official does not call back.  A reporter must try again and again.  Email, phone, go to the person's office, camp out on their home front steps (if it is an important enough story).

If it is a story worth covering, it MUST be covered, whether that one person calls back or not.  There are other people who you can find to interview and quote, even if they are not the ideal person, who has failed to call back.

Follow the story

Once a reporter has reported on a story, developments in the story must also be reported.

If we report that someone is arrested for something, we need to report on what happens when the person gets to court.

When President Gerald Ford tripped a couple of times on camera, it then became an expectation that future klutz moments must also be reported.

When President Trump was found to be tweeting inaccurate information, future inaccurate tweets also had to be reported.

Sometimes journalism is a "one and done" story, but more often, it is following a developing story, even if the developments come weeks apart.

Get details right

I tell my news writing students to quadruple check facts.  Reporters cannot make assumptions, misquote, or allow other inaccuracies into their stories.  Accuracy is one of the things that separates journalism from advocacy using journalistic formats.

Avoid anonymous sources

Yes, that's right, "avoid."

Journalistic standards say we can ONLY cite anonymous sources when the source could be threatened with punishment or could otherwise come to harm from having the source's name known publicly.

There is some wiggle room here.  Often we hear about a "White House staff member familiar with the issue" and we know that it is actually a coordinated intentional release, but they just don't want a particular name associated with the information.

So what?

There's a lot more to a reporter's job, of course, like complying with AP style, strong leads, use of effective quotes...

But in today's environment of persuasion cloaked in trappings of journalism, it can be hard for the general public to understand why journalists do what they do, even when there are strong ethical and professional reasons.  It is even more complicated when politicians criticize journalists for doing exactly what they are supposed to be doing.

We need to remember "Caveat Emptor," or "let the buyer beware" and bring our critical thinking to bear.  Much of what you initially think is "news" is really propaganda and persuasion.  Just because you may agree with the conclusions of some article you read does not mean it properly tells all sides of a story, or is even true.

Tax cuts do not create new jobs

Federal tax reform is on the agenda for Congress again, and that means another round of the tried and true Republican goal of tax cuts for the rich (which never really works to help the economy).

The problem is that jobs are created when the current workforce of a company can't keep up with sales and operation of the business. Tax cuts are not what creates jobs.

Hiring employees you don't need is bad business. A smart manager wouldn't do this, because it increases expenses while not increasing profits.

Tax cuts mean more dividends or direct income for the investors, meaning more money for their lifestyles, and/or to invest in the stock of still more businesses.

If you really want to stimulate the economy, the way to do it is to increase middle and lower class consumer spending. Stimulating local spending percolates money up to the top of the economy as increased sales, in turn making more money for the rich AND requiring more jobs to fulfill demand. How do you do this?

• Increase minimum wage
• Reduce student loan debt
• Control against inflation
• Don't do stupid stuff that reduces consumer confidence
• There are plenty of other things, too.

(Let me note, by the way, that once a business HAS decided to expand, tax INCENTIVES are a great way to recruit new business to YOUR community, such as tax increment districts in which the company pays reduced taxes for a certain number of years, while their facility ramps up productivity. But that is different from "tax cuts for the rich.")

We have known for weeks that corporate tax cuts were on the conservative agenda for this winter, seeking more profits for owners and investors. It's certain rich people who push this through large campaign contributions and lobbying, like the Koch brothers, because it means more money in THEIR pockets.

Don't believe the rhetoric that if you are a conservative/Republican/patriot you MUST support tax cuts for the rich.  It doesn't stand up to critical thinking and doesn't benefit the economy much.

It's not really about statues and flags

Charlottesville, and all of the other hot buttons about white supremacy, is about the symbolism, not about statues and flags.

It is all about the symbolism, and this means that it is not a stark "one or the other" of whether we can or cannot have statues and flags commemorating the confederacy.

It is highly complex and nuanced, and it is all about injustice and discrimination, committed to preserve social and political power.

Flying the confederate flag over state capitol buildings (and other places) has a symbolism of glorifying and endorsing the confederate cause of continuing slavery, which was highly unjust. This is true, even when that glorification is not the intent.

Does that mean we forget what the flag looked like? Of course not. But we have to understand the complexities that go with the pro-slavery cause it represented.

We remember Robert E. Lee as an effective general. There are positive and negative things about him. In giving loyalty to the state of Virginia over his vows to the national government, he exhibited a form of patriotism, but also supported the unjust political and social regime that was grounded in slavery. Is it appropriate to honor him on public property, without recognition of this complexity, and things that were NOT honorable about him?

I know people in the South today who feel that states should have the right to nullify all federal laws and regulations they do not like. For them, the confederacy is an uncompleted project that they would be happy to get back to, not in terms of another war, and not to return slavery, but in terms of transforming the federal government to eliminate the ability to impose rules on states and local government.  Remember that the emancipation was an imposed rule that the local whites mostly did not like.

The current national debate is about a movement that strategically uses intimidation, fear, and also politics to repress people who are not like themselves. It is deeply motivated by fear of becoming a minority and having to abide by the majority rule of others, not like themselves. There is nothing admirable about this movement.

But the debate also resides in today's hyper-sophisticated techniques of persuasion and brand marketing. The "brand" is what our target audience thinks about our company, product, or cause, based on all of the messages they have received about us.

So what is the brand of white supremacy?  What do they promise followers? How do they "tell their story"?

Their promise is to preserve white privilege.  And they personalize it.  All of these other non-white groups are harming you and you will be better off without them, they tell followers.

To a huge majority of the people, this brand is unethical, unjust, and confederate flags and statues symbolize this injustice.  But the white supremacy brand appeals powerfully to a certain small minority, based on their backgrounds and world-views.  To them, the symbolism of removing flags and statues is the growing threat of losing their power and provilege.

Counter-protests may change laws and official policies, but they are not likely to change the minds of those who have bought in to the white supremacist cause. Removing statues and flags that commemorate and glorify the unjust confederate cause also will not change their minds, and in fact will like make these guys even madder.

So what do we do about the statues and flags?

I think that this mission of remembering the complexities and nuances of history, particularly the negative parts of our history, is the role for museums, not for public property displays that lack explanation and context. So, move these things to museums, or put companion interpretive displays in the parks, or maybe even companion statues that tell the other side of the story.

Do a better job of teaching the underlying pro-slavery social and economic dynamics of 19th century American slavery in our history classes.

Our society has long-neglected addressing the underlying white supremacy driving many political agendas.  Just like a politician works to define the "brand" of the opposing candidate, the overwhelming majority needs to continually define the negatives of the brand of white supremacy.

The Limited Lifespan of Technological Civilizations

A recent paper in the Cambridge Journal of Astrobiology concludes that the typical
technological species becomes extinct within 500 years after attaining modern technology and that this extinction leaves the civilization's planet uninhabitable.

There is some cool information here for both my science fiction writers out there, but also for people concerned about climate change.

The paper, by retired astrophysicist and mathematics professor Daniel Whitmire, of the University of Arkansas, makes the following arguments:

1. Based on the "Principle of Mediocrity," a cornerstone of modern cosmology, when there is only one data point, we need to assume that the data is typical of other examples, even though we cannot detect them. So, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we should believe that humans are typical of other intelligent, technological species out there in the universe. Statistically, this means we are toward the middle of the bell-shaped curve, where the vertical line is in the middle of the graphic.

2.  So...assuming we really are typical, we only know two fundamental things, a) that we are the first technological species to evolve on the Earth and b) we are early in our technological evolution.

No archaeological evidence of a previous technological civilization has been found, (Erich von Däniken doesn't count) and a true technological civilization would leave evidence that could be found for millions of years.

3.  The evolution of technological species IS statistically probable, Whitmire says, because our typical technological civilization evolved in the first 22% of the projected total lifetime of the part of Earth's biosphere suitable for land animals.  If a technological species were to be improbable, then we would expect to have evolved toward the end of Earth's biosphere lifetime, i.e beating the odds.

4.  If technological species go extinct while leaving the biosphere viable, then later technological species are likely to evolve, Whitmire says. On the other hand, if extinction leaves the land biosphere uninhabitable, the reset time could easily take too long for evolution of another technological species, he contends.

5.  Given the principle of mediocrity, which says that humans are typical of other existing technological species, and because we are early in our technological evolution, the statical likelihood is that other existing technological species we encounter will also be in the relatively early stages of technology development, and be the first to evolve on their planet.

6.  When you calculate the bell-shaped curves of probability, the best we can say, based on current evidence, is that a technological civilization is "likely" to last 500 years or less, says the author.

• If our technological civilization survives another 1,000 years, then statistically the "likely" survival range would jump to 5,000 years or less.
• Note that we are already 100 years into our own technological civilization.

7.  Therefore, the best evidence we have, based on the statistical principle of mediocrity, is that the typical technological species has a short lifetime and that their extinction typically coincides with the extinction of their planetary biosphere.

Note: A technological species in defined by the author as those biological species that have developed the ability to affect the global environment and utilize electronic devices. That means that one of the signature characteristics defining a technological species is invention of radio!

I said that this blog post is for my science fiction writers out there, because I think that there is some cool basis for speculative writing here.  I would also caution that it is always POSSIBLY for a civilization to be an outlier, but the ODDS say that both we, and any aliens we encounter, will be toward the center of the curve, and thus similar to ourselves.

When it comes to climate change, this logic can also serve as a basis for what we know, based on statistics, about civilizations faced with climate change and other extinction-level events. Based on the very limited statistical information we have (one data point), the likelihood is that in 400 years or less, we will make OUR planet uninhabitable.

All of this speculation is based on statistics. It is not a prediction of real world events. But it matches pretty well with the existential threats of nuclear war and climate change that our society faces. It would be nice to prove that we are NOT typical, as current defined, because we beat the odds.

This blog post was inspired by this article, but I went to the original published journal article to write my summary.

Hate

Causing or advocating injustice is hate.

Opposing injustice is not hate.

We need to be prefectly clear about this.

Who Posts Trump's Tweets?

When I first read the president's tweets about Charlottesville, my immediate reaction was that some of them didn't read the way he says things.  It turns out that some of them MAY have come from a staffer, not Trump himself.

During the campaign in 2016, we know pretty certainly that some @realDonaldTrump posts were made by the candidate himself, and some were made by staffers.  The language was different, but also some were posted from an Android device and some from Twitter for iPhone.  Trump was using the Android device during the campaign and staffers had the iPhone.

This is not unexpected. There are a LOT of politicians and celebrities who have staffers or publicists manage or contribute to their social media.  It is pretty much standard procedure, except that most politicians probably do the hands-on tweeting less than Trump has.

This article from March scrutinizes the Twitter dynamic of the Trump campaign/presidency. It turns out that some tweets are STILL probably written by somebody other than the president, personally. Again, not at all unreasonable for a politician.

The @TrumpOrNotBot bot analyzes the president's tweets and uses machine learning and natural language processing to estimate the likelihood Trump wrote a tweet himself.  It uses an algorithm that compares new tweets to the president’s massive Twitter record, and calculates the odds that Trump, personally, wrote the new tweet. Supposedly the algorithm is continually updated.

So what do I conclude from looking at the analysis?

I think it's really hard to accurately analyze the language, but the platforms the tweets come from are interesting.  This week, most tweets have still been sent from an iPhone, but some are from the "Media Studio" Android app.

The Media Suite Android posts are more likely to be announcements about events, videos of the president, government reports, etc.  Advocacy posts (and insults) are more likely to come from the iPhone app.

So what did @realDonaldTrump tweet?

iPhone:  We ALL must be united & condemn all that hate stands for. There is no place for this kind of violence in America. Lets come together as one! 

iPhone: What is vital now is a swift restoration of law and order and the protection of innocent lives. #Charlottesville 

Android Media Studio: We must remember this truth: No matter our color, creed, religion or political party, we are ALL AMERICANS FIRST. 

Android Media Studio: We will continue to follow developments in Charlottesville, and will provide whatever assistance is needed. We are ready, willing and able. 

iPhone:  Deepest condolences to the families & fellow officers of the VA State Police who died today. You're all among the best this nation produces. 

iPhone: Condolences to the family of the young woman killed today, and best regards to all of those injured, in Charlottesville, Virginia. So sad! 

iPhone: Our thoughts & prayers are with the families, friends & colleagues of #Virginia's @VSPPIO Lt Cullen & Tpr Bates #Charlottesville

I don't think it is likely that sometimes the president uses one phone and sometimes another, sometimes iOS and sometimes Android. It would not surprise me if more than one trusted person using an has access to post to the account. So I interpret the Android Media Studio posts as being the White House Communications office or other trusted party, and most, if not all, of the iPhone posts being directly from the hand of the president

In some ways, none of this matters, other than as a curiosity to observers. If something is released over the signature of the president, it IS functionally the president saying it, no matter who wrote it.  But given the unique Twitter dynamic the president has established, I find it to be intriguing to try to understand which tweets fall into which categories.

And particularly in light of the recent criticism of whether Trump should have called out white supremacists the way he calls out everybody else, I do wonder who really is posting what content to the president's accounts.

Streaming video becomes the "surface streets" of the Internet superhighway

Disney has announced its own streaming video service, and it will pull much if its content from Netflix when the new service premiers.

This article asserts that the growing number if streaming sites (Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, CBS All Access, Disney, ad infinitum) means that the video piracy industry will remain healthy.

I agree, and I think it is the result is clueless corporate executives.  But the growing number of streaming services is going to be a bigger and bigger problem for consumers.

The article above continues:

While legal streaming services work just fine, having dozens of subscriptions is expensive, and not very practical. Especially not compared to pirate streaming sites, where everything can be accessed on the same site.

The music business has a better model, or had initially. Services such as Spotify allowed fans to access most popular music in one place, although that’s starting to crumble as well, due to exclusive deals and more fragmentation.

I am often pretty hard on movie and TV studio/network executives. They do not generally come from the creative side of the industry.  Because of the way our capitalist free enterprise system works, their world revolves around quarterly profits reports for investors.

Such executives study success, and then look for ways to replicate that success. That's why there are vampire shows all over right now.  Every time a TV show is succesful, we tend to get clones.  And this is not just the 36 different CSI series. Vamires are all over the place in the media because of Twilight.  Harry Potter spawned Percy Jackson, Miss Peregrine, and The Magicians (yes I know about them being books first).

The Marvel Cinematic Universe has resulted in DC developing its common universe of individual hero movies plus team-ups.

It's why the X-Files and Stargate and Star Trek are back, or coming back.

Studio and network executives see past success as a path to future success.

So what does that say about streaming services?

Netflix and Hulu have been successful.

Studios/networks have shared in that success, via contract.

No doubt the executive think somewhat along these lines:

A lot of people watch our shows, but the streaming service takes a cut, so we don't make as much money as we could.  If we had our own, we wouldn't have to share.  But we'd better have something BIG to launch it and get people to subscribe (with automatic renewal if at all possible).

The problem is, as the article above says, people aren't going to pay for endless streaming services.

Making money from people watching TV and movies is marketing. Marketing is SUPPOSED to be about understanding the customer.  I think the studios and networks have failed to properly analyze their customers.

For decades, the consumer's model was "set your DVR or other recorder to get the program on cable."

Then it was "I pay for one or two places where I can catch the shows, if I mess them on cable).

Now for many people the home video model is "discontinue cable and subscribe to a couple of inexpensive services."  Or downloading copyright infringed video, of course.

The industry argues "piracy is unnecessary because pretty much everything is available inexpensively online."  But this breaks down if you REALLY understand your customer.

The five streaming services I mentioned above would cost more than my current cable bill, but the expectation is that I will subscribe to more and more, because I like one or two additional shows on each?

People with unlimited entertainment budgets probably will. The TYPICAL consumer will have to make value judgments.  Some will just say "____ sounds interesting, but I guess I won't be able to watch it because it's not available on my services."

Others will find the copyright infringed shows.  

I am NOT advocating piracy.  I teach copyright law in several of my classes and infringing other people's intellectual property is never a good idea.

I AM saying that the studios/networks are chopping up the superhighway into a bunch of less desirable surface streets.  Not in terms of bandwidth, but in terms of convenience and usability.

In my always humble opinion, I think that they would succeed better by consolidating their individual lanes into a single interface with feed equal to or less than cable.

Strategic Distraction in Social Media

Given the power that social media has to influence society and social agendas, it's become a regular tactic to use social media ti divert attention away from the bad stuff.

Trump does it.  Lots of other organizations do it. But we are hardly aware of what is going on.

Two stories have prompted this post. The first is about a study that concludes that the Chineses government employs a tactic of diverting attention from bad news or dissent. They do this NOT by addressing the issue to counter arguments, but by inundating social media with other, positive content that leads the conversation away from the dissent. The study concludes that they do this with an "army" of 2 million people who flood the internet with positive news posts.

The article quoted one of the authors of the study as saying:

We had always thought that the purpose of propaganda was to argue against or undermine critics of the regime, or to simply persuade people that the critics were wrong. But what we found is that the Chinese government doesn’t bother with any of that.  Instead, the content of their propaganda is what we call “cheerleading” content. Basically, they flood the web with overwhelmingly positive content about China’s politics and culture and history. What it amounts to is a sprawling distraction campaign rather than an attempt to sell a set of policies or defend the policies of the regime.

The second story I read recently concludes that bots are a major factor in spreading "fake news" on Twitter. Automated accounts are particularly active in the early spreading of viral claims, and tend to target influential users, according to the authors.

I have addressed bots before and not all are bad, but in the political realm, they are doing more than just auto-liking posts.

So what can we learn from these two stories?

• There are organizations and governments that are actively manipulating the flow of information via social media and the Internet, for their own benefit.
• Often, their goal is distraction.

The Chinese government uses "good news" to overwhelm the "candle in the wind" of dissent.

Donald Trump uses insults to distract from the criminal investigations centered on his election campaign.

But whether he knows it or now, Trump also distracts from OTHER important things going on in the American government.  Because the insult of the day has to be reported and analyzed in the media (it doesn't but they haven't figured that out yet).....

Other important things never bubble up to the surface for broad discussion, like this story about a Commerce Department plan that could reduce the size of 11 marine sanctuaries and monuments.

If the opposition wants to retake Congress in 2020, and retake the White House in due course, they have to get MUCH more sophisticated about how they disseninate simple, straightforward Twitter-like talking points that will REALLY get the attention of undecided voters. Armies of people doing coordinated posting and bots are clearly fair game, but false information is not, in my opinion.

Temperatures rising! What we REALLY know about climate change.

Update: Since I wrote this, there have been more and more extreme climate events. The warming and melting of the arctic is having an increasingly powerful effect on weather farther south, from a hurricane that retained its strength and crossed overland from Louisiana to New York to freezing weather in Texas.

Here is another of my posts that explains in detail where these extreme events are coming from.

     ---

Original article:

The first half of 2017 was the second-hottest first six calendar months on record, behind only 2016.

This article notes that this is significant because this year there is no El Niño, which can temporarily raise global average temperatures.

That's after correcting for all the "figures don't lie but liars can figure" distractions out there, global warming is a fact and is a clear threat.

For those of you unclear about the details, here is a primer:

• Science is about explanations that are consistent with observed facts, updated as observed facts become more and more accurate.  The most simple, straightforward explanations are the best, and when proposed explanations are tested, there needs to be broad agreement that the observed facts ARE well explained.
  
• We know that the Earth is warming. Multiple independent sources of data tell us this. It may vary a bit from year to year, but the trend is upward. Within reasonable limits of error, these different independent sources agree.
  
• We know that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. We know that about twice as much carbon dioxide (CO2) is appearing in the atmosphere as what the Earth can take back out via natural processes. We know that industry in general, and the fossil fuel industry in particular, emits huge quantities of carbon dioxide. We know that the parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere has been going up since the beginning of the industrial revolution.
  
• We know that water vapor has significantly more effect as a greenhouse gas than CO2, but stays in the air for only a few days whereas CO2 stays for decades. We know that warmer air has more carrying capacity for water vapor and that the water vapor mostly resides in the upper atmosphere (meaning that what happens on the ground, like drought, is not particularly relevant because it is a local/regional thing). We know that water vapor concentrations at high altitudes have been climbing at a statistically significant rate. So, the warming caused by the elevated CO2 is amplified.
  
• We also know that in the prehistoric past, when the temperature was sometimes higher, the CO2 PPM was also higher. We know that there are natural sources that can cause increases in CO2, notably volcanoes, but the number of volcanic eruptions and other natural sources in the last century is not consistent with the observed increase in CO2 and other less significant greenhouse gases.
  
• So the question is "where is the CO2 coming from?"
  
• The hypothesis that man-made CO2 is not the cause of global warming is not consistent with the facts. If man-made CO2 is somehow not a contributing factor, then where is the excess CO2 coming from? Those who would try to shrug global warming off as a "natural cycle" are not explaining anything. A "natural cycle" still has causes and effects that can be studied and understood, particularly when they are happening NOW and not in the ancient past.

To be fair, there have been attempts to suggest other causes for the climbing temperatures, but they are all over the map. There is no alternative explanation that has stood up to repeated independent testing, the way the human-produced CO2 explanation has.

So there it is. The ONLY consistent answer to the question of where the CO2 is coming from is human sources, primarily the energy industry burning fossil fuels.

It's inconvenient because solving the problem could reduce business profits for a while, but if we DON'T solve the problem, the global turmoil will also be bad for business.  Relatively modest changes now can reduce or prevent huge catastrophes in the future.

What's this blog really about?

August is when school starts again for me, and the end of July seems like a reasonable time to reflect on the status and goals of my blog.

As it turns out, I have been making a lot of posts about politics recently, but that is not my MAIN intent with this blog.  My intent is to post as an observer -- of life and culture and things that interest me.