Category: journalism

What Would Get You to Consume More Local News?

I had a conversation with a local journalist recently, and during the conversation I brought up that I didn’t really consume a lot of local news, explaining that I didn’t really care for like the coverage. The journalist asked me what I’d like from the coverage, what things would get me to consume local news. This is a thread to brainstorm and discuss some of those ideas. Here’s some ideas, off the top of my head, to kick things off: Continue reading “What Would Get You to Consume More Local News?”

The Nature of Free Speech in the 21st Century Information Environment

I would like Mitchell (and Don or anyon else) to discuss the following Wired article: It’s the (Democracy-Poisoning) Golden Age of Free Speech. I think it touches on some of the issues that Mitchell and I have been discussing, while bringing up insights that we may not have specifically and explicitly addressed. Here are some passages that stood out for me: Continue reading “The Nature of Free Speech in the 21st Century Information Environment”

The Challenge of Covering Trump

Even though the press coverage of Trump frustrates me at times, I also recognize and believe that Trump poses unique challenges to the press, challenges that aren’t easy to overcome. Ideally, I should take the time to write a more organized post, listing and describing some of these challenges. However, I just saw a tweet that made me think of one of these challenges, and I want to comment on this before I forget. Here’s the tweet: Continue reading “The Challenge of Covering Trump”

Congressional GOP and Fox News Are Worse Than Trump

As I mentioned in the other thread, in a way, I think the Congressional GOP and conservative media outlets (including radio pundits) that either actively enable Trump or largely stand by silently are actually worse than Trump. I actually believe that if they vigorously and vocally opposed Trump, it could actually be a kind of proud moment in our history (or at least mitigate the way Trump has embarrassed and disgraced us), and it could serve as a big blow to authoritarian regimes like Russia. But, alas, something close to the opposite has happened. Like the other thread, I’m going to use this thread as a collection of evidence for this claim. Here’s one I saw today from Fox News’s Sean Hannity:

Edit (1/30/2018)

Edit (2/8/2018)

This is how bad it’s gotten:

(3/5/2018)

3/12/2018

That House GOP in HPSCI putting an end to Russia investigation soon surprises me. I don’t think it would be so fast. The whole thing, especially with Devin Nunes’s antics have been a joke. And Paul Ryan seemed to be OK with all of this. GOP is awful.

Rep. Adam Schiff’s (D) response:

3/20/2018

Colonel Ralph Peters, a commentator on Fox News, has written a damning letter, explaining why he will no longer be working at the outlet. I highly recommend reading it.

Some excerpts:

In my view, Fox has degenerated from providing a legitimate and much-needed outlet for conservative voices to a mere propaganda machine for a destructive and ethically ruinous administration. When prime-time hosts–who have never served our country in any capacity–dismiss facts and empirical reality to launch profoundly dishonest assaults on the FBI, the Justice Department, the courts, the intelligence community (in which I served) and, not least, a model public servant and genuine war hero such as Robert Mueller–all the while scaremongering with lurid warnings of “deep-state” machinations– I cannot be part of the same organization, even at a remove. To me, Fox News is now wittingly harming our system of government for profit.

As a Russia analyst for many years, it also has appalled me that hosts who made their reputations as super-patriots and who, justifiably, savaged President Obama for his duplicitous folly with Putin, now advance Putin’s agenda by making light of Russian penetration of our elections and the Trump campaign. Despite increasingly pathetic denials, it turns out that the “nothing-burger” has been covered with Russian dressing all along. And by the way: As an intelligence professional, I can tell you that the Steele dossier rings true–that’s how the Russians do things. The result is that we have an American president who is terrified of his counterpart in Moscow.

(emphasis added)

3/31/2018

4/5/2018

Not sure if this is entirely relevant, but I thought some of the comments were interesting.

4/10/2018

This exchange makes me want to pull my hair out:

I would be really surprised if he’s the only one that feels this way. (Some of Senator Corker’s public statements strongly suggests he’d be at least one other person.) If many Republicans feel this same, here’s one thing that drives me crazy: You have all this talk about the Deep State opposing Trump, you have Trump saying the media is “fake news,” you have Fox News and other conservative pundits pushing this propaganda–and the truth is that many Congressional Republicans actually think Trump is totally unfit, and possibly a danger to the country! If many Congressional Republicans believe Trump is totally unfit, it weakens the claim that the liberal media, “deep state,” or Democrats just hate Trump and are out to get him. But the congressional Republicans who think Trump is unfit allows these narratives to have life, and in my view they jeopardize the republic, and the rule of law.

4/11/2018

Here’s more of the conversation with the GOP Congressman above.

Also, this is irresponsible and reprehensible:

Edit

I’m not sure how Ryan will feel about how he handled himself as Speaker, especially during Trump Presidency, but a part of me genuinely feels sorry for him. If I were in his position and looked back on my time with Trump, I’m not sure I could live comfortably with myself. I can imagine it would be awful.

4/16/2018

4/17/2018

Just leaving this here. Even if Trump doesn’t fire Mueller (or Rosenstein), that McConnell says he woudl be “shocked” if Trump fires Mueller shows poor judgment on his part.

A Scientific Approach to Journalism That Can Mitigate Partisanship

One of the things that stands out for me during the Trump presidency is the number of hypotheses or narratives relating to Trump and the news involving him, most notably the Trump-Russia story.  By narratives, I mean the construction of a story outline that will help explain events, and also place the key people in roles–all of which provide a context that provides meaning and explicates the people and events. For example, one narrative has Trump as someone the Russians manipulated via blackmail, using Trump to achieve their objectives, including weakening the U.S. Another narrative places Trump as a great business man and deal-maker, who has made enemies of the elite out of resentment that Trump has proven them wrong. The Russia story is merely sour grapes.

Now, my sense is that all of these narratives are driven by some combination of the individual’s political biases as well as their ability to objectively perceive and analyze the world. (By the way, the same applies to me and the running hypotheses I have formed.) Which individuals and narratives stem primarily from the latter? Which ones do facts and logic support the most? Which ones are baseless and unreasonable, so much so that we could dismiss them? The answers aren’t clear or easy to answer. Because of that, judging these narratives and assessing the credibility of the individuals that embrace them can be really difficult. The result can be confusion and a sense of being lost in a sea of information. This is especially true for those not tracking the various stories on a regular basis, seeking a variety of sources.

In this thread, I’d like to suggest a solution to this as well as present the benefits for doing so. Continue reading “A Scientific Approach to Journalism That Can Mitigate Partisanship”