This is just a note to regular readers: I don't know what I'm going to decide about continuing or what frequency, if I do continue. I apologize if it sounds like I'm stringing folks along.
It was my intent, in my Labor Day post, to write a farewell and close down the site. Two factors intervened: several friends and family members recently told me how much they rely on it, enjoy it, or simply see it as a way of staying in touch with me.
The other factor was my own reluctance to give it up. So bear with me. At this point, I'm thinking that I will just write an occasional post when I feel moved to do so. If you want to check in, you're welcome to do so. What I don't want is to return to the feeling of obligation to post something every day.
That totally comes from within me, of course. But it's a real factor.
So, I doubt this is the last you'll hear from me. But "no obligations," OK?
Ralph
PS: The Trump story just gets more bizarre and complex by the day. Any thought of writing about it feels like entering a jungle that leads to a crazy house. So, for now anyway, I'm not going there. I suggest you watch for all the Bob Woodward interviews on TV that will be coming up. He's too respected a journalist to be dismissed or insulted, too meticulous in his attributions to be doubted. So this blockbuster book must be reckoned with.
Friday, September 7, 2018
Wednesday, September 5, 2018
Amplification of right-wing propaganda
Jeffrey Toobin, writer for The New Yorker and a political analyst for CNN, in an August 28th article, reviews a new book that is based on a years-long academic study of how propaganda circulates and gets amplified. The interesting thing Toobin focuses on is the comparison of right-wing focused propaganda vs stories that would appeal to the left wing.
Toobin begins by debunking the conventional belief that "liberals and conservatives . . . live in separate bubbles, where they watch different television networks, frequent different web sites, and live in different realities." The implication of this view, Toobin says, is that the two sides "resemble each other in their twisted views of reality. Rachel Maddow and Sean Hannity, in other words, are two sides of the same coin."
He then refers to a new book that shows that this is precisely wrong. Network Propaganda: Manipulation, Disinformation, and Radicalization in American Politics, by Benkler, Faris, and Roberts, is based on their academic study of the way stories with strong partisan appeal get circulated in the media and how this differs on the right and on the left.
Quoting Toobin about the book's thesis:
"The two sides are not, in fact, equal when it comes to evaluating "news" stories, or even in how they view reality. Liberals wants facts; conservatives want their biases reinforced. Liberals embrace journalism; conservatives believe propaganda. . . . [T]he right-wing media ecosystem . . . has been much more susceptible to disinformation, lies, and half-truths."
The book's lead author, Benkler, is a Harvard professor. Toobin explains that his is not a book of media criticism but rather an academic data analysis of "millions of online stories, tweets, and Facebook-sharing data points."
The authors of the book found that "something very different was happening in right-wing media than in centrist, center-left and left-wing media." In the right-wing media, false stores are launched on extreme web sites, such as InfoWars, where rules of professional journalism do not apply. The stories are then picked up by outlets like Fox News and others that do claim to follow journalistic norms but often fail in that function.
According to the book, "This pattern is not mirrored on the left wing." Toobin then describes how they prove their case. "The most persuasive sections of the book concern case studies of stories that did, or did not, go viral in these politically disconnected universes. Consider two stories that emerged over the course of the 2016 Presidential campaign: in one, Bill and Hillary Clinton were involved in acts of pedophilia, which included the abuse of Haitian refugee children and visits to an orgy island -- preposterous claims for which there was no shred of evidence.
"In the other, Donald Trump supposedly raped a thirteen-year-old girl, in 1994 -- something that he was accused of in a lawsuit filed in 2016. At first, there was great interest on the left in the Trump story. There were five times as many Facebook shares of the most widely shared article about it . . . as of the most widely shared story about the imagined Clinton pedophilia.
"But all that chatter was followed by near silence in the liberal and mainstream media, as the story failed to survive the most basic fact-checking scrutiny. . . ." He goes on to explain that, on the left, media consumers are more likely to measure stories with their own judgment, as well as turning to fact-checking sites.
"The Clinton orgy-island story met a very different fate in the right-wing media, which pushed versions of it over the course of the campaign. . . . The dynamic on the right, the authors found, 'rewards the most popular and widely viewed channels at the very top of the media ecosystem for delivering stories, whether true or false, that protect the team, reinforce its beliefs, attack opponents, and refute any claims that might threaten 'our' team from outsiders.
"Referring to the orgy-island story, the authors note that 'not one right-wing outlet came out to criticize and expose this blatant lie for what it was. In the grip of the propaganda feedback loop, the right-wing media ecosystem had no mechanism for self-correction, and instead exhibited dynamics of self-reinforcement, confirmation, and repetition so that readers, viewers and listeners encountered multiple versions of the same story, over months, to the point that both recall and credibility were enhanced."
Toobin begins by debunking the conventional belief that "liberals and conservatives . . . live in separate bubbles, where they watch different television networks, frequent different web sites, and live in different realities." The implication of this view, Toobin says, is that the two sides "resemble each other in their twisted views of reality. Rachel Maddow and Sean Hannity, in other words, are two sides of the same coin."
He then refers to a new book that shows that this is precisely wrong. Network Propaganda: Manipulation, Disinformation, and Radicalization in American Politics, by Benkler, Faris, and Roberts, is based on their academic study of the way stories with strong partisan appeal get circulated in the media and how this differs on the right and on the left.
Quoting Toobin about the book's thesis:
"The two sides are not, in fact, equal when it comes to evaluating "news" stories, or even in how they view reality. Liberals wants facts; conservatives want their biases reinforced. Liberals embrace journalism; conservatives believe propaganda. . . . [T]he right-wing media ecosystem . . . has been much more susceptible to disinformation, lies, and half-truths."
The book's lead author, Benkler, is a Harvard professor. Toobin explains that his is not a book of media criticism but rather an academic data analysis of "millions of online stories, tweets, and Facebook-sharing data points."
The authors of the book found that "something very different was happening in right-wing media than in centrist, center-left and left-wing media." In the right-wing media, false stores are launched on extreme web sites, such as InfoWars, where rules of professional journalism do not apply. The stories are then picked up by outlets like Fox News and others that do claim to follow journalistic norms but often fail in that function.
According to the book, "This pattern is not mirrored on the left wing." Toobin then describes how they prove their case. "The most persuasive sections of the book concern case studies of stories that did, or did not, go viral in these politically disconnected universes. Consider two stories that emerged over the course of the 2016 Presidential campaign: in one, Bill and Hillary Clinton were involved in acts of pedophilia, which included the abuse of Haitian refugee children and visits to an orgy island -- preposterous claims for which there was no shred of evidence.
"In the other, Donald Trump supposedly raped a thirteen-year-old girl, in 1994 -- something that he was accused of in a lawsuit filed in 2016. At first, there was great interest on the left in the Trump story. There were five times as many Facebook shares of the most widely shared article about it . . . as of the most widely shared story about the imagined Clinton pedophilia.
"But all that chatter was followed by near silence in the liberal and mainstream media, as the story failed to survive the most basic fact-checking scrutiny. . . ." He goes on to explain that, on the left, media consumers are more likely to measure stories with their own judgment, as well as turning to fact-checking sites.
"The Clinton orgy-island story met a very different fate in the right-wing media, which pushed versions of it over the course of the campaign. . . . The dynamic on the right, the authors found, 'rewards the most popular and widely viewed channels at the very top of the media ecosystem for delivering stories, whether true or false, that protect the team, reinforce its beliefs, attack opponents, and refute any claims that might threaten 'our' team from outsiders.
"Referring to the orgy-island story, the authors note that 'not one right-wing outlet came out to criticize and expose this blatant lie for what it was. In the grip of the propaganda feedback loop, the right-wing media ecosystem had no mechanism for self-correction, and instead exhibited dynamics of self-reinforcement, confirmation, and repetition so that readers, viewers and listeners encountered multiple versions of the same story, over months, to the point that both recall and credibility were enhanced."
* * * * *
So . . . now we have it confirmed by an academic study. Yes, there is something different about Fox and all its friends.
Ralph
Monday, September 3, 2018
What does Labor Day signify any more?
It used to be that Labor Day was a recognition of the important contribution of the working people of this country. With the decline of the power of labor unions -- brought about by several factors, including several changes in law, as well as other factors -- we hardly know what to do with ourselves on Labor Day.
There don't seem to be any parades, any festivals, any observances at all -- beyond a few local picnics, which people organize on summer weekends without any special day to celebrate.
But just look at the ever-increasing economic gap between workers' wages and the wealth accruing to the owners in this so-called booming economy. It's the corporate officers and the stockholders that are benefiting -- not the workers. We need strong labor unions as much as ever.
So, no, there is really nothing to celebrate on today's Labor Day. Perhaps we should observe it by wrapping factories and construction sites in black crepe paper (or black toilet paper, if you can find it).
There don't seem to be any parades, any festivals, any observances at all -- beyond a few local picnics, which people organize on summer weekends without any special day to celebrate.
But just look at the ever-increasing economic gap between workers' wages and the wealth accruing to the owners in this so-called booming economy. It's the corporate officers and the stockholders that are benefiting -- not the workers. We need strong labor unions as much as ever.
So, no, there is really nothing to celebrate on today's Labor Day. Perhaps we should observe it by wrapping factories and construction sites in black crepe paper (or black toilet paper, if you can find it).
* * *
Honestly, I opened up my computer to write my farewell for ShrinkRap. I had made the decision not to resume daily blogging. After 10 years of daily posting, I have enjoyed the freedom from that "responsibility I took on."
Even if I hadn't had the medical problem going on, I needed a respite from the daily "labor" of trying to convey an understanding of the day's news stories, particularly it's political news.
And, by the way, for those interested: I did have the aortic valve replacement, using the new TAVR (transcatheter aortic valve replacement) process. If anyone wants to know more about that, see a brief description below.
As soon as my fingers hit the keyboard, and I began to realize it was Labor Day, I decided to say something about that --- and then it felt like I was off to the races again.
Truth be told: I'm awfully conflicted about this. I enjoyed the freedom from the time-consuming consumption of the news so as to present a coherent, clarifying picture. I also like "having my say."
So here's what my interim solution is. OK. I won't quit altogether. At least for a while, I'll try writing it on a less that daily basis. That's been hard for me to do, because I fall into obsessive routines so easily; but I'll give it a try. I already have something for tomorrow -- a reprint of an article by Jeffrey Toobin in The New Yorker that previews a new book based on a research comparison of the fate of "fake news" in liberal vs conservative news channels.
So, instead of "goodbye," I'm saying "not quite yet."
Ralph
___________________
TAVR: The artificial valve is contrived out of a collapsible wire. stent-like mesh -- with cusps from a cow valve attached -- and is inserted in the femoral artery in the groin and pushed up into the midst of the narrowed valve opening in the aortic valve.
A balloon on the catheter is inflated, expanding the artificial valve, which in turn pushed the old, calcified valve flaps back against the artery wall. The balloon is deflated, the catheter removed, and the artificial valve begins functioning all on its own. It's Magic !!! No, it's just Modern Medicine. And I am grateful to be living in a time when I can benefit from such technological advances.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
