Saturday, February 22, 2020

SCUSD Not Insolvent- It Just Can't Count

Choosing Democracy: SCUSD Not Insolvent- It Just Can't Count: Sacramento City Unified says  due to its own financial crisis it will need to lay off 50 certificated employees ( teachers, counselors,...

Friday, February 14, 2020

How Misinformation Serves Trump



“Flood the zone with shit”: How misinformation overwhelmed our democracy

The impeachment trial didn’t change any minds. Here’s why.

By Sean Illing@seanillingsean.illing@vox.com Updated Feb 6, 2020, 9:27am EST


On Wednesday, the Senate voted to acquit President Trump of charges of abuse of power and obstruction of justice.

Despite all the incontrovertible facts at the center of this story, it was always inevitable that this process would change very few minds. No matter how clear a case the Democrats made, it was always highly likely that no single version of the truth was ever going to be accepted.

This fact underscores a serious problem for our democratic culture. No amount of evidence, on virtually any topic, is likely to move public opinion one way or the other. We can attribute some of this to rank partisanship — some people simply refuse to acknowledge inconvenient facts about their own side.

But there’s another, equally vexing problem. We live in a media ecosystem that overwhelms people with information. Some of that information is accurate, some of it is bogus, and much of it is intentionally misleading. The result is a polity that has increasingly given up on finding out the truth. As Sabrina Tavernise and Aidan Gardiner put it in a New York Times piece, “people are numb and disoriented, struggling to discern what is real in a sea of slant, fake, and fact.” This is partly why an earth-shattering historical event like a president’s impeachment did very little to move public opinion.

The core challenge we’re facing today is information saturation and a hackable media system. If you follow politics at all, you know how exhausting the environment is. The sheer volume of content, the dizzying number of narratives and counternarratives, and the pace of the news cycle are too much for anyone to process.

One response to this situation is to walk away and tune everything out. After all, it takes real effort to comb through the bullshit, and most people have busy lives and limited bandwidth. Another reaction is to retreat into tribal allegiances. There’s Team Liberal and Team Conservative, and pretty much everyone knows which side they’re on. So you stick to the places that feed you the information you most want to hear.






My Vox colleague Dave Roberts calls this an “epistemic crisis.” The foundation for shared truth, he argues, has collapsed. I don’t disagree with that, but I’d frame the problem a little differently.

We’re in an age of manufactured nihilism.

The issue for many people isn’t exactly a denial of truth as such. It’s more a growing weariness over the process of finding the truth at all. And that weariness leads more and more people to abandon the idea that the truth is knowable.

I call this “manufactured” because it’s the consequence of a deliberate strategy. It was distilled almost perfectly by Steve Bannon, the former head of Breitbart News and chief strategist for Donald Trump. “The Democrats don’t matter,” Bannon reportedly said in 2018. “The real opposition is the media. And the way to deal with them is to flood the zone with shit.”

This idea isn’t new, but Bannon articulated it about as well as anyone can. The press ideally should sift fact from fiction and give the public the information it needs to make enlightened political choices. If you short-circuit that process by saturating the ecosystem with misinformation and overwhelm the media’s ability to mediate, then you can disrupt the democratic process.

What we’re facing is a new form of propaganda that wasn’t really possible until the digital age. And it works not by creating a consensus around any particular narrative but by muddying the waters so that consensus isn’t achievable.

Bannon’s political objective is clear. As he explained in a 2017 Conservative Political Action Conference talk, he sees Trump as a stick of dynamite with which to blow up the status quo. So “flooding the zone” is a means to that end. But more generally, creating widespread cynicism about the truth and the institutions charged with unearthing it erodes the very foundation of liberal democracy. And the strategy is working.

What flooding the zone actually means

For most of recent history, the goal of propaganda was to reinforce a consistent narrative. But zone-flooding takes a different approach: It seeks to disorient audiences with an avalanche of competing stories.

And it produces a certain nihilism in which people are so skeptical about the possibility of finding the truth that they give up the search. The fact that 60 percent of Americans say they encounter conflicting reports about the same event is an example of what I mean. In the face of such confusion, it’s not surprising that less than half the country trusts what they read in the press.

Bannon articulated the zone-flooding philosophy well, but he did not invent it. In our time, it was pioneered by Vladimir Putin in post-Soviet Russia. Putin uses the media to engineer a fog of disinformation, producing just enough distrust to ensure that the public can never mobilize around a coherent narrative.

Russian President Vladimir Putin appears onscreen during a press conference in Moscow on December 19, 2019. Mikhail Svetlov/Getty Images

In October, I spoke to Peter Pomerantsev, a Soviet-born reality TV producer turned academic who wrote a book about Putin’s propaganda strategy. The goal, he told me, wasn’t to sell an ideology or a vision of the future; instead, it was to convince people that “the truth is unknowable” and that the only sensible choice is “to follow a strong leader.”

One major reason for the strategy’s success, both in the US and Russia, is that it coincided with a moment when the technological and political conditions were in place for it to thrive. Media fragmentation, the explosion of the internet, political polarization, curated timelines, and echo chambers — all of this allows a “flood the zone with shit” strategy to work.

The role of “gatekeeping” institutions has also changed significantly. Before the internet and social media, most people got their news from a handful of newspapers and TV networks. These institutions functioned like referees, calling out lies, fact-checking claims, and so on. And they had the ability to control the flow of information and set the terms of the conversation.

Today, gatekeepers still matter in terms of setting a baseline for political knowledge, but there’s much more competition for clicks and audiences, and that alters the incentives for what’s declared newsworthy in the first place. At the same time, traditional media outlets remain committed to a set of norms that are ill adapted to the modern environment. The preference for objectivity in political coverage, in particular, is a problem.

As Joshua Green, who wrote a biography of Bannon, explained, Bannon’s lesson from the Clinton impeachment in the 1990s was that to shape the narrative, a story had to move beyond the right-wing echo chamber and into the mainstream media. That’s exactly what happened with the now-debunked Uranium One story that dogged Clinton from the beginning of her campaign — a story Bannon fed to the Times, knowing that the supposedly liberal paper would run with it because that’s what mainstream media news organizations do.

In this case, Bannon flooded the zone with a ridiculous story not necessarily to persuade the public that it was true (although surely plenty of people bought into it) but to create a cloud of corruption around Clinton. And the mainstream press, merely by reporting a story the way it always has, helped create that cloud.

You see this dynamic at work daily on cable news. Trump White House adviser Kellyanne Conway lies. She lies a lot. Yet CNN and MSNBC have shown zero hesitation in giving her a platform to lie because they see their job as giving government officials — even ones who lie — a platform.

Even if CNN or MSNBC debunk Conway’s lies, the damage will be done. Fox and right-wing media will amplify her and other falsehoods; armies on social media, bot and real, will, too (@realDonaldTrump will no doubt chime in). The mainstream press will be a step behind in debunking — and even the act of debunking will serve to amplify the lies.

UC Berkeley linguist George Lakoff calls this the “framing effect.” As Lakoff puts it, if you say “don’t think of an elephant,” you can’t help but think of an elephant. In other words, even if you reject an argument, merely repeating it cements the frame in people’s minds. Debunking it is still useful, of course, but there’s a cost to dignifying it in the first place.

There is some research that points to the utility of fact-checking. Political scientists Brendan Nyhan and Jason Reifler have shown that repeated exposure to fact-checking does tend to increase the accuracy of beliefs. But the issue with zone-flooding is an overabundance of news, which diminishes the importance of any individual story, no matter how big or damning.

In this environment, there are often too many things happening at once; it’s a constant game of whack-a-mole for journalists. And we know that false claims, if they’re repeated enough, become more plausible the more often they’re shared, something psychologists have called the “illusory truth” effect. Our brains, it turns out, tend to associate repetition with truthfulness. Some interesting new research, moreover, found that the more people encounter information the more likely they are to feel justified in spreading it, whether it’s true or not.

Flooding the zone, polarization, and why many people still don’t know what Trump did

This all intersects with political polarization in troubling ways. One consequence of pervasive confusion about what’s happening is that people feel more comfortable siding with their political tribe. If everything’s up for grabs, and it’s hard to sift through the competing narratives to find the truth, then there’s nothing left but culture war politics. There’s “us” and “them,” and the possibility of persuasion is off the table.

It’s worth noting that this polarization is asymmetric. The left overwhelmingly receives its news from organizations like the New York Times, the Washington Post, or cable news networks like MSNBC or CNN. Some of the reporting is surely biased, and probably biased in favor of liberals, but it’s still (mostly) anchored to basic journalistic ethics.

As a recent book by three Harvard researchers explains, this just isn’t true of the right. American conservative media functions like a closed system, with Fox News at the center. Right-wing outlets are less tethered to conventional journalistic ethics and exist mostly to propagate the bullshit they produce.

All this has created an atmosphere that has helped Trump. The Trump administration was remarkably successful at muddying the waters on Ukraine and impeachment, and Republicans in Congress helped by parroting the administration’s talking points.

Reps. Guy Reschenthaler (R-PA), Jim Jordan (R-OH), and Louie Gohmert (R-TX) look on as fellow Republicans speak to the press after the House Judiciary Committee approved articles of impeachment against President Trump on December 13, 2019. Drew Angerer/Getty Images

The fact is, Trump did what Democrats have accused him of doing. We know, with absolute certainty, that the president tried to get a foreign government to investigate a family member of one of his political rivals. And we know this because of the witnesses who testifiedbefore the House Intelligence Committee and because Trump’s own White House released a record of the call proving it.

Yet all the polling data we have suggests that public opinion on Trump and Ukraine basically held steady. Again, some of this is pure partisan recalcitrance. But there’s good reason to believe that the right’s muddying of the waters — making the story about Ukraine and Hunter Biden, pushing out conspiracy theories, repeatedly trumpeting Trump’s own version of events, etc. — played a role.

The issue is that the coverage of the trials, in both the mainstream press and right-wing outlets, ensured that these counternarratives are part of the public conversation. It added to the general atmosphere of doubt and confusion. And that’s why zone flooding presents a near-insoluble problem for the press.

The old model is broken

The way impeachment played out underscores just how the new media ecosystem is a problem for our democracy.

It helps to think of zone-flooding less as a strategy deployed by a person or group and more as a natural consequence of the way media works.

We don’t need a master puppeteer pulling the media’s strings. The race for content, the need for clicks, is more than enough. Bannon or Conway can shake things up by feeding nonsense into the system.

Fox & Friends hosts Steve Doocy, Ainsley Earhardt, and Pete Hegseth interview former US Army Lt. Clint Lorance on November 18, 2019. John Lamparski/Getty Images

Trump can dictate an entire news cycle with a few unhinged tweets or an absurd press conference. The media cycle is easily commandeered by misinformation, innuendo, and outrageous content. These are problems because of the norms that govern journalism and because the political economy of media makes it very hard to ignore or dispel bullshit stories.This is at the root of our nihilism problem, and a solution is nowhere in sight.

The instinct of the mainstream press has always been to conquer lies by exposing them. But it’s just not that simple anymore (if it ever was). There are too many claims to debunk and too many conflicting narratives. And the decision to cover something is a decision to amplify it and, in some cases, normalize it.

We probably need a paradigm shift in how the press covers politics. Nearly all of the incentives driving media militate against this kind of rethinking, however. And so we’re likely stuck with this problem for a very long time.

As is often the case, the diagnosis is much easier than the cure. But liberal democracy cannot function without a shared understanding of reality. As long as the zone is flooded with shit, that shared understanding is impossible.


IN THIS STREAM

-->

Hedge Funds Take Over Sacramento Bee

Financial Engineers Ravage American Newspapers—McClatchy’s Turn. 
Friday’s news reports played the story as McClatchy filing for bankruptcy. But that’s not the deeper story. The venerable chain, publisher of The Sacramento BeeMiami Herald, and 28 other papers, is doing a deal with a hedge fund, Chatham Asset Management, which also owns supermarket tabloids.

The first part of the complex deal entails putting McClatchy into bankruptcy, so that it can shed a lot of its debt, notably the costs of its $1.4 billion worker pension fund. That makes it a more attractive property for Chatham, which can then acquire McClatchy for a lower cost.

The takeover of American newspapers by financial engineers is now pervasive. The exceptions are The New York TimesThe Wall Street JournalThe Washington PostThe Boston Globe, and a few others, with either national franchises or ownership by arguably benign billionaires like Jeff Bezos of Amazon of the Post and Globe owner John Henry (who in his civic role as owner of the Boston Red Sox just traded Mookie Betts!). 

But for the rest, mainly regional papers, hedge funds, and private equity companies are not in business to benefit communities. They exist to maximize profits by milking the companies they take over. Inevitably, they do this by loading up their acquired properties with debt, cutting newsroom staff to the bone, and impoverishing the civic role of the local press.  

Tuesday, February 11, 2020

At New Hampshire Rally, Sanders Calls on 7,500+ Supporters to 'Transform America' on Primary Day

At New Hampshire Rally, Sanders Calls on 7,500+ Supporters to 'Transform America' on Primary Day



Sanders Wins New Hampshire.

Poll. Bernie Beats Trump


Harold Meyerson,

Socialism? Capitalism? Whatever. “’Tis the final conflict,’” the chorus to the global socialist anthem “The International” begins. Socialism versus capitalism, socialism overturning capitalism, the mother of all systemic conflicts, the ultimate heavyweight brawl. And in no capitalist country has the complete diametric opposition between these two ways of life been driven home more than here in the Good Old USA. As in Harlan County, so in America at large: There are no neutrals here.

And then came yesterday’s Quinnipiac Poll.

The headlined news was that Bernie Sanders had taken the lead for the first time in a nationwide poll of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents. He was the preferred candidate of 25 percent, while Joe Biden had dropped to 17 percent, Mike Bloomberg had risen to 15 percent, Elizabeth Warren stood at 14 percent, Pete Buttigieg was at 10 percent, and Amy Klobuchar at 4 percent. All subject to change, of course, after today’s New Hampshire primary.

But the poll also measured the responses of voters of all parties and none when it pitted each of those Democratic candidates against President Trump. Here are the results for the two Democrats who came out best:

Capitalist Bloomberg beat Trump by 51 percent to 42 percent.

Socialist Sanders beat Trump by 51 percent to 43 percent.

Okay, so maybe we have this final conflict business wrong, at least for this year. Socialist? Capitalist? Prohibitionist? WTF! BFD! So long as they beat Trump! ~ HAROLD MEYERSON

Tuesday, February 4, 2020

Trump's Lies

  • President Trump is speaking to a joint session of Congress Tuesday night, a day before the Senate is expected to acquit him in his impeachment trial. A team of New York Times reporters who cover the economy, national security, health care and more are listening and fact-checking his claims as he speaks.
  • Mr. Trump has regularly been exaggerating and inaccurately portraying elements of his record, including that the United States-Mexico-Canada trade agreement will create nearly 100,000 auto jobs (false), that the administration has sought to always protect Medicare and Social Security(misleading) and that there is a blue-collar boom(needs context).
  • Among those in attendance in the House chamber on Tuesday night were the opposition leader Juan Guaidó, whom Mr. Trump singled out as the “true and legitimate president” of Venezuela, and the conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh, who received a Presidential Medal of Freedom. Catch up on the key moments

This is misleading.

So-called sanctuary city policies vary by location. In most of the cities, local politicians direct police departments not to transfer undocumented immigrants suspected or charged with crimes to the custody of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. But such suspects are not automatically released into the public unless they were to make bail.

This is mostly true.

The “Medicare for all” bills co-sponsored by many Democratic lawmakers would provide government health benefits to all “residents” of the country, a group that appears to include undocumented immigrants. The bill also specifies that coverage will not be denied to residents on the basis of “citizenship status.” Whether this aspect of the bill would bankrupt the country is more questionable. The Medicare for all bills are expected to requirelarge increases in federal spending, but the coverage of undocumented immigrants would represent a small fraction of that spending.

More to come.