A debate has been active in Washington for months over Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, passed in 1996. In essence, Section 230 protects internet companies who host comments or any user-created content from being held liable for what the users post. In the past six months, some Republicans, annoyed with the perceived political bias from media companies such as Twitter and Google, most notably, have been threatening to rescind that immunity claiming that the companies treating conservatives differently makes them ineligible for the protection.
While there is evidence that the media companies are biased against conservatives (considering the proportion of conservative content that is removed), arguing that their 230 protections should be removed is a stretch.
While Google argues that they should be protected from private lawsuits based on comments, however, it seems they believe that de-platforming other sites for user-generated comments is right and proper.
NBC News reported The Federalist to Google (side note: several stories and tweets (1, 2, 3) provide the quote "Google blocked The Federalist from its advertising platform after the NBC News Verification Unit brought the project to its attention" but that does not appear in the story...anymore.) based on some media "watchdog" group, and then reported that Google was demonetizing The Federalist. Google then clarified that it was just warning The Federalist about some comments (that have not been listed) and it had three days until "a ban goes into effect."
So, in a nutshell, Google is threatening to punish The Federalist for comments left on one of its stories, at the same time it is telling the government that it shouldn't be held responsible for comments left on their many sites.
Many tech journalists are arguing that it's not inconsistent at all, that Google is not the government and Google has a right to do this. This is missing the point of the inconsistency. Of course Google is not the government, and Google has this right. The point is that Google wants a power (punishing other companies for comments on their site) that they don't want used against them. Other claims are that Google wants protection from the government, not private parties. Private parties are free to do as they choose. But that's not correct either. Section 230 also protects Google from lawsuits from other private parties based on the comments.
Granted, they're not the exact same situations. No one is claiming that they are. If you look at the specifics and details then you can argue that these aren't the same situation. However, if you look more broadly at the underlying action "punishing other platforms for comments", then there is definitely an inconsistency. Everyone should acknowledge that there is some inconsistency here, even if there are countervailing details that reconcile them.
Wednesday, June 17, 2020
Friday, June 5, 2020
Doom and Gloom Media Wrong Again
When the April jobs report came out, most of the media were talking about however bad it was, the reality was even worse.
LA Times - May 8 "The Unemployment rate may be even worse than it looks"
Associated Press, May 8 - "[The Jobs Report is] Even Worse than it looks. Really."
Vox.com, May 8 - "20.5 million job losses recorded - and the real situation is even worse"
Politico.com, May 11 - "The jobs situation is worse than it looks"
Bloomberg Opinion, May 8 - "This Ugly Jobs Report is Just the Beginning"
CNBC - May 21 "May Unemployment looks worse than expected"
The print media were more balanced, but the internet and televised media all took the glass-half-empty view. Because 18.1 million people, 78%, expected their layoffs would be temporary, there was the possibility of better results in May, if things began to re-open. All of these media outlets, however, chose to expect worse.
What interests me most in this episode, is that again the media were all taking an unprecedented situation and were unable to envision what would eventually transpire. How is it that the media predictions can all be so certain of events that never come to be?
LA Times - May 8 "The Unemployment rate may be even worse than it looks"
Associated Press, May 8 - "[The Jobs Report is] Even Worse than it looks. Really."
Vox.com, May 8 - "20.5 million job losses recorded - and the real situation is even worse"
Politico.com, May 11 - "The jobs situation is worse than it looks"
Bloomberg Opinion, May 8 - "This Ugly Jobs Report is Just the Beginning"
CNBC - May 21 "May Unemployment looks worse than expected"
The print media were more balanced, but the internet and televised media all took the glass-half-empty view. Because 18.1 million people, 78%, expected their layoffs would be temporary, there was the possibility of better results in May, if things began to re-open. All of these media outlets, however, chose to expect worse.
What interests me most in this episode, is that again the media were all taking an unprecedented situation and were unable to envision what would eventually transpire. How is it that the media predictions can all be so certain of events that never come to be?
Tuesday, June 2, 2020
Arguing with Strawmen; Avoiding the Issues
On the evening of May 27th and the following morning, TheHill.com featured prominently, this opinion piece by Marik Von Rennenkampff. While you disclaim that his views do not represent your own, by publishing it and featuring it you are promulgating an opinion untethered to good journalism or productive opinions. Mr. Von Rennenkampff’s piece is a one-sided, distorted interpretation of the facts of the Flynn case that is more propaganda than informed opinion and is more suited for a website like Slate.com than what I would expect from The Hill.
While I tend to lean more on the side of those who believe that the FBI and the highest levels of government over-stepped the boundaries of civil justice, I also recognize that this story is extremely complicated and nuanced, and I don’t begrudge those who believe the opposite. In many circumstances, the facts can be read in different ways and both sides have good arguments.
Mr. Von Rennenkampff’s arguments, however, ignore all of that. He takes the strongest arguments from the prosecution’s side puts them up against the weakest (and even non-existent) arguments from defense’s side all while twisting and pulling the facts of the case to suit his opinion.
For example, he twice points to the DOJ’s finding no evidence of political bias after an “exhaustive review.” By saying it was the DOJ finding no evidence and not mentioning it was a review by an independent watchdog within the DOJ he falsely gives the impression that even a politically-motivated organization found no evidence of bias. Additionally, he omits the fact that the DOJ explicitly did not try to determine whether there was political motivation. Their conclusion was basically that “the reasons given to us, pass a minimum threshold to support their decision to investigate.” This is similar to believing that even though a robber broke into your house and stole your jewelry, he said he was actually just looking for flour to make cookies.
If this was the only example of this abandonment of objectivity and sticking close to the facts instead of straying deep into partisan interpretation, it wouldn’t be worth discussing. He claims the Trump-Russia investigation was not based on “bogus information”, omitting any mention of the Steele Dossier and how the actual basis of the investigation – Papadapoulos’s claim to the Australian was fed to him from an untrackable source and the content of the discussion was not true.
He claims that Obama/FBI did not spy on Trump even though the FBI clearly listened in to Flynn’s phone calls, illegally surveilled Carter Page in an effort to investigate Russian collusion even if Carter Page wasn’t an official part of the campaign and completely omits the existence of the confidential informants. Given the facts, a normal person, not trying to spin the facts to suit his biases would not completely dismiss the allegation of spying.
He also tries to knock down a straw man that the FBI Investigation into Flynn was bogus. Only the most extreme are claiming that the investigation was totally bogus. The claims in support of Flynn are that the investigation was properly predicated but politically motivated (jury’s still out), that the FBI had investigated and found nothing for months and then pushed him in a corner where he lied and threw the book at him, and that the FBI bended or broke its own rules to prosecute him. The latter three charges are harder to tackle so Mr. Von Rennenkampff ignores them. He also assigns nefarious motives to an incoming administration official working in an official capacity (albeit before he officially should) to prevent the outgoing administration from blowing up an international relationship.
It is not my intent to condemn opinions that I disagree with, but only to point out unrestrained opinions that do more to activate their own side than to inform. Opinions such as these do nothing to persuade the other side but only strengthen the resolve of the most partisan. The Hill should be more deliberate in choosing what it publishes to inform and challenge instead of instigate.
While I tend to lean more on the side of those who believe that the FBI and the highest levels of government over-stepped the boundaries of civil justice, I also recognize that this story is extremely complicated and nuanced, and I don’t begrudge those who believe the opposite. In many circumstances, the facts can be read in different ways and both sides have good arguments.
Mr. Von Rennenkampff’s arguments, however, ignore all of that. He takes the strongest arguments from the prosecution’s side puts them up against the weakest (and even non-existent) arguments from defense’s side all while twisting and pulling the facts of the case to suit his opinion.
For example, he twice points to the DOJ’s finding no evidence of political bias after an “exhaustive review.” By saying it was the DOJ finding no evidence and not mentioning it was a review by an independent watchdog within the DOJ he falsely gives the impression that even a politically-motivated organization found no evidence of bias. Additionally, he omits the fact that the DOJ explicitly did not try to determine whether there was political motivation. Their conclusion was basically that “the reasons given to us, pass a minimum threshold to support their decision to investigate.” This is similar to believing that even though a robber broke into your house and stole your jewelry, he said he was actually just looking for flour to make cookies.
If this was the only example of this abandonment of objectivity and sticking close to the facts instead of straying deep into partisan interpretation, it wouldn’t be worth discussing. He claims the Trump-Russia investigation was not based on “bogus information”, omitting any mention of the Steele Dossier and how the actual basis of the investigation – Papadapoulos’s claim to the Australian was fed to him from an untrackable source and the content of the discussion was not true.
He claims that Obama/FBI did not spy on Trump even though the FBI clearly listened in to Flynn’s phone calls, illegally surveilled Carter Page in an effort to investigate Russian collusion even if Carter Page wasn’t an official part of the campaign and completely omits the existence of the confidential informants. Given the facts, a normal person, not trying to spin the facts to suit his biases would not completely dismiss the allegation of spying.
He also tries to knock down a straw man that the FBI Investigation into Flynn was bogus. Only the most extreme are claiming that the investigation was totally bogus. The claims in support of Flynn are that the investigation was properly predicated but politically motivated (jury’s still out), that the FBI had investigated and found nothing for months and then pushed him in a corner where he lied and threw the book at him, and that the FBI bended or broke its own rules to prosecute him. The latter three charges are harder to tackle so Mr. Von Rennenkampff ignores them. He also assigns nefarious motives to an incoming administration official working in an official capacity (albeit before he officially should) to prevent the outgoing administration from blowing up an international relationship.
It is not my intent to condemn opinions that I disagree with, but only to point out unrestrained opinions that do more to activate their own side than to inform. Opinions such as these do nothing to persuade the other side but only strengthen the resolve of the most partisan. The Hill should be more deliberate in choosing what it publishes to inform and challenge instead of instigate.
Compare and Contrast: Flynn Edition
On Friday, the transcripts of Flynn's discussion with Kislyak at the center of the entire Flynn story were declassified. This is the conversation that Flynn was accused of and admitted to lying about the contents and was not provided to Flynn's defense team despite numerous requests.
The New York Times says it proves Flynn "discussed sanctions at length" during conversation. Conversely, Margot Cleveland of The Federalist says the transcripts show the opposite.
I encourage everyone to read both, but start with Ms. Cleveland's take. Then, compare and decide which is the stronger case.
It is surprising to me that Cleveland's relies much more on facts and explanations than does the New York Times. The latter, for example, does not mention the difference between sanctions and expulsions. This question seems to be the crux of the discussion. Was Flynn talking about one but not the other, as Cleveland suggests, and are they actually distinct issues where the distinction matters. At least Cleveland points out this difference and makes the case; the Times story doesn't broach it at all.
Notice, too, how the New York Times, while claiming Flynn discussed sanctions, they never quote Flynn as ever saying sanctions, they just imply that Flynn's statements regarded the sanctions, not the expulsions (or both).
It is definitely possible that the Times authors believe them to be the same thing. It's also possible that Mueller's team believed them to be the same thing. But again, Cleveland makes a strong case that they are different, and her case is definitely strong enough that it should be a point of discussion and not omitted entirely.
The New York Times says it proves Flynn "discussed sanctions at length" during conversation. Conversely, Margot Cleveland of The Federalist says the transcripts show the opposite.
I encourage everyone to read both, but start with Ms. Cleveland's take. Then, compare and decide which is the stronger case.
It is surprising to me that Cleveland's relies much more on facts and explanations than does the New York Times. The latter, for example, does not mention the difference between sanctions and expulsions. This question seems to be the crux of the discussion. Was Flynn talking about one but not the other, as Cleveland suggests, and are they actually distinct issues where the distinction matters. At least Cleveland points out this difference and makes the case; the Times story doesn't broach it at all.
Notice, too, how the New York Times, while claiming Flynn discussed sanctions, they never quote Flynn as ever saying sanctions, they just imply that Flynn's statements regarded the sanctions, not the expulsions (or both).
It is definitely possible that the Times authors believe them to be the same thing. It's also possible that Mueller's team believed them to be the same thing. But again, Cleveland makes a strong case that they are different, and her case is definitely strong enough that it should be a point of discussion and not omitted entirely.
Monday, May 11, 2020
"The First Casualty of Hyperpartisanship is Nuance"
Democrats and the media are over-reacting to Flynn case. There's a legitimate case they can make, but instead are jumping to the extreme argument of Barr being corrupt while completely ignoring the questionable facts about the investigation. When news media completely ignore salient facts that go against their narrative and instead double-down on a simplistic narrative like 'Barr only did what he did because he's corrupt and a loyal Trump soldier', readers should be on their guard.
The May 8, 2020 episode of Left, Right, and Center had an enlightening exchange that highlights that the pundits who are criticizing Flynn are avoiding conservatives' valid arguments.
The Flynn discussion is the first topic they discuss, but the most maddening and instructive dialogue starts at 3:25. Rich Lowry lays out point after point about why he accepts the DoJ's actions:
Ken White claims none of the details Lowry spoke are true. This is obviously incorrect. It is demonstrably false that everything Rich Lowry said is untrue. Logan Act has never resulted in a conviction. Last indictment was 1852. "Comey bragged to MSNBC's Nicolle Wallace in 2018 that he flouted the usual protocols for interviewing a top White House official." FBI knows what was said in conversation." Andrew McCabe: "The two people who interviewed [Flynn] didn't think he was lying." Flynn's interrogation is January 24th, is fired on February 14th, and the next action against him is November 5th, so not 10 months but around 8. Does "Flynn pleads guilty" really need corroboration? Flynn under financial pressure, possibly personal pressure.
I've avoided the obvious opinions which can't be verified. But the fact that FBI was ready to close the case on Flynn before this phone call and interview speaks to whether there was a predicate. There's definitely support that the Logan Act is constitutionally dubious.
So, given all this, the strong corroboration that Lowry has for everything he says, why would the other guest, the former federal prosecutor, throw that all away and say "none of that is true." It is because something about thy Flynn case and Bill Barr and Trump turns a switch that obscures the facts that don't align with their dislike and prevents them from seeing nuance.
The debate continued, and White followed up his ludicrous statement about Lowry with the argument that the DoJ isn't being sincere, that if they were sincere, they would act to put an end to those "ambush tactics" the FBI used. "I would be thrilled if those values were reflected in the future in the way investigations are conducted. This doesn't reflect policy, it reflects politics."
The Left's official representative, Christine Emba, adds, "He had a constitutional right to remain silent. He didn't. He talked, and he lied. That lie came to light." But this argument is inapt. The FBI didn't read him his rights before hand, they, actually suggested he not have a lawyer. For a normal American, if the police or the FBI comes knocking on your door, your going to be on your guard and be very careful with what you say. If you're the incoming National Security Advisor, these are your coworkers, and you have an expectation that they're going to be helping you not interrogating you. I would like to live in Christine Emba's vision of the world. Where the FBI tries to talk to other government officials, at the White House, in Congress, and no one will talk to them because if they misspeak at anytime, the FBI can send them to prison. I suppose Christine Emba is doing the Left proud and pushing us towards a police state.
But then White reveals his actual position. He agrees with Lowry that Flynn shouldn't have been prosecuted! "I'm not fervent about prosecuting him. I think it's a bogus prosecution. I think this type of 1001 is a bogus prosecution." Of course, this wasn't his thesis. He started by talking about how the DoJ was in the wrong. How does he reconcile those positions? "I think that the hypocritical bogus justifications being given are transparent and a corruption of the justice department. We both know that these arguments are not going to be brought to bear again for anyone's benefit. They're only being brought to bear for Flynn."
This is an absolutely legitimate position to hold, and in fact, he made me question the DoJ's motivations for its actions. But this wasn't where he started. He started by implying he disagreed with Barr, but in reality he agrees with the action they took but is unhappy that they only selectively applied that standard to a Trump supporter.
The May 8, 2020 episode of Left, Right, and Center had an enlightening exchange that highlights that the pundits who are criticizing Flynn are avoiding conservatives' valid arguments.
The Flynn discussion is the first topic they discuss, but the most maddening and instructive dialogue starts at 3:25. Rich Lowry lays out point after point about why he accepts the DoJ's actions:
- There was no predicate for investigation.
- The Logan Act has never been prosecuted, the last attempt to prosecute was in the 1850s.
- It is a Constitutionally dubious law.
- Incoming National Security advisor talking to Russian ambassador does not show he might be Russian agent.
- The FBI interview was an ambush interview; Comey bragged about going around normal procedures. They deliberately kept Flynn off his guard.
- Flynn thought he was having conversation with a peer in government.
- FBI knows what was said in conversation
- There is a dispute over whether agents thought Flynn lied.
- FBI does nothing for 10 months. Then Mueller squeezes Flynn gets him to plead guilty.
- Flynn under financial pressure, possibly personal pressure.
- This is a travesty and the Justice Department deserves credit for undoing it.
Ken White claims none of the details Lowry spoke are true. This is obviously incorrect. It is demonstrably false that everything Rich Lowry said is untrue. Logan Act has never resulted in a conviction. Last indictment was 1852. "Comey bragged to MSNBC's Nicolle Wallace in 2018 that he flouted the usual protocols for interviewing a top White House official." FBI knows what was said in conversation." Andrew McCabe: "The two people who interviewed [Flynn] didn't think he was lying." Flynn's interrogation is January 24th, is fired on February 14th, and the next action against him is November 5th, so not 10 months but around 8. Does "Flynn pleads guilty" really need corroboration? Flynn under financial pressure, possibly personal pressure.
I've avoided the obvious opinions which can't be verified. But the fact that FBI was ready to close the case on Flynn before this phone call and interview speaks to whether there was a predicate. There's definitely support that the Logan Act is constitutionally dubious.
So, given all this, the strong corroboration that Lowry has for everything he says, why would the other guest, the former federal prosecutor, throw that all away and say "none of that is true." It is because something about thy Flynn case and Bill Barr and Trump turns a switch that obscures the facts that don't align with their dislike and prevents them from seeing nuance.
The debate continued, and White followed up his ludicrous statement about Lowry with the argument that the DoJ isn't being sincere, that if they were sincere, they would act to put an end to those "ambush tactics" the FBI used. "I would be thrilled if those values were reflected in the future in the way investigations are conducted. This doesn't reflect policy, it reflects politics."
The Left's official representative, Christine Emba, adds, "He had a constitutional right to remain silent. He didn't. He talked, and he lied. That lie came to light." But this argument is inapt. The FBI didn't read him his rights before hand, they, actually suggested he not have a lawyer. For a normal American, if the police or the FBI comes knocking on your door, your going to be on your guard and be very careful with what you say. If you're the incoming National Security Advisor, these are your coworkers, and you have an expectation that they're going to be helping you not interrogating you. I would like to live in Christine Emba's vision of the world. Where the FBI tries to talk to other government officials, at the White House, in Congress, and no one will talk to them because if they misspeak at anytime, the FBI can send them to prison. I suppose Christine Emba is doing the Left proud and pushing us towards a police state.
But then White reveals his actual position. He agrees with Lowry that Flynn shouldn't have been prosecuted! "I'm not fervent about prosecuting him. I think it's a bogus prosecution. I think this type of 1001 is a bogus prosecution." Of course, this wasn't his thesis. He started by talking about how the DoJ was in the wrong. How does he reconcile those positions? "I think that the hypocritical bogus justifications being given are transparent and a corruption of the justice department. We both know that these arguments are not going to be brought to bear again for anyone's benefit. They're only being brought to bear for Flynn."
This is an absolutely legitimate position to hold, and in fact, he made me question the DoJ's motivations for its actions. But this wasn't where he started. He started by implying he disagreed with Barr, but in reality he agrees with the action they took but is unhappy that they only selectively applied that standard to a Trump supporter.
Alan Dershowitz said "The first casualty of hyperpartisanship is nuance." This is unfortunately true and hyperpartisanship is winning.
Sunday, May 10, 2020
The New York Times's House of Cards
What has happened to journalism? Am I overly idealistic? Has it always been this bad, and I just didn't realize it. Have most Americans already accepted the truth of journalism?
Imagine this hypothetical: Corrupt law enforcement agents break the law to punish people of the opposition party. They fail in their endeavor, the cases are dropped, and the targets are exonerated. Then the media pronounces that the government who freed them is corrupt and ignores the problematic process.
This situation does not occur with an independent and legitimate press. This is sensationalist, activist press, the kind you'd expect in dystopian fiction or countries where a dictatorship controls the media.
This was a hypothetical case, but it could be true, and many Americans believe that the FBI agents behind the Flynn case and the Carter Page FISA warrant let their politics override their faith to justice. Maybe those Americans are wrong; maybe the FBI agents were acting in good faith. The facts are, however, that they bent and broke many laws to get what they wanted. With the FISA application and then with the Flynn case.
There are three possibilities:
1. The FBI agents involved were extremely biased and believed punishing their enemies was more important than rule of law, and Bill Barr righted those wrongs.
2. The FBI agents involved were slightly biased and bent the rules a bit too far in pursuit of legitimate investigations, and Bill Barr undid the damage.
3. The FBI agents involved were completely professional, did everything by the book, got a bad guy, and Bill Barr let him off because he's Trump's lackey.
Do we have enough information to know for sure which is true? Does any journalist?
A responsible journalist has an obligation to report these facts. A responsible journalist should recognize that this is a complicated situation and doesn't have an easy answer. An irresponsible journalist jumps to possibility 1 or possibility 3 and tosses around over-generalizations like "Barr is corrupt and he doesn't that you know it." or "The attorney general is turning the Justice Department into a political weapon for the president."
The second quote is written by the editorial board of The New York Times, and is deeply, deeply irresponsible. They are taking a complicated situation, one that's clearly in the gray where there's not enough information to make a real determination as to everyone's motives and deeds, and deciding that William Barr, the attorney general is corrupt. The left's opinion writers are expert at taking many stories, over-interpreting them, and then putting them together to create the illusion of a strong case. This opinion piece is a terrific example.
The thesis is that Bill Barr is a political actor and has politicized the Justice Department. They start with a piece of a statement Barr made in response to a question, that without the full Barr statement makes him sound like he's be happy as long as he wins. Then they talk about Watergate and the reforms that followed it. "To Mr. Barr, these reforms were obstacles to a vision of a virtually unbound executive." This is followed by a statement Barr made about the power of the executive. Instead of arguing against that statement, they simply compare him to England's King George III. Barr said "the president 'alone is the Executive branch', in whom 'the Constitution vests all Federal law enforcement power, and hence prosecutorial discretion." Is that wrong? Isn't this a question for constitutional scholars to debate? Maybe it is wrong. Is it clearly wrong? If Obama's attorney general had said it, would The New York Times proclaim it as indisputable?
Whether it's right or wrong, it's a reasonable interpretation, and Bill Barr is not the only person who thinks so. Many, many legal scholars, who believe in civil rights and want an independent justice system, believe this is true. But, The New York Times throws it in, interprets it as "Bill Barr believes the president is king" and then moves to its next point.
"Bill Barr's America...is a banana republic where all are subject to the whims of a dictatorial president and his henchmen." These are the words of Donald Ayer, that the Times goes on to agree with. This is such an egregious exaggeration of the facts, it has no place in The New York Times. The United States is not a "banana republic" and the actions of Bill Barr do not come close to being "whims of a dictatorial president and his henchmen." Donald Ayer was likely playing up his opinion to get press coverage and headlines. This is not a statement that was meant to accurately portray the state of the country. It is another irresponsible statement that sensationalizes instead of informs.
Next, the Times says Barr "misrepresented the contents" of the Mueller report. A "federal judge called Mr. Barr's characterization of the report 'distorted' and 'misleading.' Both of those come complete with links to back up their take. If you follow the "misrepresented the contents" link, and you read the whole story, you find that what they mean by "misrepresented the contents" was "didn't include all of the context with your accurate summary." There is no argument that Barr said anything untrue or misleading. The complaint is that Barr's summary didn't include context. How ironic that The New York Times calls it "misleading" when the full context is excluded. By that standard what should we call this editorial that doesn't mention a single one of the rationales given by the Justice Department in dropping the Flynn case?
The link to the second quote does more of the same. Claiming Barr misled the public by omitting context. The judge found it "misleading" that while Barr's statements were true, they were too narrow and left out many findings that would've cast doubt. Again, if this is a definition of "misleading" then The New York Times, The Washington Post, NPR and every news outlet is misleading. It is not that they leave out any context, because providing all context would be impossible. They leave out necessary context. For Flynn, they leave out the fact that the edits went on longer and involved more people than was standard; for Ukraine, they always called Jonathan Turley, the "Republican scholar" because Republicans called him, but they always omitted the fact that he was a long-standing Democrat who disagreed with them; when they discuss Trump's Charlottesville comments, they ignore that he explicitly condemned neo-Nazis and White Nationalists'. Name the story, Kavanaugh, Ukraine, FISA warrant, Russia, and the media are always telling you one side and leaving out inconvenient facts for their narrative.
The next paragraph is a litany of decisions that Barr made and liberals disagree with. Each decision Barr made was a reasonable decision. Maybe the decisions were wrong, but enough fair-minded people agree with them, that it's unfair to paint them as evidence that he's corrupt. He believes that the Russia investigation was improperly started. Is that evidence of corruption? Is the attorney general disagreeing with an inspector general so nefarious? How hard would it be to find previous attorney generals disagreeing with inspectors general? Obama and Democratic representatives disagree with court decisions, does that make them corrupt, too?
He called the investigation "spying." In other words, he said that confidential informants who were reporting the actions of Trump affiliates spies to law enforcement and intelligence agencies "spying."
He reduced the DoJ's recommended sentence for Roger Stone. Every knowledgeable person who looked at that case thought the recommendation was too high. Even so, the recommendation was merely a recommendation, it was the judge's ultimate decision. And the recommendation, even amended, included several years of jail time. By any metric you consider this, it was not a perversion of power, and yet, The New York Times is heaping onto a pile of other flimsy arguments hoping the volume of criticisms amounts to a real case.
It doesn't, and it shouldn't. The New York Times is using their history and the reputation they've earned to peddle a house of cards. Each thin and flimsy, but arranged in such a way that projects an illusion of a substantial argument. It is not; and every American needs to realize that these opinions collapse with the gentlest of breaths.
Imagine this hypothetical: Corrupt law enforcement agents break the law to punish people of the opposition party. They fail in their endeavor, the cases are dropped, and the targets are exonerated. Then the media pronounces that the government who freed them is corrupt and ignores the problematic process.
This situation does not occur with an independent and legitimate press. This is sensationalist, activist press, the kind you'd expect in dystopian fiction or countries where a dictatorship controls the media.
This was a hypothetical case, but it could be true, and many Americans believe that the FBI agents behind the Flynn case and the Carter Page FISA warrant let their politics override their faith to justice. Maybe those Americans are wrong; maybe the FBI agents were acting in good faith. The facts are, however, that they bent and broke many laws to get what they wanted. With the FISA application and then with the Flynn case.
There are three possibilities:
1. The FBI agents involved were extremely biased and believed punishing their enemies was more important than rule of law, and Bill Barr righted those wrongs.
2. The FBI agents involved were slightly biased and bent the rules a bit too far in pursuit of legitimate investigations, and Bill Barr undid the damage.
3. The FBI agents involved were completely professional, did everything by the book, got a bad guy, and Bill Barr let him off because he's Trump's lackey.
Do we have enough information to know for sure which is true? Does any journalist?
A responsible journalist has an obligation to report these facts. A responsible journalist should recognize that this is a complicated situation and doesn't have an easy answer. An irresponsible journalist jumps to possibility 1 or possibility 3 and tosses around over-generalizations like "Barr is corrupt and he doesn't that you know it." or "The attorney general is turning the Justice Department into a political weapon for the president."
The second quote is written by the editorial board of The New York Times, and is deeply, deeply irresponsible. They are taking a complicated situation, one that's clearly in the gray where there's not enough information to make a real determination as to everyone's motives and deeds, and deciding that William Barr, the attorney general is corrupt. The left's opinion writers are expert at taking many stories, over-interpreting them, and then putting them together to create the illusion of a strong case. This opinion piece is a terrific example.
The thesis is that Bill Barr is a political actor and has politicized the Justice Department. They start with a piece of a statement Barr made in response to a question, that without the full Barr statement makes him sound like he's be happy as long as he wins. Then they talk about Watergate and the reforms that followed it. "To Mr. Barr, these reforms were obstacles to a vision of a virtually unbound executive." This is followed by a statement Barr made about the power of the executive. Instead of arguing against that statement, they simply compare him to England's King George III. Barr said "the president 'alone is the Executive branch', in whom 'the Constitution vests all Federal law enforcement power, and hence prosecutorial discretion." Is that wrong? Isn't this a question for constitutional scholars to debate? Maybe it is wrong. Is it clearly wrong? If Obama's attorney general had said it, would The New York Times proclaim it as indisputable?
Whether it's right or wrong, it's a reasonable interpretation, and Bill Barr is not the only person who thinks so. Many, many legal scholars, who believe in civil rights and want an independent justice system, believe this is true. But, The New York Times throws it in, interprets it as "Bill Barr believes the president is king" and then moves to its next point.
"Bill Barr's America...is a banana republic where all are subject to the whims of a dictatorial president and his henchmen." These are the words of Donald Ayer, that the Times goes on to agree with. This is such an egregious exaggeration of the facts, it has no place in The New York Times. The United States is not a "banana republic" and the actions of Bill Barr do not come close to being "whims of a dictatorial president and his henchmen." Donald Ayer was likely playing up his opinion to get press coverage and headlines. This is not a statement that was meant to accurately portray the state of the country. It is another irresponsible statement that sensationalizes instead of informs.
Next, the Times says Barr "misrepresented the contents" of the Mueller report. A "federal judge called Mr. Barr's characterization of the report 'distorted' and 'misleading.' Both of those come complete with links to back up their take. If you follow the "misrepresented the contents" link, and you read the whole story, you find that what they mean by "misrepresented the contents" was "didn't include all of the context with your accurate summary." There is no argument that Barr said anything untrue or misleading. The complaint is that Barr's summary didn't include context. How ironic that The New York Times calls it "misleading" when the full context is excluded. By that standard what should we call this editorial that doesn't mention a single one of the rationales given by the Justice Department in dropping the Flynn case?
The link to the second quote does more of the same. Claiming Barr misled the public by omitting context. The judge found it "misleading" that while Barr's statements were true, they were too narrow and left out many findings that would've cast doubt. Again, if this is a definition of "misleading" then The New York Times, The Washington Post, NPR and every news outlet is misleading. It is not that they leave out any context, because providing all context would be impossible. They leave out necessary context. For Flynn, they leave out the fact that the edits went on longer and involved more people than was standard; for Ukraine, they always called Jonathan Turley, the "Republican scholar" because Republicans called him, but they always omitted the fact that he was a long-standing Democrat who disagreed with them; when they discuss Trump's Charlottesville comments, they ignore that he explicitly condemned neo-Nazis and White Nationalists'. Name the story, Kavanaugh, Ukraine, FISA warrant, Russia, and the media are always telling you one side and leaving out inconvenient facts for their narrative.
The next paragraph is a litany of decisions that Barr made and liberals disagree with. Each decision Barr made was a reasonable decision. Maybe the decisions were wrong, but enough fair-minded people agree with them, that it's unfair to paint them as evidence that he's corrupt. He believes that the Russia investigation was improperly started. Is that evidence of corruption? Is the attorney general disagreeing with an inspector general so nefarious? How hard would it be to find previous attorney generals disagreeing with inspectors general? Obama and Democratic representatives disagree with court decisions, does that make them corrupt, too?
He called the investigation "spying." In other words, he said that confidential informants who were reporting the actions of Trump affiliates spies to law enforcement and intelligence agencies "spying."
He reduced the DoJ's recommended sentence for Roger Stone. Every knowledgeable person who looked at that case thought the recommendation was too high. Even so, the recommendation was merely a recommendation, it was the judge's ultimate decision. And the recommendation, even amended, included several years of jail time. By any metric you consider this, it was not a perversion of power, and yet, The New York Times is heaping onto a pile of other flimsy arguments hoping the volume of criticisms amounts to a real case.
It doesn't, and it shouldn't. The New York Times is using their history and the reputation they've earned to peddle a house of cards. Each thin and flimsy, but arranged in such a way that projects an illusion of a substantial argument. It is not; and every American needs to realize that these opinions collapse with the gentlest of breaths.
Wednesday, May 6, 2020
Journalistic Malpractice - Coronavirus Edition
This NY Times report is receiving a lot of publicity. Without even searching, I've seen/heard about this story 4 times already today:
WaPo: Draft report predicts covid-19 cases will reach 200,000 a day by June 1
NPR Fact Check: Trump Administration Document And Its 3,000 Deaths A Day Scenario
CNN: Trump downplays models projecting Covid-19 death increases
This whole episode demonstrates how much is wrong with the journalism today and how it has evolved into a machine that doesn't appropriately inform the public but pushes the sentiments of journalists, ratchets up the hysteria, and divides the country. Should responsible media really use the word "carnage" to describe the model results, or is that geared towards making it more dramatic?
Many questions arise for me when reading the story:
Why didn't the NPR fact-check actually provide context for the prediction?
WaPo: Draft report predicts covid-19 cases will reach 200,000 a day by June 1
NPR Fact Check: Trump Administration Document And Its 3,000 Deaths A Day Scenario
CNN: Trump downplays models projecting Covid-19 death increases
This whole episode demonstrates how much is wrong with the journalism today and how it has evolved into a machine that doesn't appropriately inform the public but pushes the sentiments of journalists, ratchets up the hysteria, and divides the country. Should responsible media really use the word "carnage" to describe the model results, or is that geared towards making it more dramatic?
Many questions arise for me when reading the story:
Why didn't the NPR fact-check actually provide context for the prediction?
- Why didn't the Washington Post, CNN, or even the original New York Times article provide context for the prediction?
- Where's the conjecture as to what might cause such a large increase?
- Who leaked it and did they have an agenda other than to inform?
On the first two questions, high-quality journalists could have and should have dug into the data to compare it to other models, assess the numbers' likelihood considering current conditions, pointed out that the model included in the slides under-counts actual deaths to date. This story did none of those things. The authors also did not consider the third question, even taking the projections as correct, what could cause them? They mention, relaxing the government orders, but did they scrutinize that idea at all by considering which states are relaxing their orders, by what degree, and what would public reaction be? Or did they just rely on their pre-existing pro-quarantine inclinations to conclude relaxation equals "carnage"?
Ask yourself, if the leaked presentation had actually shown an optimistic scenario, where deaths and cases per day plummet, would the authors have asked these questions within the story? Would the follow-up coverage ask them? Would the stories not even be published?
This episode also demonstrates other problems with our current media landscape. First, that the media tend to focus on worst-case scenarios. They emphasize the negative because it gets the most clicks. This is not new. Local news has for decades focused on crime, for example. But now this is occurring on the national level. In addition, in a case like this, it's much easier to be balanced, by questioning the negative projections and also pointing out that this is worse than most other models have projected. The media's incentive to accentuate the negative distorts public perception of reality, even though the media's primary job is to present it accurately.
Another way in which the media coverage leads to a public misperception is when every outlet repeats the original story without providing any additional value. When the 100 left-leaning media outlets see a story that fits with their view of the universe, they repeat it, but with different headlines. This indundates the public with the exact same story, the exact same take on the story, but the perception that these are different stories because they have different headlines. This exaggerates the importance and perceived reality of the story, even though the fact remains that someone in the administration leaked a presentation, one time. When you hear or see, multiple times in the day, different headlines all saying "Deaths are going to go up", you can't read each and every story, so you're not sure if it's based on the same or different information. Not knowing, you split the difference and interpret it, as possibly new, so the story has a larger impact than it should.
This is exactly what happened when BuzzFeed published their story about how the Mueller Report would show that Trump directed his attorney to lie. This also was based on anonymous sources and grew exponentially through media repetition. Like this recent episode, none of the outlets that repeated this "bombshell" provided any additional consideration of the facts but was happy to repeat information that fit their inclinations. Look how that turned out.
Americans deserve a better media industry. As it is constituted, especially in political news, it is geared towards pushing the public in a certain direction instead of strictly informing them and providing context.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)