Rating news on its politics instead of its facts

I finished the book The Great Passion by James Runcie. The story is set in Saxony of 1726. The narrator is thirteen year old Stefan Silbermann. His mother has died and his father sends him to Leipzig to the St. Thomas Church and School where he can study music with the Cantor – Johann Sebastian Bach. I saw Stefan’s last name and wondered... My thought that he was a part of the Silbermann pipe organ building family of that time in Saxony was quickly confirmed. Bach knew and tested organs in the area and would have played Silbermann organs and consulted with the builder. Stefan is the nephew of the master builder, though is actually fictional. Bach, of course, is historical as are many events in the story, though details would not have been recorded. One main purpose of the school was to teach the boys singing so they could sing in the church services. The voices of most of the boys hadn’t changed yet so they could sing the soprano and alto parts. This was necessary because women were banned from singing in the church at the time. Several of the boys knew their usefulness to the school would end when their voice changed. When Stefan gets to the school he is bullied, as many boys new to a situation are. Part of the bullying is because Bach recognizes how well Stefan sings and asks him to sing solos, to the annoyance of the boy who had been getting most of the solos. So Bach invites Stefan to leave the dormitory and move into his family quarters provided by the church. There Stefan gets to know Bach’s seven living children and experiences puppy love with the oldest, seventeen year old Catharina. As part of living in the household Stefan serves as a copyist as Bach must prepare a new cantata nearly every week. Stefan takes organ lessons from Bach and singing lessons from Bach’s second wife Anna Magdalena. Most of the book is scenes of domestic, school, and church life. Not a lot happens. There is a lot of talk of theology and much of it is of the sort that life is hard and miserable but heaven will be glorious. Death is common and you will die too. So don’t be idle. Yeah, gloomy theology. Bach is a strong task master, wanting to be busy and wanting his children to always be productive. The commonness of death is shown in Bach’s own family. The book describes some of it and I consulted a Bach genealogy for more. By the time of the story Bach and first wife Maria Barbara had seven children and only four were still alive. Maria Barbara had also died. Anna Magdalena eventually gave birth to thirteen children, giving Bach a total of twenty – the last when she was 41 and he was 57. Eleven of those twenty died before he did in 1750 at age 65. The last 20% of the book is what gives it its name. At the start of Lent of 1727 Bach has the idea of a big Passion cantata to be given on Good Friday, the day that marks the crucifixion of Jesus. He doesn’t want to just tell the story. He wants the text to comment on the story, to draw the listener in and make them feel they could have been a part of it. The result is The Passion of Christ According to the Evangelist Matthew. So there is a rush to get such a huge piece written. Then get it rehearsed. That includes teaching the soloists (including Stefan), convincing them they are capable of meeting the demands of the music, and telling one that a recent death is all the more appropriate for them to sing this piece about death. If one is really into Bach this is an enjoyable story. Mark Sumner, Daily Kos staff emeritus, discussed the decision of Los Angeles Times billionaire owner Patrick Soon-Schiong to give stories a “bias meter,” a way “to alert readers about the ideological tilt of the paper’s content.” The rankings could be from “far left” to “far right.” What could go wrong? Sumner says plenty. The rankings would be done by AI. There isn’t an existing AI that could provide such ratings. So the first problem is that Soon-Schiong is adapting the medical AI he’s already created. Current AIs can be bad at their tasks and offer no explanation on how they arrive at their outputs. Sumner reviews two problems that appeared in medical AIs. First, one AI determined which skin lesions were cancerous by determining that physicians held rulers next to the cancerous ones. Second, an AI determined which x-rays showed tuberculosis from how out of focus they were. Tuberculosis is thankfully rare these days, so the only x-rays that showed it were older, more out of focus ones. So, how would such an AI rate a story on climate change? Far-right sources don’t use the term and pretend it doesn’t exist. A factual, well-researched story on climate change will be labeled “far-left.” Public Enlightenment wrote about how unhelpful a bias meter would be by showing how some outlets are ranked by various services. Associated Press – “far left,” Fox News – “center right,” Reason Magazine, supported by the Koch Brothers – “center.” Public Enlightenment adds, “Ratings do not reflect accuracy or credibility; they reflect perspective only.” And that gets to the core of the problem. Wrote Sumner.

Only pure ignorance will make it through as unaligned. For large sections of the Times' audience, any stamp that indicates a story is left or right will be tantamount to saying "This is inaccurate, so don't bother to read it." What Patrick Soon-Shiong is creating is a system that tells his readers that the content of the paper he owns can't be relied on for accuracy. It's hard to imagine any way to more quickly delegitimize and decimate journalism. Which may, of course, be the intent. ... Any ranking service that examines articles on a political rather than factual basis is inherently harmful to independent, unbiased journalism. And every one of these bias charts seems to start with a huge bias.

Oliver Willis of Kos wrote:

“There is talk about the Postal Service being taken private, you do know that—not the worst idea I’ve ever heard,” Trump said at a press conference on Monday. “It’s an idea that a lot of people have liked for a long time. We’re looking at that.”

My thought in reading that paragraph is who are those “a lot of people”? They certainly aren’t the vast majority of Americans. But we know the nasty guy doesn’t listen to us common folks that make up the vast majority of Americans. He listens to billionaires who either want to get richer off the USPS or don’t want it as competition. Mark Dimondstein, president of the American Postal Workers Union said privatization would “end universal service.” People in hard to reach locations would lose service. Many people, especially us in the ’burbs, don’t know that many of the big package delivery companies use the USPS for those hard to reach locations, the places the USPS must go by law, but for-profit companies would see as too expensive.

“Universal service is especially important to rural America. Privatization also would lead to price-gouging by private companies,” Dimondstein added.

Put another way, the nasty guy and his cronies would not see any change in service. Their political base would. A reminder: Louis DeStroy is still in charge of the USPS. Biden didn’t accomplish his removal. Alex Samuels of Kos wrote that American voters can be quite messy in their opinion on big issues. This assertion is based on a Civiqs poll for Kos done December 7-10. It shows views don’t align with the goals of either party. Some of the messiness: 94% of Republicans believe the nasty guy will act on his promise to deport millions of immigrants. But only 50% of Republicans believe he’ll end the Affordable Care Act. Voter preference? A belief that the federal government has a responsibility in health care coverage? In 2024 Missouri voters approved abortion rights, raise the minimum wage, and paid sick leave while voting in Republicans, who oppose these policies. The messiness could be perpetual dissatisfaction with both parties. Or liking Democratic policies and not their candidates this year. Or trying to compress incoherent views into a binary choice. Two weeks ago Samuels reported that based on the election results many pundits are making the claim America has shifted to the right. But based on actual policies America is still quite liberal. One example is that 71% of Americans want the government to lower drug costs and prevent price gouging. Also two weeks ago Samuels reported:

In fact, according to a survey from YouGov, which was fielded in late November, the majority of Americans surveyed said that they view allegations of sexual assault (62%), domestic violence (61%), and a history of substance abuse (51%) as disqualifying to serve in a presidential Cabinet position. American adults also suggested that they didn’t want Cabinet picks who had links to extremist groups (70%), allegations of links to hostile foreign governments (66%), and past criminal convictions (61%). These numbers might not dissuade Trump, however, who is actively rolling out new names for those who he wants to fill out his administration. Several of Trump’s picks are embroiled in controversy. And it’s possible that Trump is hoping that Americans will turn a blind eye to these lower-level Cabinet members.

Samuels then reviewed all the cabinet nominations a majority of Americans view as disqualifying. Again, two weeks ago (yeah, I didn’t do much writing early this month) Margaret Huang, president and CEO of the Southern Poverty Law Center, wrote that the SPLC is closely monitoring the cabinet nominations and why the choice matters.

A strong federal government is essential to ensuring that the rights guaranteed by the Constitution are both protected and applied equally to all Americans and to providing vital resources and services to the most vulnerable populations. In arenas such as housing, education, criminal justice, health care, and more, civil rights laws protect against discrimination and ensure equal opportunity. However, we are concerned that the incoming administration will seek to shift power to individual states and abandon the federal government’s responsibilities to protect everyone’s rights.

Lisa Needham of Kos reported that last week “Texas sued New York physician Margaret Daley Carpenter for providing abortion pills via telehealth to a Texas resident.” This is an attempt to crack New York’s shield law that protects abortion providers from prosecutions in other states. So, yeah, ditch the idea that anti-choice advocates simply wanted to return abortion to the states.

Red states are going to astonishing lengths to try to stop their own citizens from obtaining abortions elsewhere and to demand that blue states honor red states’ laws. ... Generally, states do not get to dictate what happens in other states, nor do they get to try to reach into another state and impose their own laws.

There was one shameful exception, the Fugitive Slave Act. That empowered anyone to capture the enslaved, even in states that banned slavery, and return them to their owners. The anti-abortion efforts are similar in that Texas set up a bounty hunter system. Texas could get an injunction against Carpenter, but the New York shield law means New York can’t order Carpenter to comply. The next step is for Texas to sue New York to force compliance with Texas law. That will immediately go to the Supreme Court. With a supermajority that hates abortion, New York would likely lose. And that would overturn shield laws in 18 other states and Washington, DC. And states could impose their abortion bans on states where it is legal.

Anti-choice state politicians have no intention of leaving pro-choice states alone when it comes to abortion. They’re not going to stop until they make it impossible to get abortions in blue states. This is not how federalism is supposed to work, but it’s what we’re headed toward now.