Foundational to identifying fake news

Hunter of Daily Kos discussed an article put out by the New York Post, Rupert Murdoch’s paper, on Texas Senator Ted Cruz. It’s such a fluff piece Hunter discussed why such a piece would be published – such as why did the publisher or, in this case the subject of the interview, want us to know whatever is in the piece. In this case Cruz is trying to burnish his reputation because his previous win was a bit too close for his comfort. Once the journalist saw the interview was going to be Cruz saying what he wanted the world to know about him, the journalist had three choices. One, they could have told the boss sorry, that interview was a waste of time. Two, they could have reported what Cruz said and supplement it with examples showing Cruz is feeding us a line. Or, three, the journalist could be a stenographer, offering no doses of reality to what the subject said. At least, in this case, the writer was upfront about the nature of this interview – if the reader caught the clues. So we as news consumers should ask some questions. Can we identify the motive of the story? Are we being sold a product (and a candidate is a product)? How did the journalist obtain the news? Who benefits? Who is damaged? Why would the source want the information to be public? Was the relationship between the reporter and source adversarial, cooperative, or neutral? Why does the journalist or media company consider the story newsworthy? What does any secondary information imply? Why were certain examples, and not others, chosen to be included?

Identifying the reasons why a story might be being distributed is foundational to identifying fake news in an era awash with government-sanctioned hoaxes. But it's also required for simply flipping through the pages of your preferred newspaper or scrolling through the homepage of a staid network's internet site. None of the stories write themselves. There was a spurring event for each of them: A press release that sounded interesting. A friend of a friend who noticed something out of the ordinary. A senator facing uncomfortable recent polling numbers that have him sweating for a chance to rebrand. None of it is necessarily malicious, but it's your attention that's being purchased. Not just by the advertisements, but by the people so freely giving the quotes.

The same day I read Hunter’s article (which is today) I read three more stories where this discussion is important. Hunter discussed another article from the NYP. Bud Light did a sponsorship deal with Dylan Mulvaney, who is trans. Kid Rock, a conservative celebrity, put out a video of himself shooting at cans of Bud Light (and missing quite a bit). The only media outlets that think this is worth more than a quick mention are the NYP and Murdoch’s other big empire Fox News. And both are devoting significant hype to this story.

There are stories that are in the news because they are unambiguously news. And then there are other stories that exist solely because someone who owns or operates a gargantuan media outlet wants to make it news, and is willing to devote a significant portion of their company's attention to making it happen.

The second story is from the Washington Post, and Mark Sumner of Kos discussed it. Sumner’s post is titled a Ukraine update, though a good chunk of it isn’t directly about the war. A couple months ago some detailed highly classified material about the war started appearing on a site that discusses gaming. It went unnoticed by the wider world for quite a while. Then some of it was posted on more mainstream social media. And some of those posts were obviously doctored to show the Russian position to be better than it was. There has been a lot of discussion of whether the original data was real or a psy-ops fake. Attention turned to who leaked the material and why. News today is the leaker has been caught. What is (for me) of greater interest, which follows the theme of today, is the WaPo article that treats the leaker in a “glossy, airbrushed, kid glove” manner. Gosh, the kid was just sharing goodies with a bunch of pals with a similar love of guns, military gear, and God. So what if in one of his posted videos he shouted anti-Semitic slurs? The article doesn’t question why no one in this online circle thought to alert the FBI. Though Sumner comments that he’s never read an article (even in the nasty guy era) that tries so hard to be kind to its subject, especially one who has committed a crime. Sumner doesn’t answer Hunter’s questions of: Why was the article written? What is the media outlet pushing? Who benefits? Who is hurt? So we should ask. The answers I come up with don’t look good for Wapo. The third story appears in the current issue of Between the Lines and is written by Cameron Parkins and Logan Harding of Stand with Trans. They discuss the irresponsible manner in which many media outlets focused on the Nashville shooter possibly being trans, then being inaccurate and sensational in their descriptions. By mishandling the story trans people, already under a great risk of violence, were placed under even greater risk. This misreporting quickly spawned two troubling and trending hashtags, #TransTerrorism and #TransDayOfVengeance. There were claims that hormone replacement therapy was a source of rage – false (they’re confusing HRT with steroids). There were calls for the execution of trans people because of the false belief that being trans was an attack on Christianity. That’s all because of the way the story was handled. We never see a story with a headline of “Cis White Person Shoots Students.” Instead of focusing on a trans person with a gun, let’s focus instead on cis people with guns. Let’s focus on the guns, especially the assault weapons “in the hands of people who lack the training, emotional regulation and mental stability to responsibly handle firearms designed for literal war.” Since questions are being asked, here’s another (though the answer is obvious): Why, through several media outlets, was so much emphasis placed on the shooter being trans? A couple things related to my discussion yesterday about the lavish vacations offered to Justice Clarence Thomas that are obviously corrupting. Kerry Eleveld of Kos reported on a poll released by Economist/YouGov. Nearly 60% of Americans disapprove of what Thomas did and 40% of Republicans disapprove, with 34% saying they approve. Even so, 67% of Republicans hold a favorable view of Thomas while 60% of Democrats hold an unfavorable view of him. Marty Two Bulls tweeted a cartoon of Thomas in a straw hat:

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas was confronted about his failure to disclose a free trip to Indonesia valued at more than $500,000. The Yale graduate with almost fifty years of law experience, gave the classical defense of a teenager... “I didn’t know it was illegal.”

Joan McCarter of Kos reported the Missouri House Republicans voted to defund public and school libraries in the state budget. The move is in retaliation to a lawsuit brought by the ACLU to overturn a new state law banning sexually explicit material in school libraries. While libraries have other revenue streams this is definitely a hit to their budgets. It is also bad for the state’s kids, particularly those in rural areas. And it’s bad for democracy. The budget also cuts diversity initiatives, pre-kindergarten programs, and support for child care. Typical of modern Republicans. Librarians are hoping the Missouri Senate loves them more than the House does. This story prompted Ted & Lyn to tweet a cartoon by Mike Luckovich. It shows an elephant standing on a pile of guns holding a sign that says, “Protect school kids, ban books.” Garth German tweeted a cartoon showing various people with protest signs saying such things as “I’ll tell teachers what to teach!” On one side is a man reading a paper with the headline, “Survey: Less than ½ US adults could name all 3 branches of government.” The man says, “America is going to dumb itself to death.” Joe Heller tweeted a cartoon of a man telling a teacher he doesn’t trust her with books, with history, grammar, rainbows, or art. But he does trust her with a gun to protect kids. Eleveld listed a few more mass shootings, then discussed a recent KFF poll. More than half of US adults have been personally affected by gun violence. They or a family member have been affected by personally being threatened, by a family member killed by a gun (including suicide), by witnessing someone being shot, by shooting someone in self-defense, or by being injured by a gun. Eleveld also reported on a Harvard Youth Poll of voters under 30. 63% support stricter gun laws, 73% support requiring psychological exams for all gun purchases, and 58% support banning all assault weapons.

Despite being on the verge of losing a massive generation of voters who literally fear for their lives, Republicans remain both obstinate and impervious to the peril. ... Former Wisconsin GOP Gov. Scott Walker wrote, “We have to undo years of liberal indoctrination,” by which he meant that Republicans needed to indoctrinate young Americans themselves or else face electoral doom. That’s the former Republican governor of a swing state suggesting that the GOP’s best course of action is to re-educate an entire generation of kids rather than simply address their concerns. In other words, it doesn’t matter whether mass shootings are happening weekly, daily, or even hourly, Republicans aren’t going to lift a damn finger to curb gun violence in this country.

Which means: They want that. They want the deaths and the trauma. Boston Globe Opinion tweeted a cartoon of two Ukrainian soldiers in a trench with bullets flying overhead. One says, “Is it me or does this still feel safer than living in America?” A bit of good news: An AP article posted on Kos reports that Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer has signed bills that say anyone who buys a gun must undergo a background check and gun owners with minors must safely store guns and ammunition. The signing ceremony took place on the Michigan State University campus, the site of a recent shooting. Bills for red flag laws, also known as extreme risk protection orders, will be voted on by the Michigan House soon.