Support a Free, Trustworthy Press in 2017

Cross-posted from Medium.

As you make year-end donations and think about which causes to support in 2017, I strongly urge you to consider setting up recurring contributions to organizations that support a free, vibrant, and trustworthy press.

Concerned citizens of all political persuasions will find plenty of causes in need of resources in the coming years of the new administration. But no cause can be well supported if the press does not report on it, and if citizens don’t trust that reporting. That’s why I believe that — above all — we need to support trustworthy journalism.

Our trust in journalism is under threat on a number of different fronts. Changes in technology and business models in the media industry have weakened mainstream newsrooms and strengthened outlets that pander to readers’ predetermined points of view. “New media” (a lumpy term in which I include social platforms as well as new web-based news organizations) have also presented an opportunity for individuals and groups on every point of the political spectrum to publish their views broadly, without the gate-keeping or fact-checking performed by the traditional media. Social media sites also create echo chambers in which our existing beliefs are reinforced rather than challenged. Meanwhile, on the political front, our president-elect repeatedly dismisses pillars of the mainstream media as “failing” and “dishonest,” obscuring truth and spreading confusion, and he has not hesitated to punish outlets when they publish something about him he doesn’t like. Many of his followers agree with this tactic: according to a Pew research poll held just before the election, only 49% of registered voters who supported Trump said that the freedom of news organizations to criticize political leaders was “very important.”

But to hold their government accountable, citizens do need to be well informed — and the sources of our information need to be seen as trustworthy by politically and socioeconomically diverse swaths of that citizenry. If I believe that a racially-motivated hate crime took place because I trust Vox and my neighbor doesn’t because they trust Breitbart, how can we hope to effectively petition our government to stop such atrocities?

This isn’t easy — there isn’t an obvious path forward that simply calls for some political will and some fundraising. Traditional news sources are struggling not just because right-leaning Americans have decided they’re dishonest; they’re struggling in part because they haven’t effectively met needs that social media sites do, and because they’ve stumbled over themselves while trying to find the right business models for the digital age. And more conservative new media outlets have cropped up in part because existing outlets, however strongly they believe in their journalistic ideals, have still failed to be relevant to a large swath of the population.

Meanwhile social media platforms and other news aggregators have distanced themselves from the truth-evaluation game in part because it opens up a Pandora’s box of questions about who gets to decide what truth and news even are — questions that weren’t even easy to answer when that gate-keeping was done by news organizations. (And, of course, such fact-checking and investigating, if done well, is expensive and time-consuming.) Traditional outlets have also floundered on this front, for example when they conflate “balanced” with “truthful” reporting.

But if we have no agreed-upon benchmark for measuring the truth, how can we agree on whether Vox or Breitbart is correct, on which outlet is more credible, on what facts are facts? Alt-right champion Mike Cernovich gleefully calls the resulting vacuum “postmodern” and sees it as an opportunity for a new national narrative; I see it as a deeply troubling mess whose solutions will have to be political, educational, and commercial at the very least.

Still, we can’t let the pursuit of perfect solutions be the enemy of good, solid action. To that end, here are some practical places I urge you to start:

First, support local and national commercial journalism by paying for subscriptions to the outlets you read or consume the most and that support traditional journalistic ethics, be they the New York Times, NPR, or the Boston Globe. (Even more localized news outlets cover issues such as school board matters, local ordinances, and infrastructure decisions that don’t often get covered by national media but have just as much effect on people’s lives.) Again, these more traditional news sources aren’t the be-all, end-all solution to the problem, but they’re certainly organizations that have the responsibility to tell truth to power. If we use them to educate ourselves, we need to empower them to do it as well as possible — and our dollars tell them that we as readers and customers are invested in that outcome.

Another way to communicate that investment is to hold these news organizations accountable when you see that they’re not doing a good enough job. The University of Wisconsin’s Center for Journalism Ethics has a great list of resources for registering complaints and concerns, including links to contact the public editors at major news organizations.

Next, donate to organizations that advocate for and support the free press, investigative journalism, and journalists:

  • ACLU — An organization fighting for freedom of the press and other first-amendment rights.
  • ProPublica — An independent, non-profit newsroom that produces investigative journalism in the public interest.
  • Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) — Their First Amendment Forever Fund is an endowment built to fight for press freedoms. It’s a kind of meta version of their Legal Defense Fund, to which you can also donate directly, and which provides journalists with legal or financial assistance in the cause of defending freedom of speech and press, often to enforce public access to government records.
  • Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) — It’s like the ACLU for the digital world, defending individual rights of expression and privacy online.

And finally, donate to organizations that support our own education as consumers of information:

  • Center for News Literacy — An initiative of the Stony Brook University Department of Journalism, the Center works to teach students and the general public how to read, interpret, and gauge the value of news reports and news sources. A recent, much-publicized study from Stanford showed how much difficulty young people have knowing what to trust online, and it would hardly be a surprise if the same were true of adults.

This is just a start. The issues with our media and with our government’s attitude toward it aren’t going to be fixed just by buying subscriptions or donating to advocacy organizations. We also need to remain ever watchful, creative, and demanding in the days — and years — ahead.

Reflections on Campaign 2008

I never realized how emotionally difficult campaigning is.

Data entry is by far the easiest. It’s emotional (especially getting into the late hours last night), but in a fun way: you’re rushing to get through sheaves of data that all need to be entered into the computer system early enough to run the GOTV rolls for election day morning. There isn’t really room to sit; people are sprawled all over every piece of furniture and on the floor, laptop cords jumbled with various legs and jackets and backpack straps. You can hear the callers in the other rooms and in the hallways, and there’s an impatient sense of urgency in everyone’s voice. It’s exciting, and fun to be a part of.

Doing visibility (campaign-speak for waving signs at street corners) is pretty easy too, and in my mind the most fun. You get lots of people “honking for change” and the people who give you thumbs-down aren’t confrontational.

What really gets to me is the canvassing.

The Problems (and Not) of Sarah Palin

Us Dems are all up in arms about how much Sarah Palin spent on her wardrobe. Aha!–we cry–an instant showing of hypocrisy. Sarah and the McCain campaign are pushing the Obama-the-elitist-and-McCain-the-populist angle! And here they are spending lots of money! Proof that they are, in fact, elitists!

Unfortunately, to many people, elitism has much less to do with how much money you make or spend, and much more to do with how you communicate with them. I’m not talking about some intangible, mythical “connection,” rather, about the candidates’ accents. It’s notable that the Republican party has milked this Eliza Doolittle’s accent for all it’s worth rather than teaching her which syllables to pronounce and how to say her vowels. And that Obama, unlike many successful Democratic (and of course Republican) candidates of the past, has nary a twang amongst his dulcet educated tones.

This all speaks less to how much money a candidate has, and more to how they were educated. And that’s really what the Republicans are after: they want someone who was educated like they were. Obama is off-putting because his East-coast education is so foreign to them. Sad as that is, it is frankly a much more realistic basis for liking or disliking a candidate than is the amount of money they spend on clothes, or how many houses they have. I myself like to think I’ll vote for the ticket that is the best educated (whether in schools or in practical experience) to lead my country–but for many Republicans, I think, that requisite schooling just looks different. In many cases people are going to vote for the person who is educated most like themselves, instead of someone who is educated for the position they are voting him into.

But I’m not here to argue that identity politics is wrong–I’m here to argue that it is very much at play, no matter how much various Republicans spend on Palin’s wardrobe. Our crowing over absurd price tags misses the point: people will like Sarah Palin and think of her as non-elitist because she talks like them–no matter what clothes they dress her in at the ball.

Obama/Bartlet ’08

I think many of us have imagined this meeting of the minds, but I do think it kind of falls flat. I thought Bartlet would be more helpful and encouraging of Obama. Sigh.

Barack Obama meets Josiah Bartlet

Firings and Regulation and Lies

OK, so Barack Obama wants to deal with the economic crisis by introducing more regulation of the markets. John McCain is against more regulation. Instead, his solution to the crisis is to fire the SEC chair.

I’m not against firing the guy. It does appear that he missed something about his job in letting all this happen. But I think McCain’s approach sends mixed signals: he is trying to appear very dramatically concerned about the crisis (to match Obama’s own lashing of the government), but he’s sticking to his conservative guns at the same time, without actually proposing any new strategy. Just firing people, Palin-style, isn’t going to solve this problem. We clearly do need more regulation–or, if regulation for things like how much of a capital margin you have is already on the books–we need to enforce it more. We need to do more than just fire people. We can’t just take the emotional steps and leave off the smart, strategic ones because they’re less fun and cathartic.

This Makes Me Happy

I’ve been jarred a few times in the last day or two by someone using the male-gender-specific pronoun when referring to the presidential candidates. Somewhere along the way I just got very used to assuming that one of the candidates was a woman.