OPINION - Shields and Brooks 5/24/2019

"Shields and Brooks on Trump-Pelosi feud, 2020 Democrats" PBS NewsHour 5/24/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks join Judy Woodruff to discuss the week’s political news, including NewsHour interviews with 2020 Presidential candidates Eric Swalwell and Kirsten Gillibrand, the escalating feud between President Trump and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and whether ongoing congressional investigations are leading to impeachment.

Judy Woodruff (NewsHour):  And now we turn to the analysis of Shields and Brooks.  That's syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks.

Hello to both of you.

So, we are trying to work our way through a conversation with each one of these candidates.

Mark, there are now, as we said, 23 of them.  We talked to Eric Swalwell tonight, Kirsten Gillibrand last night.

I'm not going to say they are one-issue candidates, but they are — in his case, you heard him talk about gun control, Kirsten Gillibrand emphasizing women's issues.

What are you hearing from them?  Is it smart for them to seize on one issue or not?

Mark Shields, syndicated columnist:  Well, we will find out whether it is.

It just strikes me that abortion, as an issue, has been…

Judy Woodruff:  What she's talking about.

Mark Shields:  That's where Kirsten Gillibrand is probably most prominently identified — is an issue where those who seek serious and large change find themselves on the political defensive.

And I think it's fair to say that it's hard to imagine anybody running a winning national campaign on enlarging and making statutory abortion legal in all circumstances or, for that matter, a Democratic Party which is essentially unwelcoming to those people who are — have reservations or are pro-life, but agree on every other issue.

Essentially, we had Bob Casey in his fifth term from Pennsylvania, the United States senator, wouldn't be welcome and not receive party backing, basically.

Judy Woodruff:  What is coming through to you?

David Brooks, New York Times:  Yes.

When I look at these candidates, I'm first struck by how the self-esteem movement was obviously very effective.

(LAUGHTER)

David Brooks:  Because, when I look at the presidency — I have interviewed a lot of Presidents since Reagan, really.  And the one thing I come away with after every single interview was, I could never do that job.

Like, it's a really hard job.  And Eisenhower — if I were Eisenhower, I would think, yes, I could do that.  I have run a war.  Franklin Roosevelt was governor of New York.  Ronald Reagan was governor of California.  George H.W. Bush had served in every position almost imaginable.

But why these people think they could be President of the United States is a little mystifying to me.  But maybe they're right.

The second thing I look for is a unique selling proposition, like an actual route to the White House, why you're called to run, not — why it's not just about you getting a little more famous, but why there's been some call on you to run.

And for Elizabeth Warren, I can see it.  She's got a set of policies and plans that are sort of unique.  It's a unique selling proposition.  Biden's got broad experience.  Bernie Sanders has an outlook.

With a lot of the candidates, a lot of the 23, I don't quite see a unique selling proposition or politically even a route to victory.

Judy Woodruff:  Hmm.  Well…

Mark Shields:  Well, no, I don't argue with that.

I mean, I just say, the uneasy consensus on abortion in this country seems to me be in favor of the status quo, which is rape, incest and the life of the mother.  And that — to me, if you start to change that, which I think Republicans are finding right now, when you have got the Republican national chair disavowing it, and the Republican Senate majority leader disavowing the latest change, the most zealous changes that the Republicans are making, I think it tells you something about the politics of that issue.

David Brooks:  It's weird that 50 percent of the country is sort of in the middle on abortion.

Mark Shields:  Yes.

David Brooks:  And Gillibrand says no Democratic candidate should get support if they're in the 50 percent, which is like a guarantee of permanent minority.

Judy Woodruff:  All right, well, let's talk about something that's consumed us for the last couple of days.

And that is what was a fight, a battle between the President and Democrats in the Congress over subpoenas and documents and so forth that has turned into this very personal feud, Mark, between Speaker Pelosi and President Trump.

And here is just a little bit of what the two of them have been saying about each other over the last two days.

Mark Shields:  OK.

Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.):   We believe that the President of the United States is engaged in a cover-up.

Donald Trump:  I don't do cover-ups.  I'm the most transparent President probably in the history of this country.  So, get these phony investigations over with.

Rep. Nancy Pelosi:  I pray for the President of the United States.  I wish that his family or his administration or his staff would have an intervention for the good of the country.

The White House is just crying out for impeachment.  That's why he flipped yesterday.

Donald Trump:  I'm an extremely stable genius.  She's a mess.  Look, let's face it.  Crazy Nancy, I will tell you what, I have been watching her.  And I have been watching her for a long period of time.  She's not the same person.  She's lost it.

I think Nancy Pelosi is not helping this country. 

Judy Woodruff:  So, Mark, it's gotten very personal.

Mark Shields:  It has gotten very personal, particularly on the President's part.

And it just struck me, when Nancy Pelosi used the term intervention, that's a serious — that is a — that's an attempt, a collective attempt, a cooperative attempt, a collaborative attempt on the part of family and friends to intercede and to present to a person they think is suffering from an addiction or some sort of condition that condition is out of control, and with the idea of seeking remedy and seeking repair.

And I don't think she used the term lightly.  And I would add to that, when you get General James Mattis, who has been totally silent…

Judy Woodruff:  Former defense secretary.

Mark Shields:  Former defense secretary.

He left, and he now is cautioning this President on Iran.  He is cautioning him, the United States, on the use of military power and arguing that diplomacy is important.  When you get the former secretary of defense, whom the President upbraided and insulted, Rex Tillerson, going to the Congress, and really raising serious questions about the President's…

Judy Woodruff:  He testified this week.

Mark Shields:  Testified that the President was unprepared, ill-prepared for the summit in Hamburg with Secretary — with Mr. Putin, and left the United States at a disadvantage, I think that this a larger message here than just political back and forth.

I think there's a serious concern about this President and this presidency.  And, Judy, the first rule I learned covering American President politics is, beware of the Presidential candidate who does not have friends of his or her own age who can tell him when he's wrong and to go to hell.

And, right now, there are no grownups left in the White House.  Donald Trump has Mr. Kushner and Mr. Miller as his two confidants.

Judy Woodruff:  How serious do you see this?

David Brooks:  Yes, I mean, it irks me that they're both questioning each other's mental competence, basically.

You can question policies.  You can question a lot of things, but to say someone is basically in mental decline, it just — it just strikes me as a little too personal.

Donald Trump was — is in the Hall of Fame of the World Wrestling Federation.  And he's taking it to the World Wrestling Federation levels of confrontation.  And do I think he knows what he's doing?  Well, at some level, I do think he does.

The question is, in that stage play, when he confronted all the Democrats, was it him going crazy because he's so self-obsessed?  Yes.  But was — is there also some craftiness to it?  Yes.

I think it's politically the right move for him.  If you look around the world, what's rising is hostility to elites?  Modi gets elected.  Australia, Brexit, Netanyahu, it's just all over the world.

And you can win, you can be forgiven a lot of sins, if you oppose coastal elites in our country, urban elites.  And he's riding that train.  And Nancy Pelosi is a good foil for that.  And, politically, I do think there's some — it's not crazy what he's doing.

Judy Woodruff:  Well…

Mark Shields:  Can I just disagree with David, OK?  And that's this?

I don't think it is shrewd.  I mean, remember what they were discussing.

Judy Woodruff:  I'm sorry, you don't think it's…

Mark Shields:  I don't think it is shrewd.  I don't think it's clever.

What they were discussing is the infrastructure of the United States.  If there's one issue on which there is agreement that the country that was number one on all infrastructure, roads, highways, airports, ports, rail just 15 years ago, and is now number nine, and we're falling apart — we have got an $836 billion back-load.  We haven't raised the gasoline tax in 26 years.

And there's something with the economy just maybe needing a goose very well next year.  I mean, this begs to be done.  It's something that the country desperately needs.  And he walks away from it.  He walks away from it and just ignores it, when, in fact, he could have a political success and a public success.

David Brooks:  I would say, first of all, the fact that he walked away from it shows he cares about more himself than the country.

Mark Shields:  Yes.

David Brooks:  That, I agree with.

Mark Shields:  OK.

David Brooks:  But I don't think it's wrong to think that voters are driven more by animosity than by, what have you done for me?

If you can whip up animosities in this climate, or at least among some voters, then you have got a route to victory, rather than saying, oh, I did something really good for you, you should be grateful, you should reward me.

Those kind of soft and uplifting emotions are a little alien right now from politics.

Judy Woodruff:  Well, let me just say, speaking of whipping up animosities, I just want to show you just this, again, a short clip.

This is something that the President tweeted a version of this.  His personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, had spread this on Twitter and then pulled it back.

This is a doctored and then a real version of Nancy Pelosi speaking this week.  I just want to show you a bit of it.

Rep. Nancy Pelosi:  And then he had a press conference in the Rose Garden with all this sort of visuals that obviously were planned.

And then he had a press conference in the Rose Garden with all this sort of visuals that obviously were planned.

Judy Woodruff:  So — and, I mean, we have seen this happen in social media.  It's what's going on right now.  But to know that the President's lawyer — the President was pushing another version of Pelosi.

They pulled together some clips where Pelosi was speaking in a sort of halting way and had it on FOX Business Channel.

I mean, what are we seeing here?

Mark Shields:  We're seeing, Judy, the lack of any moral center or compass in a President and a presidency.

I mean, when — they're going to ask — the grandchildren are going to ask, what did you stand for, grandpa, what did you do?  I mean, when Roosevelt brought a country that was on its knees and its back, back to its feet, when Ronald Reagan won the Cold War, I mean, when Lyndon Johnson brought civil rights to the country, this is what he's going to say?

I doctored up, I made my opponents look bad, I put out phony tapes on them?

I mean, this is beyond — this is an indignity to the office, and it's a disgrace, really, to the country.

David Brooks:  Yes, I agree with that, but it's sort of the times.

We're sort of the old legacy media.  The "NewsHour," The New York Times, The Washington Post, we're legacy media.  But the one thing legacy media has is, we have basic standards below which it's unimaginable to sink, like making up stuff.

Judy Woodruff:  Absolutely.

David Brooks:  And if you do make an error, you correct it.

And so that's just the job we do.  It's the normal thing, part of our world.

The Internet comes in, and there are some things on the Internet that are great, that live up to the standards that we're used to as professionals, and some things that are not.

And you have got to make the distinction between those above the line and those below the line.  But that distinction between above the line and below the line seems to get washed away on the Internet.

And it doesn't help that the President doesn't seem — even seem to acknowledge the idea of the line.

Judy Woodruff:  It's the Internet.  It's social media.  It's also some work being done on cable — on cable news.

Mark Shields:  That's right.

FACEBOOK - Sincere About Privacy?

My answer, no.

"With proposed changes, is Facebook sincere about prioritizing privacy?" PBS NewsHour 5/1/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  While Facebook remains one of the world's largest companies, it has lost some public trust in recent years, due to the Cambridge Analytica scandal, Russian influence campaigns during the 2016 election and privacy issues.  Now, founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg is embarking upon a major shift to the platform’s basic design and approach.  Jeffrey Brown talks to The Washington Post’s Elizabeth Dwoskin.

ISIS - Caliphate Lost But Not Defeated

"Despite loss of caliphate, why ISIS is ‘far from defeated’" PBS NewsHour 4/25/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  The deadly Easter Sunday attacks in Sri Lanka have refocused attention on the Islamic State, which claims connection to the eight believed suicide bombers.  Judy Woodruff talks to Rukmini Callimachi of The New York Times about indicators of the terror group’s influence on the Sri Lanka attacks and how ISIS maintains robust media presence and recruiting levels.

OPINION - Shields and Brooks 4/12/2019

"Shields and Brooks on Trump’s sanctuary city idea, Democrats’ reparation views" PBS NewsHour 4/12/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks join Amna Nawaz to discuss the week in politics, including whether reparations can be a viable campaign issue, social media in politics, the President’s rhetoric on moving immigrants to sanctuary cities, a shakeup at the Department of Homeland Security and the congressional testimony of Attorney General William Barr.

Amna Nawaz (NewsHour):  And now to the analysis of Shields and Brooks.  That's syndicated columnist Mark Shields, and New York Times columnist David Brooks.

Happy Friday.  Good to see you guys.

Mark Shields, syndicated columnist:  Thank you.

David Brooks, New York Times:  And to you.

Amna Nawaz:  I want to pick up where Yamiche's report left off and get your take on it, because, David, you have written about this.  You have had your own evolution when it comes to your views on reparations.

How should people today look at some of comments made by people like Mr. Biden all those years ago?

David Brooks:  Well, first, on the Biden thing, I think it's ridiculous to judge somebody by a statement made in 1975.  I was in junior high school then.  People evolve and people change their minds.  And we should allow people to change their minds.

On reparations, I support them, but not for the reasons Joe Biden says.  It's not an act of guilt.  It's not an act of, we did something wrong.  It's a show of respect.  It's a show of respect for the injustices that minorities, members of the African-American community have suffered in our society for hundreds of years, not just slavery, but red-lining and all the way up to the President.

So we show respect, and we do it as an act of regard and as an act of resetting.  And I have just come to the conclusion.  I changed my mind about it, because the practicalities of doing it are really hard.  But I changed my mind about it because it just feels like we're in a make-or-break moment on race.

The election of Trump, the atmosphere this has created has created a movement where aggressive gestures have to be taken to show that we're all part of the same country.

Amna Nawaz:  Mark, what about you?  Do you think the candidates should have a stance on this, a ready answer if they're asked?

Mark Shields:  They can have a stance if they want it.  I think it's a nonstarter as an issue in 2020, Amna.

I think David makes a legitimate point, a moral point and an ethical point.  I think, politically, you have a choice, especially beginning with Joe Biden.  You either have converts or you have heretics in politics.  You either say, that person was wrong, and therefore they're doomed to perdition and keep them away from me, or converts, those who come and join our side and are welcome and sit in the front row.

And Joe Biden's record on civil rights, I think, speaks a lot louder than the one quote from 43 years ago.

And you have a choice in politics.  You can look forward or you can look backward.  And I think, in 2020, this is not an issue that comes up voluntarily on the part of voters.  I think David raises the question.  It is next to impossible to do it.

I mean, the African-American girl who graduated from Sidwell whose father is a dentist and whose mother's a lawyer is not in the same position as somebody who is a direct lineal descendant at discrimination and servitude.

It is — what works in this country is when we include everybody in a program.  And there's no question that African-Americans have suffered economically, socially and politically.  But it ought to be a policy that's directed to lifting up all those who lag behind, who have been, through no fault of their own, left behind and hurt.

And I think that, in spending more money, it means an investment in city schools.  There's no reason, as John McCain said, that a bad congressman should earn more than a good schoolteacher.  And I think that's a good place to start.

Amna Nawaz:  Well, we have seen it coming up now on the campaign trail.

I want to ask you about some of the people who are going to be making the decision about who makes their way further down that campaign trail.  Those are the Democratic voters.

There is a fascinating analysis I think you both have seen as well in The New York Times by Nate Cohn and Kevin Quealy looking at who those Democratic voters really are.  And I think some people might be surprised about what was in there.

It said some of the loudest voices on social media, the very progressive voices, are not necessarily representative of the whole.

Mark Shields:  Yay!

(LAUGHTER)

Amna Nawaz:  One number that stood out to me, among Democrats who self-identify as moderate or conservative, 29 percent of those Democrats are on social media; 53 percent of other Democrats identify that way.

Did that surprise you?

Mark Shields:  No, it really doesn't.

I thought it was a great piece.  And good for The Times for putting that on the front page, forcing people who read The Times, including myself, to address this, this reality, I mean, that the loudest voices are not necessarily representative, and, in many cases, as we — those who read Twitter know there's no satisfying them.

You give them nine, and, well, wait a minute, what about nine more?  And so, no, I think it's — the problem for the Democrats is — Charlie Cook put it very well, the analyst.  He said 45 percent of the people are against Donald Trump, 35 percent are for him.  There's 20 percent who are out there.

If you win 10 percent of them, you have won an enormous landslide.  You get 55 percent of the vote.  But those people are not on Twitter, that 20 percent.  And they're not into the exotic, erotic issues that sort of excite so many of these activist Democrats.

Amna Nawaz:  David, you looked at the numbers.  What did you — what did you make of them?  What is your take?

David Brooks:  Yes.

Well, it's, of course, true.  Like, Twitter is not reality.

Amna Nawaz:  Right.

David Brooks:  We pray that to be the case.

Mark Shields:  Yes.

(LAUGHTER)

David Brooks:  But I guess I would say two things.

The people who are on Twitter and those hard-core people, they want a culture war.  A lot of Democrats want a lot of economic changes, a lot of policy changes.  But a lot of Twitterites, they want a culture war.

So, for example, a story that was big in the conservative world, but didn't really make it out this week was Chick-fil-A getting disinvited from some airports because the owner of Chick-fil-A gave money to the Salvation Army, which is deemed conservative — or progressively incorrect, because it's a religious organization.

And so that that's what drives conservatives up a wall, the idea that they can't practice their faith.  And most Democrats don't really care about that kind of issue.

The one thing, final thing I would say is that just because the social media people are a minority doesn't mean they can't drive the train.  A passionate minority often drives the train.  And if the candidates are afraid of angering the passionate minority, and they feel they have to toe certain lines, or else they just get a hailstorm of abuse, then the passionate minority drives the train.

Amna Nawaz:  Speaking of social media, the President was back on Twitter talking about an issue that's key to his heart, key to his campaign moving forward for 2020 as well.  Of course, that's immigration.

I want to show you the tweet from this morning.  He was talking about a proposal to bus detained migrants into sanctuary cities.  He said:  "We are, indeed, as reported, giving strong considerations to placing illegal immigrants in sanctuary cities.  Only" — he said that would be as political retribution for people who have opposed his policies.

But this was — David, this was a proposal that the White House had said they'd floated, they considered, and then they rejected it.  The President is still talking about it.  What do you make of that?

David Brooks:  Well, he's confused with the reality that you can do a Twitter prank and own libs and forget the fact there are real human beings at stake here.

Mark Shields:  Mm-hmm.

David Brooks:  And so, like, he's just insulting and further insulting a group he's insulted pretty much consecutively for three or four years.

We have got chaos on the border, and we could in — place a system in place so we actually have the border under control.  We could expand the detention centers.  We could send more judges down to take care of the backlog.  We could give counselors to the people, so they know how to manipulate the system — or they don't have to just work the system.

We could do a lot of things to make the situation on the border functioning.  And that's what a normal President would be focused on.  That's what a governor would be doing.  That's what a mayor is doing.

Instead of doing actual policy, he's just doing — he's treating it all as a Twitter game to make his base feel good about themselves.

Amna Nawaz:  Well,we know one of the reasons it was pushed back upon was because it is illegal.  And when the President was down on the border with his new DHS acting head, Kevin McAleenan, last week, there's now new reporting out today that he was pushing him to perhaps act illegally.

Allegedly, he asked Kevin McAleenan to close the border earlier than expected and also said that he would pardon him if he were to act illegally and prevent migrants from entering.  Those are all reports that came out late this afternoon.

Just weigh in on this, Mark, for me.  What do you make of all these reports and the allegations being made here?

Mark Shields:  Well, from all we know about Kevin McAleenan, he's talking to the wrong guy, is Donald Trump, when he makes that sort of a proposition or sort of an offer.  He's a law-abiding law person.

As far as President Trump is concerned, I mean, David's right, in the sense that the Presidency and the White House is, above all else, a place of preeminently moral leadership.  And there has been none.  David has pointed out that the Democrats have an obligation, which they do, to help formulate new policy on immigration.

But I would just point out that twice in the last 10 years, we passed in the Senate overwhelmingly comprehensive immigration reform.  We passed it with 80 percent of the votes being for Democrats.  And of the 14 Republicans who dared to vote for it in the Senate, John McCain's gone, Jeff Flake is gone, Dean Heller's gone, Lee Ayotte is gone.

You go right through the list.  Bob Corker is gone.  They haven't been replaced by pro-consensus, pro-compromise immigration supporters.  So I raise that, that the Democrats do have a responsibility.  But, I mean, when you don't even get a vote in the Republican House under George W. Bush, who pushed for it, to his credit, and for Barack Obama, who pushed for it — and it got through the Senate in both cases — we have got a problem in this country.

And it's a moral problem.  It's a political problem as well.  And I don't think we should hide from that.

Amna Nawaz:  When you look at what's happened at DHS — and, of course, immigration is not the only thing they do.  It is a big part of what they do, though.

You take a look at the shakeup that happened just this week, I think it's easy to forget.  These things happen so quickly.  This was just this week.  On Sunday, the homeland security secretary was out, on Monday, the U.S. Secret Service director, Tuesday, the acting deputy secretary of homeland security, on Wednesday, the ICE acting director.

What is — what does this shakeup mean?

David Brooks:  Well, it means that the President adopted a policy on immigrants, and especially from Central America, that was based on cruelty and based on the idea of deterrence.  If we're cruel enough, it will deter them from coming.

And that has turned out not to be the case.  Now we have got 700,000 or 800,000 people coming, seeking asylum.  And so they were trying to solve for the wrong problem.  And so the idea of deterrents failed, and so the situation turns out to be worse.

And so the President first blames the people in the agency for not carrying out his cruelty, and then he blames them for the situation being worse.  And so it's a situation where you had a lot of people who just, like, some of them cooperated with a cruel policy.  Some of them didn't want to.

But, at the end of the day, they couldn't take it.  And, at the end of the day, he [Trump] was sick of them.  And so you have a failed policy, which is being blamed on the enactors, basically.

ONLINE - Hate Speech

Hate speech is not protected free speech any more than falsely yelling 'fire' in a crowded venue is protected.

"U.S. laws aren’t keeping up with spread of hate online, says civil rights advocate" PBS NewsHour 4/9/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Violent hate crimes are on the rise in the U.S. and across the globe.  As a result, the ways in which hate groups use social media to threaten, galvanize and radicalize are drawing new scrutiny, including from Congress on Tuesday.  Amna Nawaz reports on the Capitol Hill discussion and talks to Kristen Clarke of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, a national civil rights organization.

RUSSIA - The Russia Investigation

"Who was behind Russia’s ‘information warfare’ campaign" PBS NewsHour 3/25/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  There is no doubt that Russia’s government attempted to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election.  As William Brangham reports, once the U.S. intelligence community reached that consensus, as well as high confidence that Russian President Vladimir Putin personally ordered the cyber and social media “disinformation” campaigns, a major investigation and dozens of indictments followed.

Declassified ICA Intelligence Report (PDF download)

NEW ZEALAND - Gun Control

NOTE:  As of now Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has announced that the band on assault weapons is in effect.  Now THAT'S a responsive government!

"Amid shock and grief, New Zealand vows to tighten gun rules" PBS NewsHour 3/18/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  The shocking massacre of 50 people attending Friday prayers at mosques in Christchurch has rocked New Zealand and the world.  Authorities have revealed that the suspected shooter purchased four of his five guns online from the country’s biggest gun supplier.  In response, New Zealand’s government is vowing stricter gun laws right away.  John Ray of Independent Television News reports.

"How social media platforms reacted to viral video of New Zealand shootings" PBS NewsHour 3/18/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Amid the many questions swirling around the New Zealand mosque shootings is whether Facebook and other digital platforms acted swiftly enough to stop video footage of the attacks from circulating.  These social media giants are already facing scrutiny for enabling users to perpetuate false stories and hate speech.  Judy Woodruff talks to The Washington Post’s Elizabeth Dwoskin for more.

NEW ZEALAND - The Terror Attack

"New Zealand mosque suspect embraced white supremacy, previous acts of hate" PBS NewsHour 3/15/2019

Shooter's manifesto said Trump "Symbol of renewed white identity."  Just think about that and Trump's lack of total condemnation of white supremacy.

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Christchurch, New Zealand’s second-largest city, was the site of horrific carnage Friday, as a gunman stormed two mosques during Friday prayers, killing at least 49 people and injuring dozens more.  Police arrested the alleged shooter, who cited other mass killings as inspiration.  Amna Nawaz reports on what New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern called one of the country’s “darkest days.”

"Why alleged New Zealand mosque killer represents a broader ‘social movement’" PBS NewsHour 3/15/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Deadly terror attacks in New Zealand Friday caused global shock, but the extreme anti-immigrant, white supremacist ideology of the suspected Australian gunman is not new.  Judy Woodruff talks to Humera Khan of Muflehun a nonprofit fighting hate and extremism, University of Chicago’s Kathleen Belew, and Matthew Knott of the Sydney Morning Herald about the scope of this malignant "social movement."

REMINDER:  The internet, especially social media, allows the spreading of ideas good AND bad.

"The role of media and technology after terror attacks" PBS NewsHour 3/16/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  The gunman accused of killing 49 people at two New Zealand mosques Friday live-streamed the attack, emailed his manifesto to media outlets, and shared his racist and hateful messages online.  Charlie Warzel opinion writer-at-large for The New York Times and Joan Donovan of Harvard University, join Hari Sreenivasan to discuss changing technology and the media's role and responsibilities.

NEWSHOUR IMHO - Our New Dangerous Data Economy

"The dangers of our ‘new data economy,’ and how to avoid them" PBS NewsHour 3/14/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Roger McNamee was an early investor in Facebook and still holds a stake in the social media giant--but he’s also become a vocal critic of its practices, especially around how it handles user data.  McNamee offers his humble opinion on why as consumers, we need to stop being passive and take control of how we share our personal information.

SOCIAL MEDIA - The Threat of Intelligent Machines

"How to keep AI from turning into the Terminator" by Mark Surman, CNN Opinion 1/15/2019

On GPS: The threat of intelligent machines (video link)

Editor's Note: Mark Surman is the executive director of the Mozilla Foundation, a global community devoted to keeping the internet open and free.  The views expressed in this commentary are his own.  View more opinion on CNN.

Artificial intelligence (AI) has long occupied an outsized role in our collective imagination, in everything from pulp science fiction novels to James Cameron blockbusters.  When AI is the antagonist, it is corporeal and impossible to overlook, like the Terminator.  Even in the real world, discussions about rogue technology tend to focus on the overt and dramatic, such as Elon Musk's exhortations on Twitter that the dangers of AI rival the dangers of nuclear weapons.

Perhaps humankind is moving toward an oppressive artificial superintelligence.  In the meantime, artificial intelligence is already woven into our everyday lives.  It provides us with things we love and need, from productivity advice to movie recommendations.  Yet, when we don't carefully consider its impact on our democracies, our justice systems and our well-being, we open ourselves up to real risks.

The AI of today is invisible to most of us, yet ubiquitous.  One example we interact with frequently is recommendation engines on the internet -- the code recommending that next video on YouTube or a post on Facebook.  These algorithms pull together vast amounts of our personal data to learn about us and curate our experience online.  In this case, AI is simply your personal data mixed with the data of people with similar interests -- and then pointed back at you.

The result can be serendipitous and delightful.  It can also be dangerous.  Last year, Silicon Valley moguls opened up to New York Magazine about how today's social media is designed to addict users.  Using our data to manipulate us to stay on a site may or may not be pernicious in its own right.

But even if you don't worry about it for yourself, there is growing evidence that these systems tend to radicalize and polarize.  Last year, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill researcher Zeynep Tufekci dubbed YouTube "the Great Radicalizer": view one anti-vaccination video, and YouTube will suggest a second; watch one factually incorrect political video, and YouTube will recommend a sequel.

Further, these algorithms can be gamed by humans to sow even more discord.  Data for Democracy researcher and Mozilla fellow Renee DiResta uncovered how anti-vaccine activists exploit Google's algorithm to spread dangerous disinformation.  How?  By publishing reams of misleading articles peppered with popular keywords and search terms.  She also recently testified before Congress about how Russian operatives manipulated Facebook's AI to influence American voters by posing as American news outlets and American voters.  (Note: Mozilla, a nonprofit, is the creator of the open-source Firefox browser, a competitor of Google's Chrome browser.)

Of course, the problem isn't technology, per se -- AI isn't inherently malicious.  But it does replicate and amplify human bias.  Computer programs are made by humans who bake in certain design goals and draw on certain data sets.  Inside all of this are the normal contradictions of humanity: generosity and greed; inclusion and bias; good and evil.

Think about it: If the goals and incentives of a set of programmers are to increase advertising revenue, it's not surprising that the content recommendation algorithms they create keep people watching videos for as long as possible.  And, since these algorithms learn and adapt to get better at their goals, it's not surprising that apps like Facebook, YouTube, and Instagram are becoming what Professor Ronald J. Deibert, who has hosted past Mozilla fellows, dubbed "addiction machines" in a recent paper titled, "Three Painful Truths About Social Media."

Further, this technology is developed by a small handful of companies -- names like Facebook that you know and others, like Palantir, that you probably don't -- with little transparency.  Public officials, investigative journalists, and civic-minded citizens can't peer at the code to uncover problems.  Put simply: "The public doesn't have the tools to hold algorithms accountable."

The question we really need to be asking is: how do we make AI responsibly and ethically?  Fortunately, there is a growing cadre of people and companies asking this question.

Researchers like Tufekci and DiResta are vital voices.  Groups like the Center for Humane Technology are examining how the "addiction economy" works.  Organizations like New York University's AI Now Institute are examining the ways AI impacts essential liberties.  Even established players like Microsoft and startups like Element AI are calling for regulation.

Others are stressing the need for more engineers and product designers who consider responsibility and ethics when building AI.  Imagine a social app designer who asks: How do I both grow profits and keep users safe?  People who create drugs and automobiles ask these questions; why not developers?  With this in mind, Mozilla (my company), Omidyar Network, Schmidt Futures, and Craig Newmark Philanthropies are leading the Responsible Computer Science Challenge, a $3.5 million initiative to integrate ethics into undergraduate computer science curricula.

Finally, it is worth noting that a handful of governments are starting to step up, too.  In 2018, the New York City mayor's office announced an AI watchdog panel.  More recently, the governments of Canada and France announced a joint initiative to examine the intersection of AI and ethics.  And, in Finland, the government is training 1% of the population in AI basics, such as when it is deployed and the definitions of terms like "machine learning" and "neural networks."

As artificial intelligence becomes more pervasive, it's critical to foster a better public understanding of its impact on society.  Hulking robots make for good cinema but aren't accurate representations of how AI can and does do harm today.  We need to focus on real solutions, like planning for ethical and responsible technology at the drawing board, not after the fact.

Bottom line: We need to anticipate and eliminate bias in AI before it reaches millions of people.

THE INVESTIGATIONS - Social Media's Snail-Pace Response

"Sen. Wyden on social media’s ‘excruciatingly slow’ response to Russian interference" PBS NewsHour 12/17/2018

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  A Senate Intelligence Committee has released bipartisan reports exposing further efforts by Russia to influence American elections via social media.  Judy Woodruff speaks with committee member Sen. Ron Wyden (R-Ore) about how sophisticated the Russian efforts are, what social media platforms are doing in response and the responsibility that falls to all Americans to scrutinize information.

"Opinion: If we want to stop Russian interference, start in the classroom" by Mark Weber, PBS NewsHour 10/10/2018

Today, the majority of Americans agree that the Russians attempted to influence the outcome of our 2016 presidential election.  Officials from across the U.S. intelligence community have publicly confirmed that this interference took place.

As a teacher, I’m worried that Russia ever thought it could get away with interfering in the first place.

According to the information that’s been released to the public (so far), foreign powers weren’t able to actually penetrate our voting systems and change votes.  But Russia appears to have believed it could change the outcome of the election by influencing at least some American voters through a campaign of misinformation, propaganda and media influence.

American democracy is predicated on the idea that voters will be able to make sound, rational decisions when they enter the voting booth.  This requires an electorate capable of seeing through sophistry and cheap appeals to fear; in other words, citizens who have been taught to think critically.

I don’t mean to suggest that voters should set aside their own ideologies when casting votes.  Religious, spiritual, political or other beliefs are legitimate bases for making electoral decisions.  But it ought to give all Americans pause that a foreign government thought it could change the outcome of our presidential election through social-media manipulation.  How did we get here?

Are the beliefs and values of Americans so pliable that they can be shifted by some fake news stories on Facebook and rogue Twitter bots?

• Are the beliefs and values of Americans so pliable that they can be shifted by some fake news stories on Facebook and rogue Twitter bots?

As a teacher who has spent a good bit of his time outside of the classroom defending public education, I am the last person to heap all the blame for this on our schools or our educators.  Throughout its history, America has seen fit to hold teachers accountable for a host of problems we never created and couldn’t possibly fix on our own; I don‘t want to add “mass gullibility” to the list.

Still, it’s clear that our adversaries believe many Americans are susceptible to foreign manipulation.  As educators, we should think carefully about whether our schools have played a role in this.

In the past decade, the goal of education has become making students “college and career ready.”  In the interests of bipartisanship, it’s worth noting this goal was widely championed by a Democratic administration, with plenty of Republican support.  College and career readiness is one of the few things policymakers on all parts of the political spectrum have agreed on.

All sorts of policy changes — the Common Core State Standards, expanded testing, school choice, test-based teacher evaluation and so on — can be traced back to the goal of making students “college and career ready.”  For now, I’ll set aside the debate about whether these policies actually work and my qualms about conflating college and career readiness to ask instead:

Should workforce or college preparation be the most important goal of an education system in a representative democracy?  Shouldn’t “citizenship ready” be at least as important?

Some would have us believe that these goals are one and the same.  But I contend being ready for work or higher education is only a part of being ready for citizenship — an important part, certainly, but still only a part.

We Americans contribute more to our society than through our work.  We consume media, we debate, we influence each other and we vote.  And the skills we need to perform these tasks successfully are not necessarily the same ones that we need in the workplace.

Again, I know there are plenty of people who would challenge me on this.  They are the same ones we often hear talking up “soft skills” in the workplace: collaboration, creativity, communication and so on.  They would have us believe that these skills, which workers use to achieve common goals, are the same skills students need to become engaged citizens.

Well, sorry to be contrary, but citizenship often requires us to be contrary.  The American workplace, for better or worse, is mostly hierarchical.  Yes, employees can create and debate inside the parameters given to them.  But most American workers ultimately must submit to an authority: The boss, the customer, or the governing power.  A democracy, however, requires its citizens to challenge authority.  Democratic institutions should be where citizens act, not where they are acted upon.  We, as educators, need to teach our students how to exercise their powers as citizens responsibly, which means teaching them to question those in authority and the arguments made on behalf of that authority.

I’ll admit it’s a paradox.  Inherently, schools are institutions where student power is curtailed.  But, at their best, American schools should be where we train students to ethically push back at the authority we teachers wield.

• We, as educators, need to teach our students how to exercise their powers as citizens responsibly, which means teaching them to question those in authority.

As a music teacher, I deal with issues of student agency on a daily basis.  I always listen to my students when it’s time to program a concert; however, as both the conductor and as the one responsible for turning them into literate artists, I have the final say on repertoire.  But I also have to make sure my students understand that they are entitled to their opinions, and that they have the right to challenge me about what we play — respectfully, of course.  I would hate to think I was teaching generations of students to unquestioningly accept my personal idea of good taste at the expense of developing their own.

Unfortunately, it appears that Russia, and likely many of our other rivals (and allies) in the world, believe that many Americans are incapable of the level of critical thought necessary to question what they are being told by authorities in the media, business or government.  As a matter of national security, we need to assess what we are doing in our schools to promote this type of thinking.

Decades ago, America changed its schooling in response to the Soviet’s launching of Sputnik.  But the latest attack on our elections by the Russians is a much more serious menace than that orbiting ball of metal ever was.

Are we prepared to reassess how we educate our students to meet this new and greater threat?

OPINION - Brooks and Marcus 11/23/2018

"Brooks and Marcus on what’s fueling the President’s ‘ramped up’ rhetoric" PBS NewsHour 11/23/2018

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  New York Times columnist David Brooks and Washington Post deputy editorial page editor Ruth Marcus join John Yang to discuss the week in politics, including President Trump’s rhetoric on immigration policy and the federal judiciary, his denial of Saudi involvement in the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, and the upcoming U.S. Senate runoff in Mississippi.

John Yang (NewsHour):  And to the analysis of Brooks and Marcus.

That's New York Times columnist David Brooks and Washington Post deputy editorial page editor Ruth Marcus.

David, Ruth, thank you for coming in and joining us.

The President, judging by social media, has been spending Thanksgiving worrying a lot about the border, threatening to through shut the border down, close it all altogether, railing against this — the migrants moving their way north.

David, what's going on?  Is this just base maintenance here, or what's going on?

David Brooks, New York Times:  I'm going with bluster.

Ruth Marcus, Washington Post:  I had bluster.

(LAUGHTER)

You steal my bluster?

(LAUGHTER)

David Brooks:  Yes, it looks like Teddy Roosevelt tweeting up San Juan Hill.  But you have to remember the troops that are down there, the actual military troops, according to Secretary Mattis, will not be carrying weapons.  They will be in the background somewhere.  They're there in a supportive role, which is a null and void role, basically.

So I'm pretty sure the President — I can understand why he's upset.  There's been more illegal immigration under his term than under President Obama.  But it's hard to believe this administration wants — after the separation of families, wants more bad pictures coming out of the border.

So I'm sure some — I'm not sure — reasonably confident this is mostly bluster and they will find some muddling solution.

Ruth Marcus:  Well, this is bluster — I get to say it too — with a little bit of a purpose, though probably not a very effective one, which is the congressional lame-duck session has begun.

And there is — are funding bills to be done, as there are at this time of year, it seems, every year.  And the President still hasn't gotten, after two years in office, what he insisted he was going to get from Mexico before he was elected, which is funding for his wall.

And so I think a little bit of this bluster, he will end up standing down on it, is trying to raise the prospect of a government shutdown.  That wouldn't make a lot of sense, when the House and the Senate — the House just for another brief few weeks — and the Presidency are all controlled by the same party.

If you're shutting down the government in that situation, you're not doing very well.  But that's a little bit of the shut-down-the-border rhetoric that we're seeing ramped up right now as well.

John Yang:  He's saying that we need to get a deal now that includes money for the wall.  But he has said this every time, and every time it doesn't happen.

David Brooks:  Yes.

To me, one of the questions is, has anything changed because of the election?  Is his mood changed?  Is his emotional state changed?

So, previously, there was a pretty good method, that he would bluster his way toward something, and then there'd be some bad press, and then he would quietly backtrack.  And somebody compared it to vaporware.  You just send something out there that you don't really have, send a policy out there, even though there's no policy.

The question becomes, has he decided he's rattled by the election, he's angered by the election, he is angered by everybody else around, and that's something has changed?  So far, there's been no evidence that his mental state has changed.

John Yang:  Ruth?

Ruth Marcus:  Ooh, evidence that his mental state has changed.

(LAUGHTER)

He doesn't seem to be doing a very good job of accepting the reality that, yes, his — he and his party suffered a fairly massive and near historic defeat in the House.

And while they are have slightly expanded their Senate majority, which is important, that's one piece of reality he hasn't taken in and that might affect his mood.

There is also the looming Mueller situation.  And this report — it does come from a while ago.  So maybe the mood has been bad for a while.  But the reports about arguing that we should have prosecutions of Hillary Clinton and prosecutions of Jim Comey don't suggest a President with a great mood.

John Yang:  The list of people that the President has public spats with or feuds with in social media grew this week.

John Roberts, the chief justice, responded to something that the President said.  And the President, the famous counterpuncher, punched back.

Ruth, you covered the Supreme Court.  How unusual is this that John Roberts would do this in a public way?  And, also, what does this mean, that these two people are going at it in public now?

Ruth Marcus:  So, it's remarkable.

Presidents get into fights with the Supreme Court, not all the time, but on regular basis.  Richard Nixon ran against that Warren court when he was running for President.  President Obama famously criticized the justices to their face over the Citizens United decision.  And President Trump has criticized the court and Justice Roberts in particular in the past.

What's really unusual — and you have to stretch back to well before I covered the court to the New Deal — is to have the court bite back.  When FDR was trying to do his court-packing plan, the chief justice then famously helped to torpedo that plan by sending a critical letter to the Senate.  They didn't have either Twitter or probably a court press officer to respond these days.

The fact that the chief justice could not be a more different human being than President Trump — if you had two polar opposites and personalities, this is who you would have, a very restrained — he was judicious before he was a judge, the chief justice, human being.

The fact that he chose to respond to the President's assault on judges, Ninth Circuit judges, Obama judges just suggests how alarmed he is, and — by the President's behavior and how out of the ordinary the President's behavior is.

David Brooks:  Yes.

And I would say what's interesting is what — they weren't arguing about a case.  And if Justice Roberts responded about a decision, I think that would be out of bounds.  It was just defending the idea of an independent judiciary.  And so justices normally do that.

And I do think it's important to maintain the truth — at least the three-quarters truth — that there are no such thing as Obama judges and Bush judges.  There are conservatives and liberals.  And it's true the court, Supreme Court, votes more on party line than they used to, but it's still not totally true that they are political appointees.

They have — they do have some sense of independence.  And most of the cases are not 5-4, are not strict Republican-Democratic cases.  There are lots of different modes of argumentation that come into these things.  And maintaining that in public seems to me tremendously important if we're going to respect decisions.

And if Trump wants to delegitimize the court by saying, oh, it's just Republican vs. Democrat, it's just like Congress, that really does undermine our trust, the credibility and the deference we should pay to judicial judgments.

John Yang:  The fact that he punched back against someone like John Roberts, who is not a liberal justice, is — does that threaten him with his base, with the Republicans?

David Brooks:  No.

(LAUGHTER)

No, I wouldn't think so.

It's of a piece, which is that the only kind of power he [Trump] acknowledges his personal power, not institutional power.  And the idea that the attorney general or a judge has some independent mandate to do a constitutional role, that's not really part of his mental vocabulary.  And so it's all, are you loyal to me or are you not loyal to me?

And this, by the way, if you look at how — I don't to want get hysterical here, but if you look at the way regimes decay all across the world from democracy toward authoritarianism, this is a classic thing that happens in almost every case, where the institutional power gets devolved back into personal power, and you return toward the rule of the clan.

FACEBOOK - Needs Regulation?

"After latest scandal, does Facebook need to be regulated?" PBS NewsHour 11/22/2018

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Facebook has been on the defensive since a New York Times investigation found it had hired a consulting firm--founded by Republican operatives--to push negative stories about its critics.  Among them: liberal billionaire George Soros, a favorite target of far-right conspiracy theorists.  John Yang speaks with the Wilson Center's Nina Jankowicz about whether social media needs to be regulated.

FAKE NEWS - InfoWars Goes Down!

"Why kicking Alex Jones off social media is not legally censorship" PBS NewsHour 8/8/2018

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  iTunes, Facebook, Spotify, and YouTube, have all removed conspiracy theorist Alex Jones’ audio and video content from their platforms, saying he violated their hate-speech policies.  P.J. Tobia takes a closer look at his media operation, and William Brangham examines the pushback and legal questions with Lyrissa Lidsky, dean of the University of Missouri School of Law.

AT THE MOVIES - "Eighth Grade"

"‘Eighth Grade’ captures our need to connect" PBS NewsHour 8/3/2018

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Following a week in the life of a middle schooler, the new film "Eighth Grade" sets the familiar fumblings of adolescence against the constant glare of a glowing screen or Snapchat filter.  Jeffrey Brown takes a look at why it’s drawing strong critical praise for its raw portrayal of the challenges of being a teenager in the digital age.

FACEBOOK - The Ghost of 2016

"The 2016 election is coming back to haunt Facebook’s profits" PBS NewsHour 7/26/2018

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Facebook took its biggest financial hit to date as its stock plummeted by about 19%, one of the largest single-day drops ever for a company.  Investors reacted to a quarterly report announcing profits won't be as high as hoped going forward because the company is making moves to shore up privacy and filter out misinformation and hate speech.  Jeffrey Brown learns more from Casey Newton of The Verge.

BEING ONLINE - $Streaming

"The highs and lows of being a professional online streamer" PBS NewsHour 7/12/2018

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  As more people consume video online, "streaming" is the internet's version of live TV, but with instant feedback from fans.  How have star streamers turned activities like taping themselves playing video games into profitable careers?  Economics correspondent Paul Solman reports from DreamHack, a gaming convention in Austin, Texas.

Editor's Note:  In this report on streaming, we point out police are sometimes called to a streamer’s house after a hoax call.  In some cases, SWAT teams arrive in response.  A previous version of this story mistakenly identified a man killed by police in one such case as a streamer.  In fact, the victim was not a streamer.  We regret the error.

RUSSIA - Messing With the Enemy

"Russia hacked U.S. minds and undermined democracy, author says" PBS NewsHour 6/6/2018

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  “Russian trolls were different from normal trolls,” says Clint Watts, a former U.S. government intelligence analyst who observed how Russia deployed a campaign of disinformation to discredit Hillary Clinton and help elect Donald Trump.  Nick Schifrin talks with Watts, author of "Messing With the Enemy," about what Americans can do to withstand future attempts by Russia to meddle in democracy.

SOCIAL MEDIA - Should We Be More Like Cats?

"Why we should be more like cats than dogs when it comes to social media" PBS NewsHour 5/17/2018

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Computer scientist and virtual reality pioneer Jaron Lanier doesn't mince words when it comes to social media.  In his latest book, "Ten Arguments for Deleting Your Social Media Accounts Right Now," says the economic model is based on "sneaky manipulation."  Economics correspondent Paul Solman sits down with Lanier to discuss how the medium is designed to engaged us and how it could hurt us.

FACEBOOK - News or Junk?

"Inside Facebook’s race to separate news from junk" PBS NewsHour 5/16/2018

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  At Facebook, there are two competing goals; keep the platform free and open to a broad spectrum of ideas and opinions, while reducing the spread of misinformation.  The company says it's not in the business of making editorial judgments, so they use fact-checkers, artificial intelligence and their users.  Can they stop junk news from adapting?  Science correspondent Miles O'Brien reports.