I wanted to get the previous post about artificial intelligence and the unintended consequences of technology up before this timely Comment of the Day by jdkazoo123 from yesterday regarding social media. Mark Zuckerberg didn’t consider all of the social pathogens he was loosing on civilization when he launched Facebook, or even if he foresaw some of them, he went ahead anyway. After all, there were millions of dollars to be made. The message of this COTD is, in brief, “Now what?”
The alarm as well as the puzzlement are justified. Still, one cannot pretend that the benefits that Zuck and others believed were being conferred on society by social media are insubstantial. I’ve experienced one of them very recently: through Facebook I have been able to let my friends, associates and colleagues know about the tragic sudden death of my wife, and to say that the support they are still providing me has been crucial to my sanity and survival is an understatement. Social media also has greatly reduced the power and influence of journalism, which, since journalists have been abusing those and the public’s trust for decades, is a win for truth, justice, and the American way. Nevertheless, the negative effects of the platforms are substantial, as jd notes. Are these benefits worth the costs? Don’t ask me right now: I’m biased.
Here is jdkazoo123’s Comment of the Day on the post, “From the Res Ipsa Loquitur Files: the Woke Shackles Tighten…”
***
I don’t know if this is a reason to regulate social media, but it is an example of why they are so different and troubling. I think they are a big cause of the polarization that we see here at EA and across the country. I think about my dad and his brother, my uncle. Even though my uncle was 7 years older, they were very close by the time I showed up. I grew up seeing my uncle about 1-2 a year. And as I got older, I noticed my dad and his brother joshed a lot about politics. My uncle was hard core Republican from suburban Pittsburgh, an executive in manufacturing. My dad was a solid Democrat working in military intelligence and the AF reserves. It was fun to see them josh. My uncle would say “Kid, your dad thinks I’m a Republican because I’m rich. What he doesn’t understand is I’m rich because I’m a Republican!”
By my father’s death, they were still close. BUT–neither was active on FB. They were just too old, missed the wave. If they had been…and lived through the Obama and Trump years…every day, my dad would have had to see my uncle defend Trump, excuse Trump. My uncle would have had to see my Dad support BLM. And mask requirements. Social media takes family and old friends and monthly weekly daily confronts them with major and minor disagreements. AND–the algorithm makers KNOW that conflict engages more than peace.
Look at this debate we are having here! You or I could be doing something useful, uplifting in our lives–instead, we are debating the degree of Russian involvement in Social Media disinformation, or how much government influence has been used on social media content. Why? To what end?
Beyond the waste of time, though, social media is segregating us into tribes of polarized haters, who don’t even agree on basic facts any more. It’s not the ONLY driver of it–the rise of partisan biased outlets like Fox (and yes, eventually MSNBC) plays a role, campaign finance, gerrymandering, etc etc–also modernity itself, since this is a global phenom, a US-centric explanation cannot be complete. All of which is to say–if politicians aren’t worried about social media, they aren’t doing their jobs. They may be doing the wrong things (I’m no expert) but it’s tearing the country apart with bile and bullshit–FOR PROFIT.
__________________
It’s me again, briefly. I can’t let one statement in jd’s post pass: ALL of the news outlets are partisan and biased. Fox gets attacked because it was specifically (brilliantly, fortunately) launched to counter the political left’s monopoly of daily news manipulation, which was so suffocating that most Americans didn’t even realize what was going on. The mainstream media against all evidence still insists that it is objective as do its enablers, who are perhaps sincere: the MSM news agrees with them so it must be fair, right?
(I wouldn’t have added this coda if jd’s comment hadn’t implied that MSNBC wasn’t by far the most dishonest, biased, leftist propaganda-spewing news source in existence. It isn’t even close.)
Ethics Alarms 
I’d say NPR beats MSNBC. NPR is in a class by itself. It drapes itself in a veneer of doctrinal truth that MSNBC can’t match. Perhaps because it’s government run and therefore it’s here to help and is only capable of doing good.
Personally, I attribute the current state of affairs to the rise of political science as a field of study and the professionalization of politics and the rise of “political consultants.” I remember wondering what the heck “Political Science” was as a major or college department. It’s a fancy term for “learning how to win elections.” Political consultants are relentless. They will urge their client to say or do anything in order to win. Who ever heard of “playing to your base” fifty years ago? Politicians ran instinctively. No more. They only speak tested talking points. They are sock puppets. This predates social media.
Political science began as a field of knowledge in the early 20th century. There’s actually very little connection between the field and the rise of political consultants/operatives. There are now grad schools that specialize in giving people the training to be lobbyists or campaign managers. We call those political management programs, and they are quite different from political science. They are relatively new.
Where I do agree with you is polling. The increasing accuracy of polling, as compared to 1936 or 1948 has made it really easy to gerrymander districts precisely, along with GIS and better census data, and better voting data. Gerrymandering contributes to polarization, first on the GOP side and increasingly on the Dem side. If you are in a safe seat, you don’t worry about the general election. As the old saying went, you’re going to win election in a safe seat unless you’re caught in bed with a dead woman or live boy (a sexist and homophobic quote, indeed, but it was Edwin Edwards of the great state of Louisiana, not I. Plus, it’s funny). If you don’t worry about the general, all you do is move to the extreme of your side, further and further. Lenin said “No enemies to the left!” during the rise of the Bolsheviks. “No enemies to the right” for GOP House members, and none to the left, increasingly, for House Dems.
Polling has also made cowards of politicians who might have in the past stuck to their principles because you didn’t KNOW with such precision where the people stood on issue X, so why NOT have principles? Finally, polling and focus groups let politicians test messages, and figure out with great accuracy which messages will work. The Willie Horton campaign of Bush in 1988 was poll tested. Atwater, the campaign manager, couldn’t get any Reagan Democrats to move to Bush from Dukakis…until he told an exaggerated story of a black man who raped a white woman in front of her fiancé. THAT moved Whites away from Dukakis…even though the weekend furlough program that allowed Horton out was created by a GOP governor AND Dukakis had clamped down on it…So political messaging gets more and more aggressive because it gets more and more of our lizard brain stems activated because FEAR and ANGER and OUTRAGE work better than logic and contrast and polite debate. To be sure, that’s always been the case, but focus groups and polling confirm that with scientific precision.
NPR is not “government run.” It receives a small portion of its funding from federal tax dollars, however, most of it is dues paid by separately operated public stations, who are partially funded by the Feds. Any of them can cut off NPR, and some do (some never had it). Most of its funding comes from fundraising, grants (that work pretty much like ads) and so on. So rather than “government run” you could say “partially government funded” and not be wrong, although VERY partial.
Nit picking.
With a name like National Public Radio? They get their funding from the local PBS affiliates, who get the bulk of their funds from … the government. It’s a shell game.
Answer this: Is NPR horrifically biased or not?
I think they have blind spots, but no, I wouldn’t say they are terribly biased. Take the metric that Jack used against Colbert–who apparently just gave up having conservatives on his show three years ago. NPR regularly has conservative voices, and treats them with great respect in interviews. The arguments of market oriented folks and God-loving conservative Christians are heard. They are highly critical of Democratic administrations, asking tough questions and pursuing stories that make Biden look bad. Where they fall down to some extent is on the cultural issues. I think, as pointed out by a now fired senior editor. His piece was flawed, but he raised some good points about the way NPR, for example, talks about Trans issues. I’d like to see NPR do a better job on a few stories–such as corruption and diversion of funds at the highest levels of BLM–but overall, they do an excellent job of fairness.
A question back to you–how do you explain Trump’s failure to agree to an NPR interview for years? He tends to mostly do live interviews with friendly outlets. Granted, Biden has recently been much the same, but I’m curious as to how you explain Trump’s reticence or refusal.
Easy. The first question would be “When did you stop beating your wife?” No non-Democrat should go anywhere near NPR.
Me! Me! NPR has been caught deceptively editing interviews with Republicans, most flagrantly in an episode with Ted Cruz some years ago. If I were advising Trump, I would keep him out of range of NPR with a flamethrower if necessary.
Can you post a link about this Cruz incident? If I knew about it, I’ve forgotten, and a quick google search yielded nothing.
Yeah, I’ll track it down. I posted on it.
Update: On my first try, I couldn’t find it. I may have mistagged it. I vividly remember the incident and the post—his response to a question was edited to leave out half of his answer that completely changed the meaning of the response. It might have been on EA’s predecessor, The Ethics Scoreboard (though I don’t think so), but that site went down a few months ago. Ugh.
Do let me know if you find it. I’ve done a fair bit of googling, and nothing comes up.
I was edited in an unfair way by Fox Business once, and it was amazingly simple. I nailed Rep. Scott Garrett on live TV during a joint interview. It was about healthcare, and how would Republicans respond to this or that move by Obama. This was I think year 3 after the House GOP had promised their own health care plan. The representative said “We have a plan but Speaker Pelosi won’t let us propose it!” And I pointed out “That’s not how the House works. You can propose a bill on health care tomorrow. Any member can. You might not get a vote. You might get screwed on the rules. But you can’t blame Pelosi for not HAVING a bill. And you don’t, do you?” And he sputtered, but the truth was, they didn’t have one and if they had, any member could have put it in the hopper for assignment to a relevant committee. (incidentally, I’m sure I’m far more eloquent in my memory than on live TV). But it being FBN, no one I knew watched it. So I watched the website like a hawk. They posted the interview in TWO PARTS. Right before my take down, and right after. Effectively, my takedown never happened (they never produced a health care bill either if memory serves).
That said, I still do Fox when they call, although only locals have called for a while. I think telling ALL REPUBLICANS to avoid NPR because of something that happened to one Senator, years ago…seems…extreme? Overreaction? But maybe it is one of a long train of abuses. On the other hand, when conservatives go on NPR, I cannot tell you how well they are treated. It’s a chance to get their message out to folks that don’t watch Fox. It’s a much fairer platform than Fox in that it allows conservative voices to speak uninterrupted for minutes at time. Try to find a liberal who gets that privilege. When Biden f*cks up, NPR follows it carefully (they’ve been very good about investigating the Afghan withdrawal.) By contrast, Fox only reports that Biden sucks, over and over and over and over. Even when news is good, they can’t report it straight.
That’s an egregious example, and despicable. I hate that trick. Some officials have insisted that all intererviews be separately recorded so there is evidence of misleading editing.
Wow! Are you AI generated? A hired Democrat apologist? That’s clearly talking point memo stuff.
I don’t think it is NIT PICKING. It’s a big difference, just in “government-run” versus “government-financed”. I work at a public university. We are government funded, but the government does not get to tell us how to operate. There’s a degree of separation–appointees of the governor are on our board, but they don’t take orders from the governor, nor do they issue day to day orders to the president or provost.
A government run media is like Russia Today.
Also, it seems that at most, public funds make up about 1/3 of NPR’s budget.
https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/3950550-the-truth-about-nprs-funding-and-its-possible-future/
I’d say public universities are government run.
NPR oozes lefty bias. Listen to their report at the end of a news update. The announcer is always delighted to report when the market is down. You can hear the glee. When the market is up, the sadness is palpable.
The Hill?
Your argument seems to be self-refuting. If NPR is biased against the market (and they have some pro-market shows that laud the market, entrepreneurs, etc), you’re also making the argument they are wildly biased for Dems and libs. if the market were to go down right now, Trump wins much more easily right? So right about now, they should be trumpeting good economic news (fortunately for Biden, there’s quite a bit–stock market at record highs, inflation falling back to earth dramatically, unemployment unbelievably low).
It also shows the tricky task of proving bias. You are now relying on the tone of the correspondent each day in reporting ups or downs in the market. It would take a neat study design to detect this bias. Could be done. But then–you’d have to show that it matters, even if you found it. Which would require laboratory experiments. And make the hypothesis–what effect do you think is NPR going for by rooting for the stock market to go down? A generalized anti-capitalism emotion?
Your other answer points to a similar problem in measuring bias. If no smart conservative will go on NPR, how can they be fair? If they only put dumb conservatives on, that will look like they are trying to make conservatism look dumb? Fortunately, many conservatives DO go on NPR, and as I say, they are treated very well. But not Trump? My own answer to my question is NPR is far too substantive for Trump. They really do spend a lot more time on policy matters than most networks. On their sister TV network, PBS, I was a guest once on News Hour, there to talk with a leading expert on the filibuster. They interviewed us, live, for 8 minutes! When I do local TV, or Fox, or CNN, or anyone–I NEVER get 8 minutes. And it was the history of the filibuster, recent problems with it, why some people passionately defend it…Same with NPR. When they cover an issue, they go DEEP. Substance is to Trump what kryptonite is to Superman. He doesn’t like studying, he doesn’t like expertise, he doesn’t even like to stay on one topic for very long. He probably also thinks they are biased, but he also knows they live in a world of depth.
jdkazoo123,
Any funding a news source receives from the government creates an inherent potential for bias in their reporting. This has been discussed more than once here, specific to NPR.
This is the argument climate alarmists gleefully pull out of the bag when a climate skeptic authors a paper and it is discovered that he/she received any funding – no matter how small or insignificant, even if the person is paid in Quatloos rather than US dollars – from fossil-fuel sources like Exxon or BP: “they’re in bed with BIG OIL.”
If it’s true for the guy reporting on climate, then the same can be said of NPR.
I spent years listening to NPR, and the left-wing bias is thick enough to cut with a chainsaw.
I agree that any funding source creates the possibility of bias. However, I think there’s a vast difference between climate coverage sponsored by Oil companies AND general news coverage that is funded partially by government, as filtered through local stations. That’s pretty indirect funding AND the views of government are diffuse most years. The Exxon money is deliberately given to sow doubts about climate change.
If it’s such a small amount of funding, why do they need it at all?
We should stop sending them the people’s money and let the people who like them send them money. Government should not be in the news business.
The Corporation for Public Broadcasting, NPR’s and PBS’s parent, received $525 million for fiscal 2024. In what universe is that a “small amount”???
Your opinion is the one I had for years, back in my more libertarian days. However, I’ve reluctantly realized that without PBS/NPR, the media would be even worse off than it is. All the other media outlets are frantic for eyeballs, profit. NPR and PBS are deeper dives into the issues, and make a real effort to be objective. They do fail, like all things human. But they have conservative voices on regularly, and treat them with great respect. That matters. Also, while living abroad, I noticed such a strong and powerful distinction between the quality of the British news on BBC versus more commercial channels, and the same while living in Japan between NHK and the commercial channels. So my detection of a similar difference in our media seems quite explainable.
As for the size–90million of that seems to funnel into NPR, comprising a third of their annual budget. Neither 90 or 550 million are small amounts. But they pale in comparison, say, to the Defense budget, or agricultural subsidies. That’s a not a defense for spending a lot on NPR–if it is money wasted, we should stop doing it whether it’s 9 dollars or 90 million or 9 billion. I’m just pointing why it’s not crazy to call it small. When talking about the federal budget–that is small. Also–if you compare what we spend on national media versus what France, Germany Japan, UK spend…it’s not close. We spend VERY little.
jdkazoo123 wrote
However, I’ve reluctantly realized that without PBS/NPR, the media would be even worse off than it is. All the other media outlets are frantic for eyeballs, profit. NPR and PBS are deeper dives into the issues, and make a real effort to be objective.
This is apparently just something we must disagree on. I don’t believe they make a “real effort to be objective,” at least, not anymore. In my opinion, there is more evidence to support a position that they are at least as biased as their network counterparts toward the left, excepting Fox, of course.
As to their “deeper dives” on the issues, I agree that they do that, but in my view, their partisan bias reduces the value of that effort by making them untrustworthy to many of us who lean other than left.
So where do you go for a source that gives you deep information while trying to be objective?
My concern goes back to a comment made by Putin’s top advisor, years ago–nothing is true, and everything is permitted. His point was–he didn’t have to convince Russians that what Putin was saying was true. All he had to do was convince them that it was impossible for them to know what is true, in swirling mass of bias and uncertainty. And in that confusion, they will look for strength. And no one will be stronger than Putin.
Is there an outlet out there that you think can replace the MSM, if, as you believe, the MSM is hopelessly biased? And, separately, do you believe the MSM was always hopelessly biased, from its dawn as an institution in the early 20th century (the period when journalism became a profession with objectivity as a goal), or was there a period in which it, in inevitably flawed ways, still strove for objectivity and gave the political system a shared set of temporary truths about which to debate public issues? If the latter, when did it go bad…and why? If the former, why wasn’t this a problem in 1960…
Incidentally, the political view that the media has ALWAYS been biased is the traditional Marxist view–that the big owners, the capitalists, always always always spin the media to make the truth, Marxist reality, look wrong.
jdkazoo123
So where do you go for a source that gives you deep information while trying to be objective?
Personally? Various places, but actual objectivity is pretty rare. I generally compare multiple sources, taking into account their biases, and come to my own conclusions. Seems pretty straightforward to me. Imperfect, I guess, but it’s the best I can come up with.
My concern goes back to a comment made by Putin’s top advisor, years ago–nothing is true, and everything is permitted.
At some point, we’re going to have to start making a new “Godwin’s Law” for Putin and Russia.
And, separately, do you believe the MSM was always hopelessly biased…
Biased, yes. Hopelessly, not until the time period between 2000 and 2016. I think you can figure out what drove them there.
Incidentally, the political view that the media has ALWAYS been biased is the traditional Marxist view…
Umm… This is kind of a passive-aggressive ad hominem “guilt by association”, don’t you think?
A universe in which you and I do not live, apparently.
I think the mainstream media is human, and therefore makes mistakes, but there is a vast difference between TRYING to be objective, and inevitably failing, and giving up, and saying “we’re just going to be biased.” Fox isn’t a balance for the MSM. Balance would be hiring a bunch of journalists, many who leaned conservative, and then urging them to be rigorously fair. But a partisan press is nothing the republic can’t handle. Or at least, we have been here before. In my third book, on media politics, I talked about how for much of American history, there was no norm of objectivity in journalism. Most papers were biased towards one party or the other, it was frequently on their masthead.
Methinks you give the mainstream media FAR more credit than it deserves. Even some of my liberal friends agree that the 24-hour news networks, along with NPR, PBS, and the Big Three ceased being “objective” long ago.
Excellent essay – Thanks Jack for dealing with the Fox comment so I could skip it.
Social media simply amplifies that which divides. It does not create the divide. Government growth in entitlements as well as discretionary spending has grown fiefdoms that are dependent on ever increasing government spending. I don’t know whether it is the Stockholm syndrome or just learned helplessness among those rely on government for their economic wellbeing.
We call reductions in the growth of spending “cuts” and expect any reductions be absorbed by that other guys program. NGO’s, state officials, Federal workers and politicians work symbiotically to ensure that the power of politicians remains intact by protecting the economic interests of those who derive their income and wealth from ever increasing federal spending.
Social media simply allows the payer camps and the receiver camps to create alliances for the purpose of gaining leverage. Through that process conflict emerges and through expanding conflict profits are obtained as more people join the opposing camps which allow marketers to more efficiently slice and dice their consumer base.
Zuckerberg is just capitalizing on human beings desire for fame and fortune which ultimately, at best, is fleeting.
Pogo was prescient when he said “we have met the enemy and it is us”
Excellent comment of the day. I am mostly in your uncle’s camp as I am a retired manufacturing executive and typically vote Republican. Why do I vote Republican? I don’t think politicians in either party are very different from each other. Both parties are leading the US ruin. However, if you vote Republican, it will just take the country longer to get there. At my age that is a reasonable strategy. Regarding social media except for this blog, I rarely use it. I concede that Facebook can be a useful tool to reach a large audience without incurring costs. I participated in a group effort to protest wasteful spending by our local library. Our goal was for voters to reject the budget and have the library change their business practices. Both goals were accomplished, and social media helped.
Social media can also keep you updated on what friends and family are doing. So can the telephone, email, and face-to-face interaction. My limited exposure to Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram is that they were mostly a waste of my time. I found most social media postings to be an effort to get attention. Blogs are different and can be a good source of information or propaganda. However, one should choose wisely.
I find Jack’s and Turley’s blogs are frequently informative and thought-provoking. I also subscribe to a few medical and pharmaceutical blogs because of my previous career. Jack’s blog for example is excellent at identifying ethics violations but is typically devoid of what to do about the problems he and others highlight. Coming from a business background when presented with a problem I seek solutions. I evaluate alternatives determining how much each solution costs, what we get for the expenditure, and are the solutions the best use of limited resources. Just identifying a problem doesn’t make it go away.
“if politicians aren’t worried about social media, they aren’t doing their jobs. They may be doing the wrong things (I’m no expert) but it’s tearing the country apart with bile and bullshit–FOR PROFIT.”
Just what is a politician’s job? The only thing they swear to is to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States. Everything else we think their job might be is a construct of our imagination.
The average politician views their job as follows:
As far as the polarization of the population the politicians fuel it. It works to their advantage. They don’t need to worry about their base they just need to pick up enough of the undecided to win the next election. They don’t need to fix anything they just need to breed discontent and fear. Then they stress how terrible their opponent is. For incumbents, it is a simple recipe for success. Social media is a gift for the politicians. Why should they change anything?
Very nice comment, Tom. Thank you.
Thanks Bill. I wish I had a reason to be less cynical.
–