20 ms·

The forces that drove this election’s media failure are likely to get worse

144 points by bootload 10y ago

seventytwo 10y ago
I'd love to see something that works to reverse this trend. Maybe some kind of option on facebook that allows you to modify the feed a bit, or some kind of demographic-based version of Omegle. Maybe a browser plugin that can learn about you (and the echo chamber you are in) and start suggesting things that are challenging to your world view.
- qb45 10y ago
  The worst offenders in social media disinformation deliberately use social media to get in touch with others like them because of social's "clustering" tendencies so no, it wouldn't get much adoption. Internet is full of opposing opinions. It's not like people don't see them, they don't click them.
- pg314 10y ago
  The people that would most benefit from that plugin wouldn't be the ones to use it. If you are aware of your media bubble, you probably have the cognitive tools to do something about it. If it isn't solved at the root, i.e. at the Facebook level, it won't be solved. However, since Facebook's commercial interests are aligned against it, I am pessimistic it will be solved. Maybe Facebook's successor can solve it.
- thenomad 10y ago
  I run one such thing on Twitter: http://www.strangecompany.org/how-to-fight-the-filter-bubble-new-twitter-app-thing/# http://www.strangecompany.org/how-to-fight-the-filter-bubble... I need to update it a bit with a few of the newer subreddits that have sprung up for alt-right types, but it's still there.
andrewclunn 10y ago
Made a pro Trump post here once. It got down voted into oblivion. Not on Facebook anymore, but when I was my aunt defriended me over politics. What this author doesn't understand is that the right isn't in an echo chamber. We're very much aware of left wing media and are exposed to it all the time. It's just lost all its persuasive power over us because it's founded on straw men. Now the answer presented is basically to justify political censorship under the guise of fact checking? Good to know that the left has learned nothing. Get ready to keep on losing.
- Houshalter 10y ago
  Maybe you aren't in an echo chamber. What about The people liking stories about Obama being born in Kenya? Or trump being endorsed by the pope? Removing blatantly false lies isn't censorship, it's literally the bare minimum they should do.
- scrollaway 10y ago
  Yes, keep making insulting sweeping statements and demonizing the other side. After all, that's worked so well for everybody involved. God, this election really has brought out the worst in people. I'm sorry for your Aunt.
  - calsy 10y ago
    Not you though, you're a ray of sunshine way up there on your pedestal.
    - scrollaway 10y ago
      GP edited their post since I replied to make it less arrogant. Maybe you should edit yours too. Edit: Oh and I'm sick of being denounced as a moderate. Seriously, the highlight of the entire election has been attacks and demonization on the other side. Fuck me for trying to point out shitty behaviour, right?
      - calsy 10y ago
pcunite 10y ago
>> Huffington Post told its readers Clinton had a 98 percent chance of being elected; >> build a better environment for news I agree. They can start by not telling me what to think. Focus on reporting. I got so sick of the media putting spin on what Hillary thinks (they know what she thinks?) or what someone else was saying about Donald trump (without vetting) from 30 years ago and on and on. I have stopped believing them. The news agencies are opinion shows as far as I'm concerned. They are propaganda, bought and paid for by interests that are not American.
mrlatinos 10y ago
Just thought I'd share a tidbit that I haven't been able to elsewhere. I work for a large market research firm that does polls for a large news network. On Sunday, we ran a poll for them that put Trump at 8 points ahead. They decided against publishing it.
- pcunite 10y ago
  Thank you for sharing. From my two months of non-professional research, it looked like Trump was going to win by a big margin. The major media outlets were looking outright deceptive from my perspective.
  - mrlatinos 10y ago
    The irony is that the same network is now questioning how all the pollsters got it wrong... Frustrating.
    - SiVal 10y ago
      Interesting, isn't it? Filtering out facts that they didn't believe, not because they were trying to lie, but because those who demand that we "celebrate diversity" have so little actual diversity themselves that they all truly believed the same, standard narratives they consistently tell each other, resulted in a situation where one of their beliefs could be objectively tested, and they were all wildly wrong in exactly the same way. What does this suggest about all the other stories the mainstream media (CBS exec: "How could Nixon have won? I don't know a single person who voted for him!") tells every day, in exactly the same way, about all sorts of issues that can't be so easily measured? And what does it suggest about the academic institutions that enforce conformity to exactly the same set of opinions and narratives and not only filters information but fires and otherwise silences dissenters? And anyone who suggests that a system so utterly lacking in diversity of thought that there is no one left on campus who will tell them if they're wrong can't be trusted is called "anti-intellectual" and "anti-science". It doesn't tell me that they are wrong about everything, just that they are likely to be just as wrong about some other issues they are adamant about as they were about this one, but that promoting their dogma, not working to find the truth, is what they really care about, which doesn't make them wrong about any particular thing, just not reliable.
_greim_ 10y ago
I can't really see Facebook censoring, fact-checking, or otherwise adjusting their algorithms to expose people to opposing views in any significant way. They're the McDonalds of the internet. Their entire business model depends on satisfying the addictive cravings of their users. It would be like McDonalds discontinuing fries and replacing them with kale and tofu bites.
- jsymolon 10y ago
  Better off using the trending now to support a pro/con opinion fact checked section. Spend some of that money to support a newsroom.
oldmanjay 10y ago
I began believing trump had a legitimate shot to win the election over a year ago, when his candidacy was mainly taken as a joke. I noted to people who didn't believe me that the essential dishonesty of the media was a key element in what they assured me could not happen. Most assurances were driven by media-fed opinions I tried to warn them not to trust. I also learned pretty early on that saying I believed he had a shot would anger people, and often lead to accusations of many, many PC sins such as racism on my part. This did not convince me I was wrong. I have some measure of hope that people are going to learn the right lessons this time. People are still too deep in the grief process for me to judge it clearly, but hope is enough for now.
- throwaway93466 10y ago
  I had exactly the same experience. And I would have strongly preferred that he didn't win. No one was willing to look at the situation clearly. It's going to take the left a long time to grapple with this. I look forward to moving past the shock and outrage.
  - lkrubner 10y ago
    I look forward to moving past the shock, but never the outrage. I am pleased to think that the outrage is just getting started. What I mean by that is something like the feeling expressed by Jean Paul Sartre, in his novel Troubled Sleep, about World War II. In the novel, Germany invades France, but the French soldiers don't truly understand that they are at war. The Germans destroy village after village, but the French soldiers don't truly understand that they are at war. With superior tanks and airplanes, the Germans quickly defeat the French, but the French soldiers don't truly understand that they are at war. The French are forced to surrender, but the French soldiers don't truly understand that they are at war. The French soldiers are taken to a temporary prison camp, but they don't truly understand they are at war. A rumor spreads among them that Hitler has decided to send them home to their families. The soldiers are cheered. Some even praise Hitler for his graciousness in victory. They don't realize they are actually at war. At the end of the novel, the Germans order the French soldiers onto trains. The trains start moving. It is understood by the soldiers that if the trains go north, to Germany, then they are being sent to slave labor camps, but if the train turns south, then they are being sent home to their families. In the final scene, the train comes to a fork, where it must go north or south. The soldiers watch anxiously. And then train turns north, toward Germany. And then, finally, the French soldiers realize they are at war. I feel like this election was a bit like that, for many weak liberals who thought that it was okay to be "centrist." I feel like they are finally waking up to the fact that this is a war. This is the only upside that I find in this election.
probably_wrong 10y ago
I take this post as an example of the media looking for anyone to blame, except themselves. The closest that the post comes to a mea culpa is this: > And of those who [sought information in journalism], not enough of them trusted it to inform their political decisions. Of course they didn't. We know, for instance, that media after the Gulf War will not allow pictures that show war as anything but spotless. We know that, for every single topic, they'll present a stupid counterpoint and claim that a 50/50 balance is needed, even if the counterbalance is nonsense. They barely call people out on their (obvious, documented) lies. And don't get me started on sponsored content. I think people turned to Facebook news because, ultimately, they trust their friends and relatives more than the media. And why shouldn't they? The media has done everything in their power to shape public discourse as they see fit, and now they are surprised that people don't trust them anymore.
ern 10y ago
I know that getting Mark Zuckerberg to care about the problem is absolutely key to the health of our information ecosystem. Zuckerberg has been quoted as saying it's "crazy" to think that fake news on FB could have influenced the election. OP says that a fake news story about the Pope endorsing Trump got 868,000 shares on FB. Something doesn't add up here. http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/10/technology/facebook-mark-zuckerberg-fake-news/ http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/10/technology/facebook-mark-zuc...
- forgottenpass 10y ago
  Something doesn't add up here. Zuckerburg is a lying sack of shit. Or (here's the part were I hedge so dang doesn't scold me for not giving infinite second chances) Zuckerberg is a boob that forgot his own company published an scholarly study about their ability to manipulate people through small chances in what they're shown. People like to think they can ignore the influence of things like advertising, propaganda and promotional freebies. But time and time again the data shows it works, just more subtly that dropping everything and running to the store for a Pepsi. Social influence of political opinion isn't hugely different. Perhaps Zuckerburg means it's crazy that anyone let anything posted on facebook influence them. But that idea is interchangeable with the idea it's crazy people use facebook at all. Everyone at facebook is working to make a product that influences people, whether they're immediately cognizant of it or not.
- makomk 10y ago
  I expect fake and misleading anti-Trump stories saw similar numbers; I've certainly been seeing quite a lot them shared widely on Twitter. (The photoshopped fake of Trump's parents in KKK uniforms got a cool quarter of a million retweets, for example, which is astounding for Twitter.) So it probably contributed to the polarized and hostile nature of the election, but there's no particular reason to assume it swung the results one way or the other.
- bbctol 10y ago
  God, what an insane deflection on his part. If Facebook can't manipulate people's behavior, why should advertisers pay them?
Fricken 10y ago
In the old days our echo chambers were defined by geographical constraints, and by the society we kept. Our misinformation came from one or a handful of media sources. Now we have thousands of sources of misinformation to choose from, and our echo chambers have taken on new life online. But then, as now, the truth is like poetry. And people fucking hate poetry. It can seem like we're living in an idiocracy, but the average person hasn't gotten any stupider. The world has become too complex for anyone to understand.
- ahartman00 10y ago
  "The world has become too complex for anyone to understand" This is why I am excited to see free college tuition enter the debate. What I would love though is two extra mandatory years of high school. Teach government(so people dont think the president is a dictator), law(so people dont get taken advantage of), teach more about other cultures(so people can find out what they have in common, hopefully breaking the echo chamber), teach logic and rhetoric, and some more computer skills, maybe a basic programming class. While I agree the world is too complex for any one person to understand everything(hence the specialization of labor). I do believe we can do better though, all is not lost :)
  - douche 10y ago
    I'd prefer that more efficient use was made of the four years of high school they've already got people locked in for. Everything listed could be done, in addition to what (little) is already learned in those four years. It might be necessary to reform teachers unions to shake out the deadwood and find budget to double salaries, to raise the average level in the talent pool though.
nikofeyn 10y ago
adam curtis' documentary "hypernormalization" also covers how we got here.
b1daly 10y ago
As much as I find his persona to be ridiculously self aggrandizing and smug, Scott Adams made some pretty on point calls on this election, predicting Trump would win over a year ago. He's got some metaphorical construct he calls the "persuasion filter", with various notions about its components. http://blog.dilbert.com http://blog.dilbert.com He claims he recognized Trump as a "master persuader", which once he started running. I confess I didn't take it too seriously, but in his view "master persuaders" take advantage of various cognitive and emotional bias we have, often appealing to emotion. In his view, when it comes to something like pursuading voters, appeals based on facts fail. Appeals based on tapping into the right emotions succeed. Non of this theory is particularly novel, propaganda has been a major component of governing since time immemorial. But he did hone in on Trumps ability to tap into these emotional motivational centers in a striking way. I've been rather depressed about the election, with some passing moments of "maybe it won't be to bad." Two days after, some of the shock has worn off. But I've never been quite so distressed by the outcome of an election. Which has prompted some self reflection: how much of my distress is based on the fact that my team lost, that Trump was successfully painted as a thug by Clinton campaign, who manipulated me similar to how Trump did his supporters? I'm not sure how I'll see things tomorrow, next week, next year. But as of tonight, I think the root of my distress is that Trump abandoned all pretense of a fact base campaign. His lies were total, said with impunity, no sense of shame whatsoever. He comes closest to a sort of "impressionistic truth" in his ability to intuit people's weak spots, their fear, their hypocrisy, their aspirations. Hence, he is a masterful bully, because his insults hone in on an emotional truth. The downside to this ability, aside from the fact that he uses it to hurt others, is that he has no sense of irony, no insight to his own projection, no humility, and is easily baited. Small slights seem to rattle him almost more than big ones. IMO, Hillary retains a strong comittment to living in a fact based reality. That's one reason she lacks political charisma. Her attempts to elide a challenging issue, to convince an unsympathetic audience, her pre-planned "zingers", her lies, are all so transparent, and she comes off as a phony, practicing on off putting brand of persuasion based around pandering, instead of convincing. I think this is at least part of my alarm with what Trump has done, because there is simply no way to refute anything he says. He simply doesn't care. His, statements are often vague, lacking specifics, nouns, big on pronouns, verbs, and meaningless superlatives. When I hear this kind of rhetoric, I tend to get an uneasy feeling. I'm very sensitive to arguments that don't make sense. I can feel it, and sometimes if I want to figure out what is wrong with the argument, I have to actively work through it. I wasn't immune to the entertainment value of watching this master bomb thrower destroy his bewildered primary opponents . Especially because his technique undermines the skills of a professional politician. Once Trump pulled back the curtain on his opponents clunky rhetorical machinery, they were powerless to get it back. So I liked it, because watching professional politicians do their professional politician speaking is freaking annoying. The art of political language is to not provide any "attack surface" to your opponents. Trump just bypassed all that, because he is hyper agressive, and cares about winning far more than about how he "looks." Once that phase of the election was through, I found no appeal in Trumps meandering, stream of conscious boasting and hucksterism. I guess I'm not the target audience. But watching people eat it up was disturbing, in light of the wildly inaccurate "facts" occasionally peperred in to his speeches. His campaign launched with a big one, characterizing most Mexican immigrants as rapists and drug addicts. I mean, that is demagoguery at its worst, shameful. The sort of CW about what his supporters liked was that he "told it like it was!" To me, that indicates that that many of his supporters took his unabashed bullying as license to feel good about their own assholishness. Political correctness gets a bad rap, but at its root it's an attempt to manage difficult social dynamics and power structures, and is intended to protect groups that have been abused and marginalized by a dominant mainstream. If you give up on the intention of political correctness, which is to help excluded individuals and groups become part of the mainstream, you are indeed being racist, ableist, intolerant, etc... Everybody has strains of intolerance and prejudice, we're all capable of hate, we're all filled with fears and biases. That doesn't make us "racist" in pejorative sense it's used. What does make someone a "whateverist," is giving up trying to make marginalized groups part of the main stream, giving up the pretence to political correctness, of attempting to at least make the modicum of effort involved do demonstrate to an outsider that you are aware of their existence, and intend to create space for them. It depends on context. Making fun of someone or some group in private is different than in public. So politically correct speech is disenguous, that's how it works. Trump flouts these current norms in public! On purpose! His followers se that as him telling it like it is, because he is! He's telling him about the inside parts of his psyche that are not nice, that don't care, that want to put others down. Since we all have these elements inside us to some degree, his listeners feel affirmed for the negative parts of their psyche. Instead of having to take the uncomfortable steps involved in trying to overcome one's prejudices, of fighting against the negative aspects of the self, which are brought out when we have to try and get along with people different than ourself, Trump followers feel liberated to be their "true selves". This type of socializing only works well in homogenious social groups. The social bonds in such groups are easily reinforced by designating another set of individuals as "other." Unfortunately, this type of scapegoating allows for socially sanctioned oppression and discrimination to occur. A "demagogue" takes advantage of this psychology by helping define who is "in the group", "who is out", and normalizing these destructive, instinctual human behaviors. There is a phenomena at play here in the "red state/blue state" divide that is ironic. Blue staters, being just as human as red staters, are not immune to practicing a similar form of socially sanctioned discrimination and denigration of their own "other": namely the red staters. This comes off as smugness, condescension, and is obvious to anyone on the receiving end of it. Hence, the awareness of this hypocrisy on the part of the blue stater, by the red stater, coupled with the a blue staters lack of insight of their own hypocrisy, or worse, the lack of attempt at even trying control and minimize their own "scapegoating" behavior, leads to an apparent moral equivalence of the two sides. The blue stater is taking advantage of the psychological balm of feeling superior to some one else. The fact of the matter is that a Social Justice Warrior careening around, throwing bombs, and labeling people as racist can indeed be engaged in the same psychological Mia-behavior as a self-righteous born again Christian who justifies hating gays based on the bible. If you have two, or more, groups of cultural rivals engaged in political battle, the fact that both sides engage in similar dysfunctional and antogonist behavior, doesn't mean that core ideas or issues that drive each group are morally equivalent, or equally true. A simple example might be illustrated by the truckers who like to "roll coal" and deliberately thumb their nose at the insufferable goody two shoes environmental "activists" trying to impose their concept of "good behavior" on others. In this case, I find it easy to empathize with the coal rollers, but that doesn't mean they are correct on what is needed to protect the environment. This is a rather long winded response to the OP. The article is discussing the decreases power of the media to prevent group think from being reinforced by the filtering feedback loops of social media. Trump has shown that for many voters, this is a quaint notion. In Trump they have found a leader who ignores facts in his rhetoric, and appeals purely on the level of emotions and psychological behaviors. At core, this is what is so disturbing to me. Trumps indifference to facts, his exaltation of power and dominance will not lead to effective governing, and reflect almost a complete abdication of the responsibilities of a leader. My guess is that motley crew of sociopathic right wing has-beens he has surrounding him will quickly move to take advantage of Trumps indifference to facts to exploit there positions in the new administration for their own ends. Guliani, Gingrich, and Christie are the true "deplorable" here. Ruthless, amoral men with grudges to settle. These three have shown themselves to be completely indifferent to the needs of others. The lot of them have an appalling record of anti-social behavior. Unlike Trump, they they seem to operate in the fact based world. So when they lie, it's at a very conscious level, calculated to increase their own power. Just looking at their collective record of behavior in their personal lives shows they have no regard for anyone but themselves.
jbmorgado 10y ago
I find it appalling that suddenly Hilary was portrayed as some kind of saviour by the media just because she is not as bad as Trump. Well, sorry for believing that elections are about choosing the good candidate, not voting against the bad candidate. If there is one single person to blame for these elections outcome, that person is Hilary Clinton, she put America and the World in danger when she used her grip on the DNC to push Bernie Sanders aside during the primaries, although it was clear that the people desperately wanted change. That was the key moment in these elections that got Donald Trump elected.
Shivetya 10y ago
Many always love to poo poo the idea that there is strong media bias to one side yet each election simply demonstrates it. Where is the correction? Where are those press people from the sixties and seventies that dogged all politicians regardless of party. the problem is they operate in an echo chamber. they truly do think they are better than those they present the news too and therefor beyond criticism. this alone keeps them from acknowledging any criticism, whether deserved or not. the press needs to keep the bias to the editorial pages. newspapers should not be endorsing candidates, instead they need to list the claimed views of candidates with their current and past actions. report, not distort
Angostura 10y ago
I the forces that drove this election's media failure centre almost entirely around the problems with polling data, not a inherent problem with journalism. The journalists were working with the best data that they had available. If a journalist is told that there is only a small chance of a candidate being elected, it is not surprising that they don't necessarily take his chances seriously. Credit to 538 though, for putting Clinton's chances sub-70% in the final week (returning to to 70% on the final day) and for repeatedly warning of the lack of certainty given the lack of good quality polls.
- prasadjoglekar 10y ago
  I disagree. The problem was that all journalists (Fox News included) used the polling as an excuse to not actually get out and do journalism. Polls should have been but one input. Instead, because most polls said what all of them wanted to believe, the effects of anchoring and confirmation biases were amplified. Anything to the contrary was dismissed as nonsense.
msravi 10y ago
I don't understand how thick headed the mainstream media (MSM) seems to be in not getting it. This "upset" win of Trump (upset in the sense that it didn't play by the MSM's wishes) was not an isolated incident - it's happened in India (2014), it happened in UK (Brexit), and it has been repeated in the US. The fundamental driver for all three instances has been the removal of all filters on social media. The problem was that for too long the MSM used their power to filter content to its readers/viewers, and the filter was tuned by a group that wanted to script reality in a form that they wished to see come to fruition, even if their stand was hypocritical. So for example, you'd see a huge hue and cry in the MSM about how freedom of expression was being harmed because a right wing outfit threatened someone for speaking out against a majority religion, and yet, when someone spoke out against Islam, and Islamic groups placed a bounty on his head, the same MSM would just go silent. It is this blatant hypocrisy that finally got them. And now, with social media, for the first time people have access to unfiltered news and can form their own opinions. And for better or worse, the hypocrisy of the MSM is glaringly obvious for people who have access to multiple viewpoints on an incident - not just a filtered viewpoint. With the hypocrisy bare, it's basically been a revolt against the established media. And unless the established media takes it upon themselves to be more honest in whatever stand they take, this is going to repeat, because, people aren't fools you know.
- reader5000 10y ago
  Established media is obsolete. Old media model: a couple thousand Harvard graduates produce and filter the content for billions of people (English speaking world) by monopoly control on the 2-3 television channels, 4-5 major newspapers/zines. New media model: a media consumer can read the opinions and thoughts of 1000s of other people across the globe, and participate in the formulation of their own opinions, and receive feedback from others. The one-to-many top-down elitist control of opinion formation and transfer is dead. For better or for worse. Probably better. Especially when it appears to be the case that the main opinion media elitists care about is that people acknowledge them as elite.. The only criticism of the new media model I've seen is the filter bubble, but I feel that is overblown.
  - 10y ago
anotheryou 10y ago
The main bubble that burst was that of the people who thought trump was a joke, no? Are fed up people really the medias failure? Bernie Sanders also had surprising support for similar reasons to Trump: they both where going against the system. Just for some discussion: maybe the classic media finally lost control and people regained some freedom of choice? Every big media house was against trump and he still won. And let's not forget that a lot of people really had to jump their shadow to vote for Hillary as the lesser evil.
- anotheryou 10y ago
  That being said: fact avoiding filter bubbles are still scary as fuck.
throw2016 10y ago
The last 30 years have seen a distinct change in economic policies that rewards the privileged and leave others struggling in the name of efficiency and capitalism. Yet when things go southward and things like the banking crisis happens these principles are swiftly jettisoned and privileged interests indiscriminately bailed out with the media and 'experts' stepping in to gloss over the rank hypocrisy. The poor are harassed and incarcerated for every small trangression while the rich and connected like the bankers, Shrekeli, Holmes routinely get way with fraud and worse. These inconsistences are not forgotten. All that economic power is then inevitably used in a self serving way to further increase their own share of rewards like quasi feudalism. Wars are being fought to benefit financial interests that leave millions in other countries in disarray, billion dollar surveillance industries are built that fundamentally shift the balance of power from the people to the state. HN itself is guilty of celebrating wealth and gloating over the irrelevance of people with automation and AI. Why the gloating? Where is the sensitivity to the impact of these technologies on society and the unprivileged. There is so much disrespect and general nastiness to people here who are not perceived to be successful with no notion of adversity or privilege. This kind of disrespect and dehumanization is bound to rankle. Cmon these are your own people. What do you think these people are going to do? They will listen and vote in demagogues.
- hga 10y ago
  Quibble to your posting which I otherwise largely agree with, Shrekeli is under Federal indictment, and every one is cheering that, and it's too early for Holmes to receive the same treatment, although the fraud she was running should have been brought to heel much earlier, we're talking life and death here, as with Shrekeli. A better example would be Jon Corzine, and how it looked for quite some time that the people he defrauded would not be made whole, despite the white line law on this. Or to bring it back to this election, "The S in SCIF Does Not Stand for Servant".
- jsymolon 10y ago
  > economic policies that rewards the privileged As shown as the cabinet is "old guard" republican ideology. Regulations! Bad! ... etc.
phkahler 10y ago
The problem with facebook is the SHARE button. If I want to read Fox news or Huggington Post, I'll go to those sites and read. If I want to watch Cat videos I'll go to YouTube myself. The problem is that it's way too easy for my "friends" on facebook to click to promote whatever stirs their interest. One would hope most of the content shared on facebook is user-generated, not user shared. But there is no money in that so they have simplified the process of sharing monetized crap to a single click.
- douche 10y ago
  There is some irony in condemning this use-case of Facebook on HackerNews, where user-shared content and comments about it are pretty much the entire raison d'etre
cowardlydragon 10y ago
The media normalized mainstream expressions of hate, giving them hourly implicit approval and mainstream normalcy, because it was giving them ratings and ads. Every historian I know sees frightening parallels between Trump and various fascist regime rises. Virtually no coverage of this. If news is unable to provide historical context, apply moral judgement, or do any investigative journalism of the ample skeletons in Trump's closet, then they are truly a shell.

144 points by bootload 10y ago

I'd love to see something that works to reverse this trend. Maybe some kind of option on facebook that allows you to modify the feed a bit, or some kind of demographic-based version of Omegle. Maybe a browser plugin that can learn about you (and the echo chamber you are in) and start suggesting things that are challenging to your world view.

qb45 10y ago
The worst offenders in social media disinformation deliberately use social media to get in touch with others like them because of social's "clustering" tendencies so no, it wouldn't get much adoption. Internet is full of opposing opinions. It's not like people don't see them, they don't click them.
pg314 10y ago
The people that would most benefit from that plugin wouldn't be the ones to use it. If you are aware of your media bubble, you probably have the cognitive tools to do something about it. If it isn't solved at the root, i.e. at the Facebook level, it won't be solved. However, since Facebook's commercial interests are aligned against it, I am pessimistic it will be solved. Maybe Facebook's successor can solve it.
thenomad 10y ago
I run one such thing on Twitter: http://www.strangecompany.org/how-to-fight-the-filter-bubble-new-twitter-app-thing/# http://www.strangecompany.org/how-to-fight-the-filter-bubble... I need to update it a bit with a few of the newer subreddits that have sprung up for alt-right types, but it's still there.

andrewclunn 10y ago

Made a pro Trump post here once. It got down voted into oblivion. Not on Facebook anymore, but when I was my aunt defriended me over politics. What this author doesn't understand is that the right isn't in an echo chamber. We're very much aware of left wing media and are exposed to it all the time. It's just lost all its persuasive power over us because it's founded on straw men. Now the answer presented is basically to justify political censorship under the guise of fact checking? Good to know that the left has learned nothing. Get ready to keep on losing.

Houshalter 10y ago
Maybe you aren't in an echo chamber. What about The people liking stories about Obama being born in Kenya? Or trump being endorsed by the pope? Removing blatantly false lies isn't censorship, it's literally the bare minimum they should do.
scrollaway 10y ago
Yes, keep making insulting sweeping statements and demonizing the other side. After all, that's worked so well for everybody involved. God, this election really has brought out the worst in people. I'm sorry for your Aunt.
- calsy 10y ago
  Not you though, you're a ray of sunshine way up there on your pedestal.
  - scrollaway 10y ago
    GP edited their post since I replied to make it less arrogant. Maybe you should edit yours too. Edit: Oh and I'm sick of being denounced as a moderate. Seriously, the highlight of the entire election has been attacks and demonization on the other side. Fuck me for trying to point out shitty behaviour, right?
    - calsy 10y ago

pcunite 10y ago

>> Huffington Post told its readers Clinton had a 98 percent chance of being elected; >> build a better environment for news I agree. They can start by not telling me what to think. Focus on reporting. I got so sick of the media putting spin on what Hillary thinks (they know what she thinks?) or what someone else was saying about Donald trump (without vetting) from 30 years ago and on and on. I have stopped believing them. The news agencies are opinion shows as far as I'm concerned. They are propaganda, bought and paid for by interests that are not American.

mrlatinos 10y ago

Just thought I'd share a tidbit that I haven't been able to elsewhere. I work for a large market research firm that does polls for a large news network. On Sunday, we ran a poll for them that put Trump at 8 points ahead. They decided against publishing it.

pcunite 10y ago
Thank you for sharing. From my two months of non-professional research, it looked like Trump was going to win by a big margin. The major media outlets were looking outright deceptive from my perspective.
- mrlatinos 10y ago
  The irony is that the same network is now questioning how all the pollsters got it wrong... Frustrating.
  - SiVal 10y ago
    Interesting, isn't it? Filtering out facts that they didn't believe, not because they were trying to lie, but because those who demand that we "celebrate diversity" have so little actual diversity themselves that they all truly believed the same, standard narratives they consistently tell each other, resulted in a situation where one of their beliefs could be objectively tested, and they were all wildly wrong in exactly the same way. What does this suggest about all the other stories the mainstream media (CBS exec: "How could Nixon have won? I don't know a single person who voted for him!") tells every day, in exactly the same way, about all sorts of issues that can't be so easily measured? And what does it suggest about the academic institutions that enforce conformity to exactly the same set of opinions and narratives and not only filters information but fires and otherwise silences dissenters? And anyone who suggests that a system so utterly lacking in diversity of thought that there is no one left on campus who will tell them if they're wrong can't be trusted is called "anti-intellectual" and "anti-science". It doesn't tell me that they are wrong about everything, just that they are likely to be just as wrong about some other issues they are adamant about as they were about this one, but that promoting their dogma, not working to find the truth, is what they really care about, which doesn't make them wrong about any particular thing, just not reliable.

_greim_ 10y ago

I can't really see Facebook censoring, fact-checking, or otherwise adjusting their algorithms to expose people to opposing views in any significant way. They're the McDonalds of the internet. Their entire business model depends on satisfying the addictive cravings of their users. It would be like McDonalds discontinuing fries and replacing them with kale and tofu bites.

jsymolon 10y ago
Better off using the trending now to support a pro/con opinion fact checked section. Spend some of that money to support a newsroom.

oldmanjay 10y ago

I began believing trump had a legitimate shot to win the election over a year ago, when his candidacy was mainly taken as a joke. I noted to people who didn't believe me that the essential dishonesty of the media was a key element in what they assured me could not happen. Most assurances were driven by media-fed opinions I tried to warn them not to trust. I also learned pretty early on that saying I believed he had a shot would anger people, and often lead to accusations of many, many PC sins such as racism on my part. This did not convince me I was wrong. I have some measure of hope that people are going to learn the right lessons this time. People are still too deep in the grief process for me to judge it clearly, but hope is enough for now.

throwaway93466 10y ago
I had exactly the same experience. And I would have strongly preferred that he didn't win. No one was willing to look at the situation clearly. It's going to take the left a long time to grapple with this. I look forward to moving past the shock and outrage.
- lkrubner 10y ago
  I look forward to moving past the shock, but never the outrage. I am pleased to think that the outrage is just getting started. What I mean by that is something like the feeling expressed by Jean Paul Sartre, in his novel Troubled Sleep, about World War II. In the novel, Germany invades France, but the French soldiers don't truly understand that they are at war. The Germans destroy village after village, but the French soldiers don't truly understand that they are at war. With superior tanks and airplanes, the Germans quickly defeat the French, but the French soldiers don't truly understand that they are at war. The French are forced to surrender, but the French soldiers don't truly understand that they are at war. The French soldiers are taken to a temporary prison camp, but they don't truly understand they are at war. A rumor spreads among them that Hitler has decided to send them home to their families. The soldiers are cheered. Some even praise Hitler for his graciousness in victory. They don't realize they are actually at war. At the end of the novel, the Germans order the French soldiers onto trains. The trains start moving. It is understood by the soldiers that if the trains go north, to Germany, then they are being sent to slave labor camps, but if the train turns south, then they are being sent home to their families. In the final scene, the train comes to a fork, where it must go north or south. The soldiers watch anxiously. And then train turns north, toward Germany. And then, finally, the French soldiers realize they are at war. I feel like this election was a bit like that, for many weak liberals who thought that it was okay to be "centrist." I feel like they are finally waking up to the fact that this is a war. This is the only upside that I find in this election.

probably_wrong 10y ago

I take this post as an example of the media looking for anyone to blame, except themselves. The closest that the post comes to a mea culpa is this: > And of those who [sought information in journalism], not enough of them trusted it to inform their political decisions. Of course they didn't. We know, for instance, that media after the Gulf War will not allow pictures that show war as anything but spotless. We know that, for every single topic, they'll present a stupid counterpoint and claim that a 50/50 balance is needed, even if the counterbalance is nonsense. They barely call people out on their (obvious, documented) lies. And don't get me started on sponsored content. I think people turned to Facebook news because, ultimately, they trust their friends and relatives more than the media. And why shouldn't they? The media has done everything in their power to shape public discourse as they see fit, and now they are surprised that people don't trust them anymore.

ern 10y ago

I know that getting Mark Zuckerberg to care about the problem is absolutely key to the health of our information ecosystem. Zuckerberg has been quoted as saying it's "crazy" to think that fake news on FB could have influenced the election. OP says that a fake news story about the Pope endorsing Trump got 868,000 shares on FB. Something doesn't add up here. http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/10/technology/facebook-mark-zuckerberg-fake-news/ http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/10/technology/facebook-mark-zuc...

forgottenpass 10y ago
Something doesn't add up here. Zuckerburg is a lying sack of shit. Or (here's the part were I hedge so dang doesn't scold me for not giving infinite second chances) Zuckerberg is a boob that forgot his own company published an scholarly study about their ability to manipulate people through small chances in what they're shown. People like to think they can ignore the influence of things like advertising, propaganda and promotional freebies. But time and time again the data shows it works, just more subtly that dropping everything and running to the store for a Pepsi. Social influence of political opinion isn't hugely different. Perhaps Zuckerburg means it's crazy that anyone let anything posted on facebook influence them. But that idea is interchangeable with the idea it's crazy people use facebook at all. Everyone at facebook is working to make a product that influences people, whether they're immediately cognizant of it or not.
makomk 10y ago
I expect fake and misleading anti-Trump stories saw similar numbers; I've certainly been seeing quite a lot them shared widely on Twitter. (The photoshopped fake of Trump's parents in KKK uniforms got a cool quarter of a million retweets, for example, which is astounding for Twitter.) So it probably contributed to the polarized and hostile nature of the election, but there's no particular reason to assume it swung the results one way or the other.
bbctol 10y ago
God, what an insane deflection on his part. If Facebook can't manipulate people's behavior, why should advertisers pay them?

Fricken 10y ago

In the old days our echo chambers were defined by geographical constraints, and by the society we kept. Our misinformation came from one or a handful of media sources. Now we have thousands of sources of misinformation to choose from, and our echo chambers have taken on new life online. But then, as now, the truth is like poetry. And people fucking hate poetry. It can seem like we're living in an idiocracy, but the average person hasn't gotten any stupider. The world has become too complex for anyone to understand.

ahartman00 10y ago
"The world has become too complex for anyone to understand" This is why I am excited to see free college tuition enter the debate. What I would love though is two extra mandatory years of high school. Teach government(so people dont think the president is a dictator), law(so people dont get taken advantage of), teach more about other cultures(so people can find out what they have in common, hopefully breaking the echo chamber), teach logic and rhetoric, and some more computer skills, maybe a basic programming class. While I agree the world is too complex for any one person to understand everything(hence the specialization of labor). I do believe we can do better though, all is not lost :)
- douche 10y ago
  I'd prefer that more efficient use was made of the four years of high school they've already got people locked in for. Everything listed could be done, in addition to what (little) is already learned in those four years. It might be necessary to reform teachers unions to shake out the deadwood and find budget to double salaries, to raise the average level in the talent pool though.

nikofeyn 10y ago

adam curtis' documentary "hypernormalization" also covers how we got here.

b1daly 10y ago

As much as I find his persona to be ridiculously self aggrandizing and smug, Scott Adams made some pretty on point calls on this election, predicting Trump would win over a year ago. He's got some metaphorical construct he calls the "persuasion filter", with various notions about its components. http://blog.dilbert.com http://blog.dilbert.com He claims he recognized Trump as a "master persuader", which once he started running. I confess I didn't take it too seriously, but in his view "master persuaders" take advantage of various cognitive and emotional bias we have, often appealing to emotion. In his view, when it comes to something like pursuading voters, appeals based on facts fail. Appeals based on tapping into the right emotions succeed. Non of this theory is particularly novel, propaganda has been a major component of governing since time immemorial. But he did hone in on Trumps ability to tap into these emotional motivational centers in a striking way. I've been rather depressed about the election, with some passing moments of "maybe it won't be to bad." Two days after, some of the shock has worn off. But I've never been quite so distressed by the outcome of an election. Which has prompted some self reflection: how much of my distress is based on the fact that my team lost, that Trump was successfully painted as a thug by Clinton campaign, who manipulated me similar to how Trump did his supporters? I'm not sure how I'll see things tomorrow, next week, next year. But as of tonight, I think the root of my distress is that Trump abandoned all pretense of a fact base campaign. His lies were total, said with impunity, no sense of shame whatsoever. He comes closest to a sort of "impressionistic truth" in his ability to intuit people's weak spots, their fear, their hypocrisy, their aspirations. Hence, he is a masterful bully, because his insults hone in on an emotional truth. The downside to this ability, aside from the fact that he uses it to hurt others, is that he has no sense of irony, no insight to his own projection, no humility, and is easily baited. Small slights seem to rattle him almost more than big ones. IMO, Hillary retains a strong comittment to living in a fact based reality. That's one reason she lacks political charisma. Her attempts to elide a challenging issue, to convince an unsympathetic audience, her pre-planned "zingers", her lies, are all so transparent, and she comes off as a phony, practicing on off putting brand of persuasion based around pandering, instead of convincing. I think this is at least part of my alarm with what Trump has done, because there is simply no way to refute anything he says. He simply doesn't care. His, statements are often vague, lacking specifics, nouns, big on pronouns, verbs, and meaningless superlatives. When I hear this kind of rhetoric, I tend to get an uneasy feeling. I'm very sensitive to arguments that don't make sense. I can feel it, and sometimes if I want to figure out what is wrong with the argument, I have to actively work through it. I wasn't immune to the entertainment value of watching this master bomb thrower destroy his bewildered primary opponents . Especially because his technique undermines the skills of a professional politician. Once Trump pulled back the curtain on his opponents clunky rhetorical machinery, they were powerless to get it back. So I liked it, because watching professional politicians do their professional politician speaking is freaking annoying. The art of political language is to not provide any "attack surface" to your opponents. Trump just bypassed all that, because he is hyper agressive, and cares about winning far more than about how he "looks." Once that phase of the election was through, I found no appeal in Trumps meandering, stream of conscious boasting and hucksterism. I guess I'm not the target audience. But watching people eat it up was disturbing, in light of the wildly inaccurate "facts" occasionally peperred in to his speeches. His campaign launched with a big one, characterizing most Mexican immigrants as rapists and drug addicts. I mean, that is demagoguery at its worst, shameful. The sort of CW about what his supporters liked was that he "told it like it was!" To me, that indicates that that many of his supporters took his unabashed bullying as license to feel good about their own assholishness. Political correctness gets a bad rap, but at its root it's an attempt to manage difficult social dynamics and power structures, and is intended to protect groups that have been abused and marginalized by a dominant mainstream. If you give up on the intention of political correctness, which is to help excluded individuals and groups become part of the mainstream, you are indeed being racist, ableist, intolerant, etc... Everybody has strains of intolerance and prejudice, we're all capable of hate, we're all filled with fears and biases. That doesn't make us "racist" in pejorative sense it's used. What does make someone a "whateverist," is giving up trying to make marginalized groups part of the main stream, giving up the pretence to political correctness, of attempting to at least make the modicum of effort involved do demonstrate to an outsider that you are aware of their existence, and intend to create space for them. It depends on context. Making fun of someone or some group in private is different than in public. So politically correct speech is disenguous, that's how it works. Trump flouts these current norms in public! On purpose! His followers se that as him telling it like it is, because he is! He's telling him about the inside parts of his psyche that are not nice, that don't care, that want to put others down. Since we all have these elements inside us to some degree, his listeners feel affirmed for the negative parts of their psyche. Instead of having to take the uncomfortable steps involved in trying to overcome one's prejudices, of fighting against the negative aspects of the self, which are brought out when we have to try and get along with people different than ourself, Trump followers feel liberated to be their "true selves". This type of socializing only works well in homogenious social groups. The social bonds in such groups are easily reinforced by designating another set of individuals as "other." Unfortunately, this type of scapegoating allows for socially sanctioned oppression and discrimination to occur. A "demagogue" takes advantage of this psychology by helping define who is "in the group", "who is out", and normalizing these destructive, instinctual human behaviors. There is a phenomena at play here in the "red state/blue state" divide that is ironic. Blue staters, being just as human as red staters, are not immune to practicing a similar form of socially sanctioned discrimination and denigration of their own "other": namely the red staters. This comes off as smugness, condescension, and is obvious to anyone on the receiving end of it. Hence, the awareness of this hypocrisy on the part of the blue stater, by the red stater, coupled with the a blue staters lack of insight of their own hypocrisy, or worse, the lack of attempt at even trying control and minimize their own "scapegoating" behavior, leads to an apparent moral equivalence of the two sides. The blue stater is taking advantage of the psychological balm of feeling superior to some one else. The fact of the matter is that a Social Justice Warrior careening around, throwing bombs, and labeling people as racist can indeed be engaged in the same psychological Mia-behavior as a self-righteous born again Christian who justifies hating gays based on the bible. If you have two, or more, groups of cultural rivals engaged in political battle, the fact that both sides engage in similar dysfunctional and antogonist behavior, doesn't mean that core ideas or issues that drive each group are morally equivalent, or equally true. A simple example might be illustrated by the truckers who like to "roll coal" and deliberately thumb their nose at the insufferable goody two shoes environmental "activists" trying to impose their concept of "good behavior" on others. In this case, I find it easy to empathize with the coal rollers, but that doesn't mean they are correct on what is needed to protect the environment. This is a rather long winded response to the OP. The article is discussing the decreases power of the media to prevent group think from being reinforced by the filtering feedback loops of social media. Trump has shown that for many voters, this is a quaint notion. In Trump they have found a leader who ignores facts in his rhetoric, and appeals purely on the level of emotions and psychological behaviors. At core, this is what is so disturbing to me. Trumps indifference to facts, his exaltation of power and dominance will not lead to effective governing, and reflect almost a complete abdication of the responsibilities of a leader. My guess is that motley crew of sociopathic right wing has-beens he has surrounding him will quickly move to take advantage of Trumps indifference to facts to exploit there positions in the new administration for their own ends. Guliani, Gingrich, and Christie are the true "deplorable" here. Ruthless, amoral men with grudges to settle. These three have shown themselves to be completely indifferent to the needs of others. The lot of them have an appalling record of anti-social behavior. Unlike Trump, they they seem to operate in the fact based world. So when they lie, it's at a very conscious level, calculated to increase their own power. Just looking at their collective record of behavior in their personal lives shows they have no regard for anyone but themselves.

jbmorgado 10y ago

I find it appalling that suddenly Hilary was portrayed as some kind of saviour by the media just because she is not as bad as Trump. Well, sorry for believing that elections are about choosing the good candidate, not voting against the bad candidate. If there is one single person to blame for these elections outcome, that person is Hilary Clinton, she put America and the World in danger when she used her grip on the DNC to push Bernie Sanders aside during the primaries, although it was clear that the people desperately wanted change. That was the key moment in these elections that got Donald Trump elected.

Shivetya 10y ago

Many always love to poo poo the idea that there is strong media bias to one side yet each election simply demonstrates it. Where is the correction? Where are those press people from the sixties and seventies that dogged all politicians regardless of party. the problem is they operate in an echo chamber. they truly do think they are better than those they present the news too and therefor beyond criticism. this alone keeps them from acknowledging any criticism, whether deserved or not. the press needs to keep the bias to the editorial pages. newspapers should not be endorsing candidates, instead they need to list the claimed views of candidates with their current and past actions. report, not distort

Angostura 10y ago

I the forces that drove this election's media failure centre almost entirely around the problems with polling data, not a inherent problem with journalism. The journalists were working with the best data that they had available. If a journalist is told that there is only a small chance of a candidate being elected, it is not surprising that they don't necessarily take his chances seriously. Credit to 538 though, for putting Clinton's chances sub-70% in the final week (returning to to 70% on the final day) and for repeatedly warning of the lack of certainty given the lack of good quality polls.

prasadjoglekar 10y ago
I disagree. The problem was that all journalists (Fox News included) used the polling as an excuse to not actually get out and do journalism. Polls should have been but one input. Instead, because most polls said what all of them wanted to believe, the effects of anchoring and confirmation biases were amplified. Anything to the contrary was dismissed as nonsense.

msravi 10y ago

I don't understand how thick headed the mainstream media (MSM) seems to be in not getting it. This "upset" win of Trump (upset in the sense that it didn't play by the MSM's wishes) was not an isolated incident - it's happened in India (2014), it happened in UK (Brexit), and it has been repeated in the US. The fundamental driver for all three instances has been the removal of all filters on social media. The problem was that for too long the MSM used their power to filter content to its readers/viewers, and the filter was tuned by a group that wanted to script reality in a form that they wished to see come to fruition, even if their stand was hypocritical. So for example, you'd see a huge hue and cry in the MSM about how freedom of expression was being harmed because a right wing outfit threatened someone for speaking out against a majority religion, and yet, when someone spoke out against Islam, and Islamic groups placed a bounty on his head, the same MSM would just go silent. It is this blatant hypocrisy that finally got them. And now, with social media, for the first time people have access to unfiltered news and can form their own opinions. And for better or worse, the hypocrisy of the MSM is glaringly obvious for people who have access to multiple viewpoints on an incident - not just a filtered viewpoint. With the hypocrisy bare, it's basically been a revolt against the established media. And unless the established media takes it upon themselves to be more honest in whatever stand they take, this is going to repeat, because, people aren't fools you know.

reader5000 10y ago
Established media is obsolete. Old media model: a couple thousand Harvard graduates produce and filter the content for billions of people (English speaking world) by monopoly control on the 2-3 television channels, 4-5 major newspapers/zines. New media model: a media consumer can read the opinions and thoughts of 1000s of other people across the globe, and participate in the formulation of their own opinions, and receive feedback from others. The one-to-many top-down elitist control of opinion formation and transfer is dead. For better or for worse. Probably better. Especially when it appears to be the case that the main opinion media elitists care about is that people acknowledge them as elite.. The only criticism of the new media model I've seen is the filter bubble, but I feel that is overblown.
- 10y ago

anotheryou 10y ago

The main bubble that burst was that of the people who thought trump was a joke, no? Are fed up people really the medias failure? Bernie Sanders also had surprising support for similar reasons to Trump: they both where going against the system. Just for some discussion: maybe the classic media finally lost control and people regained some freedom of choice? Every big media house was against trump and he still won. And let's not forget that a lot of people really had to jump their shadow to vote for Hillary as the lesser evil.

anotheryou 10y ago
That being said: fact avoiding filter bubbles are still scary as fuck.

throw2016 10y ago

The last 30 years have seen a distinct change in economic policies that rewards the privileged and leave others struggling in the name of efficiency and capitalism. Yet when things go southward and things like the banking crisis happens these principles are swiftly jettisoned and privileged interests indiscriminately bailed out with the media and 'experts' stepping in to gloss over the rank hypocrisy. The poor are harassed and incarcerated for every small trangression while the rich and connected like the bankers, Shrekeli, Holmes routinely get way with fraud and worse. These inconsistences are not forgotten. All that economic power is then inevitably used in a self serving way to further increase their own share of rewards like quasi feudalism. Wars are being fought to benefit financial interests that leave millions in other countries in disarray, billion dollar surveillance industries are built that fundamentally shift the balance of power from the people to the state. HN itself is guilty of celebrating wealth and gloating over the irrelevance of people with automation and AI. Why the gloating? Where is the sensitivity to the impact of these technologies on society and the unprivileged. There is so much disrespect and general nastiness to people here who are not perceived to be successful with no notion of adversity or privilege. This kind of disrespect and dehumanization is bound to rankle. Cmon these are your own people. What do you think these people are going to do? They will listen and vote in demagogues.

hga 10y ago
Quibble to your posting which I otherwise largely agree with, Shrekeli is under Federal indictment, and every one is cheering that, and it's too early for Holmes to receive the same treatment, although the fraud she was running should have been brought to heel much earlier, we're talking life and death here, as with Shrekeli. A better example would be Jon Corzine, and how it looked for quite some time that the people he defrauded would not be made whole, despite the white line law on this. Or to bring it back to this election, "The S in SCIF Does Not Stand for Servant".
jsymolon 10y ago
> economic policies that rewards the privileged As shown as the cabinet is "old guard" republican ideology. Regulations! Bad! ... etc.

phkahler 10y ago

The problem with facebook is the SHARE button. If I want to read Fox news or Huggington Post, I'll go to those sites and read. If I want to watch Cat videos I'll go to YouTube myself. The problem is that it's way too easy for my "friends" on facebook to click to promote whatever stirs their interest. One would hope most of the content shared on facebook is user-generated, not user shared. But there is no money in that so they have simplified the process of sharing monetized crap to a single click.

douche 10y ago
There is some irony in condemning this use-case of Facebook on HackerNews, where user-shared content and comments about it are pretty much the entire raison d'etre

cowardlydragon 10y ago

The media normalized mainstream expressions of hate, giving them hourly implicit approval and mainstream normalcy, because it was giving them ratings and ads. Every historian I know sees frightening parallels between Trump and various fascist regime rises. Virtually no coverage of this. If news is unable to provide historical context, apply moral judgement, or do any investigative journalism of the ample skeletons in Trump's closet, then they are truly a shell.