Without verification

Since receiving considerable — and justified — criticism for helping Trump’s election with false equivalence coverage, media outlets have become better about adding “he said without evidence” caveats whenever the president says or tweets something outrageous. However, it appears for now that they’re applying that lesson to only one subject: the president himself.

This is a mistake, and it needs to be corrected ASAP.

Case in point: recent coverage of the planned, and now postponed, “March on Google” events. Marches in several U.S. cities had been announced by people angered by Google’s recent decision to fire a software engineer whose leaked manifesto questioned diversity efforts and used bad science to suggest biology might explain why fewer women work in tech. Presumed to include supporters of the so-called “alt-right,” the organizers have since delayed those marches citing “terrorist threats.”

And guess who they blamed for those alleged threats? The “alt-left” best known for having recently been called out by President Trump in his “all-sides-to-blame” press conference meltdown, which followed the deadly white supremacist demonstration in Charlottesville, Virginia, this past weekend.

On their Website on Wednesday, March on Google organizers said they were postponing the events due to “credible threats,” including one from the “alt-left” that purportedly referred to a planned attack by automobile. But their announcement offered no supporting evidence — no screen grabs, no voicemails, no quotes, etc. — and provided no specifics on the “relevant authorities” contacted.

Subsequent news coverage about the postponement varied in how such vague “threats” were reported. Many were appropriately straightforward or cautious; CNNMoney, for example, went simply with the headline, “The ‘March on Google’ is off,” while Mashable used the more skeptical, “Google protests called off after organizers blame Trump’s newest scapegoat.”

Too many other outlets, however, reported the news in more credulous terms. New York Magazine left out the “alt-left” part but still headlined its story, “Alt-Right Organizers Cancel the March on Google, Citing ‘Terrorist Threats.'” And Politico ran with the completely unsubstantiated headline, “Organizer puts March on Google on hold after threats.” In the accompanying story, it also noted that the group “received threats,” rather than “allegedly received threats” or “said it received threats.”

Journalists and editors need to keep working to do better. Remember: Every word you choose in reporting news, especially on powder-keg topics, matters. So choose them carefully and make sure they’re truly justified.

The time for ‘neutrality’ has passed

Just as pseudoscience — “science-y sounding” information that is not scientific — is dangerous when used to convey misinformation about health, energy, the environment and other topics, “pseudonews” is dangerous when used to convey misinformation about politics, finance, regulations, public policy and other matters of importance to citizens and society.

It’s not necessarily “fake news,” because it might accurately portray certain events and occurrences, although not everything about those events and occurrences. But, just as with pseudoscience, pseudonews is designed to deceive and mislead, not inform, educate and enlighten.

And this is where our current digital landscape complicates things greatly: with hundreds of thousands of websites purporting to present news from every angle and viewpoint, it’s incredibly difficult to sort real news from pseudonews… because there’s so much more of the latter. Unfortunately, technology companies have enabled this confusion because it benefits their bottom lines — in the form of advertising dollars — to the detriment of factual reporting and healthy public discourse.

As Jonathan Taplin noted in an Aug. 12, 2017, commentary in The New York Times, “Google Doesn’t Want What’s Best for Us”:

“The rise of Google and the other giant businesses of Silicon Valley have been driven by a libertarian culture that paid only lip service to notions of diversity. Peter Thiel, one of the ideological leaders in the Valley, wrote in 2009 on a blog affiliated with the Cato Institute that ‘since 1920, the vast increase in welfare beneficiaries and the extension of the franchise to women — two constituencies that are notoriously tough for libertarians — have rendered the notion of capitalist democracy into an oxymoron.’

“If women should not even have the vote, why should we worry about gender diversity in the engineering ranks?” Taplin continued. “The effects of the darker side of tech culture reach well beyond the Valley. It starts with an unwillingness to control fake news and pervasive sexism that no doubt contributes to the gender pay gap.”

While there are plenty technology leaders who don’t share Thiel’s retrograde beliefs, too many others have for long attempted to stay “neutral,” to stay above the fray of gender politics, race politics, climate change politics and a cornucopia of other fraught politics. The result, however, has been an explosion of pseudonews and misinformation across the online world, from Facebook to Twitter, Google to Reddit, and beyond.

That ugliness has now begun spreading out further into the “real world,” where anonymous trolling and ugly memes are replaced by very real and physical threats to the well being of individual people, democracy and society as a whole. If “neutrality” and “all-sides-are-equal” responses were inadequate before, they’re now unacceptable.

What does it take to change strongly held beliefs?

When a person does something awful to a fellow human-being, there’s always more than one person who feels the pain. In many cases, those hurt include the perpetrator’s parents, who might have done everything they could to raise a caring adult… only to see things end badly.

What decent human, then, could read the comments from Pearce Tefft — whose grown son was identified as a participant in the white supremacist gathering in Charlottesville, Virginia — and not share the pain of a father who’s decided he has to disown his son?

“I pray my prodigal son will renounce his hateful beliefs and return home,” Tefft wrote in a letter to The Forum of Fargo-Moorhead. “Then and only then will I lay out the feast.”

There is hope. People can radically change once strongly-held beliefs. What encourages them to do so? Both scientific research and anecdotal evidence from real-life “converts” indicate that true change takes time, and patient, careful guidance from others.

Sometimes, one dramatic change in perspective can lead to a cascade of changes in other beliefs that are arbitrarily linked to that primary belief, researchers have found. For example, a former right-wing, Hungarian anti-Semite named Csanad Dzegedi said his extremist views began collapsing when he found out his grandmother was Jewish but had long kept her heritage quiet after surviving the Holocaust.

On the other hand, there was no such “Eureka!” moment for Hilda Bastian, an Australian woman who long advocated for home births over hospital-assisted births. She began changing her mind over the course of many conversations with medical professionals and scientists she found to be patient, credible and sincerely interested in helping her to improve her own knowledge for the benefit of the community she spoke for.

“I didn’t change deeply held beliefs because someone convinced me in one discussion, or even a few,” Bastian wrote on her Absolutely Maybe blog on the PLOS science site. “It was a process over years. The scientists and others who influenced me weren’t cheerleaders for the establishment. They were critical of weak research and arguments, regardless of whose interests it served. And they didn’t just expect people like me to believe them because they were experts. They wanted to increase the expertise of others in scientific thinking, especially community leaders.”

A writer who goes by the name Christina H. said that same patient guidance gradually shifted her “hardcore Conservative” beliefs.

“We all know nobody likes to admit they are wrong, but did you know nobody likes to admit they were until very recently wrong?” she wrote in a first-person account on Cracked. “A lot of people change quietly and play it like they were on the right side the whole time, whistling innocently. I did.”

Christina’s advice? Know that others often quietly pay attention to what you say, how you say it, and how you behave. The Golden Rule and setting a good example really can help open the door to changing people’s minds.

“If the guy on my side is being so rude even I’m put off, and the godless liberal refuting him is being super polite and patient, it makes me rethink the good and evil narrative,” she writes. “Sure, I may just move to, ‘These are very nice people, but just mistaken,’ but I’ll be more receptive to listening to nice, mistaken people in the future, which will give them a bigger opening to further change my mind.”

Respectful suggestions can help too. That’s part of what put Jerry Taylor, who once made a career out of writing talking points for climate change skeptics, into a climate activist. One turning point, he said, came following a TV appearance with climate expert Joe Romm.

“On air, I said that, back in 1988, when climate scientist James Hansen testified in front of the Senate, he predicted we’d see a tremendous amount of warming,” Taylor told The Intercept in an interview. “I argued it’d been more than a decade and we could now see by looking at the temperature record that he wasn’t accurate.

“After we got done with the program and were back in green room, getting the makeup taken off, Joe said to me, ‘Did you even read that testimony you’ve just talked about?’ And when I told him it had been a while, he said ‘I’m daring you to go back and double check this.’ He told me that some of Hansen’s projections were spot on. So I went back to my office and I re-read Hanson’s testimony. And Joe was correct. So I then I talked to the climate skeptics who had made this argument to me, and it turns out they had done so with full knowledge they were being misleading.”

What Romm did in this case could be described as a dare for “considering the opposite,” which Texas Christian University psychologist Charles G. Lord has found to be an effective strategy for “retraining social judgment”.

“[P]eople typically seem oblivious to the fact that the way they process information may itself influence their judgments and that the questions they ask may determine the answers they receive,” Lord and co-authors Elizabeth Preston and Mark R. Lepper wrote in their 1984 study. “Thus any inducement for decision makers to consider that matters might be other than what they seem, especially an inducement to consider possibilities diametrically opposed to one’s assumptions, would have an ameliorative effect on judgmental bias.”

Be alert to hedging language designed to ‘make things fuzzier’

In the wake of this past weekend’s events in Charlottesville, I thought it might be helpful to consider science’s understanding of hedging language, and how word choices can color our understanding of news coverage and officials’ responses.

Hedging language uses cautious wording to imply lower certainty in a statement. Cognitive linguist/philosopher George Lakoff wrote famously in 1972 that it is the job of such words to “make things fuzzier.” Newcastle University’s Writing Development Centre, for example, offers these two example sentences, one with hedging language and one without:

“Water shortages trigger conflict between nations.”

“Water shortages may trigger conflict between nations.”

Hedge words are common in academic writing to reflect the level of certainty — or lack thereof — in a study’s findings, the university notes. However, they’re also regularly used in political speech, news coverage and other public pronouncements. Sometimes the use is well-intended, in the interest of reflecting accuracy as well as possible. At other times, though, hedging can be more disingenuous and designed to suggest uncertainty where there is none.

Consider the findings of a 2014 study by researchers at the University of Colorado Boulder, who found that two U.S. newspapers — The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal — used hedging language in their climate change coverage considerably more than did two counterparts in Spain, El Mundo and El Pais. Interestingly, the study also found that the use of hedge words in climate change news stories increased among all four newspapers over time, even as certainty in climate science itself increased.

“Uncertainty is an inherent feature of contemporary scientific inquiry as well as everyday decision-making,” researchers Adriana Bailey, Lorine Giangola and Maxwell T. Boykoff wrote in their paper, published in the journal Environmental Communication. “Yet ‘translating error bars into ordinary language,’ as Henry Pollack described it (2003, p. 77), may result in varied representations of uncertainty with different potentials to inform individual and collective action, particularly since the reduction of uncertainty around scientific issues has long been framed as a prerequisite for meaningful political and policy progress (Zehr, 2000).”

Hedging language can include many different types of words and phrases. Expressions like “for the most part,” “more or less,” “pretty much,” “sort of” and “typically” all fall into that category, as do other words or word combinations like “possibly,” “apparently,” “to our knowledge,” “it seems,” “might” and “I guess.” Hedging can also be expressed through passive, agentless language, like the president’s use today of “Justice will be delivered,” in his belated condemnation of white supremacists’ actions in Charlottesville.

In their “Hedging Annotation Manual,” Columbia University researchers Anna Prokofieva and Julia Hirschberg offer several questions that can help decide whether speakers or writers are hedging their words:

  • “Is the speaker being deliberately uninformative (or under-informative)?”
  • “Is the speaker uncertain?”
  • “Is the speaker trying to downplay the force of their utterance?”

“If the answer is yes to any of these, then there is a much higher likelihood that the utterance under consideration contains a hedge.”

Hedge words can be used for a variety of reasons, Prokofieva and Hirschberg note.

“Their use has been correlated with many discourse functions, such as trying to save face (Prince et al, 1980), indicating politeness (Ardissono et al, 1999) and cooperative intent (Vasilieva, 2004), as well as attempting to evade questions and avoid criticism (Crystal, 1987). In general, hedging can be seen as a manifestation of the speaker’s attitude towards a claim and towards their audience (Isabel, 2001). The use of hedge words (or the lack thereof) can shape an audience’s opinion of the speaker and of their argument (Blankenship and Holtgraves 2005; Hosmon and Siltamen 2006; Erickson et al, 1978). As such, locating hedge words and identifying their scope (that is, the propositional content that is being ‘hedged’) may help us identify when such dialogue actions are taking place.”

Common hedging language:

a bunch
a couple
a few
a little
as far as I can tell
as long as
assuming that
can be viewed as
for the most part
given that
have suggested
I don’t think
I guess
I read
I think
if I understand him/her correctly
if I’m correct
if you will
in a sense
in a way
in case you don’t remember
it may
it seems
it would appear
just about
kind of
loosely speaking
may be
may not
more or less
not much
not really
one doesn’t/one does
pretty much
should be
so long as
so to say
sort of
strictly speaking
their impression
they say
wasn’t really

What is journalism’s fundamental purpose?

Despite the nonsensical accusations that they’re “fake news,” some of the leading members of the mainstream print media in the U.S. haven’t helped to distinguish themselves recently.

Beyond the often-irresponsible “narrative” journalism they pursued ahead of the 2016 presidential election, outlets like The New York Times and the Boston Globe have stumbled badly under the guise of trying to represent a wider range of viewpoints on their pages. Rather than inviting opinions from people of color, minority religions, poor rural citizens, immigrants, working scientists and others, though, what did they do?

In The New York Times’ case, it hired a white male conservative climate-change denier and then criticized legitimate critics of that decision for being unwilling to listen to “diverse” opinions.

In the Boston Globe’s case, it published dubiously “counter-intuitive” think pieces asking whether Ivanka Trump is “the new feminist icon” and whether white-power groups can “build lasting alliances.”

What are newspapers thinking when they publish pieces like this? Which audiences are they seeking to engage? These are legitimate questions to ask in the wake of missteps like the ones above. But the bigger, more important question, is, “What is journalism’s purpose?”

What, after all, does a newspaper or media outlet exist for? Isn’t it, logically, to inform the general citizenry of news that affects its welfare? And, if so, shouldn’t that be with the implicit aim of defending and improving, rather than worsening, the general citizenry’s welfare?

How, then, does holding up Ivanka Trump as a “feminist icon” improve the welfare of the general female population in the U.S.? Unless there’s an easy method by which all of us could be retroactively born to a wealthy, unscrupulous and pathologically narcissistic serial liar and misogynist, I don’t see a good argument for such a piece.

And how does adding another climate change-dismissing white male conservative’s voice benefit the millions of ordinary Americans who live in regions likely to be hit hardest by worsening droughts, storms and other climate impacts? The obvious answer is, “Not at all.”

A better standard might be the one offered by the Chicago Evening Post’s Finley Peter Dunne in 1893: to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable. (Although the original quote, which Dunne put in the mouth of a fictional bartender named Mr. Dooley, put it this way: “Th’ newspaper does ivrything f’r us. It runs th’ polis foorce an’ th’ banks, commands th’ milishy, controls th’ ligislachure, baptizes th’ young, marries th’ foolish, comforts th’ afflicted, afflicts th’ comfortable, buries th’ dead an’ roasts thim aftherward.”)

There’s also this standard, described by George Mason in the 1776 Virginia Declaration of Rights that became the model for the U.S. Bill of Rights: “The freedom of the press is one of the greatest bulwarks of liberty, and can never be restrained but by despotic governments.”

Finally, there’s Thomas Jefferson’s support for a well-educated citizenry to keep government in check. While what’s possibly his most famous quote about the topic (“An educated citizenry is a vital requisite for our survival as a free people.”) is actually spurious, according to the Thomas Jefferson Foundation, Jefferson did advocate strongly for general education and knowledge as a defense against tyranny:

“[E]xperience hath shewn, that even under the best forms, those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny; and it is believed that the most effectual means of preventing this would be, to illuminate, as far as practicable, the minds of the people at large…,” Jefferson wrote, adding that educated people should be “able to guard the sacred deposit of the rights and liberties of their fellow citizens, and that they should be called to that charge without regard to wealth, birth or other accidental condition or circumstance.”

This, then, is the challenge we should be issuing to today’s media outlets: Don’t bend over backward to mollify, flatter or reassure those who already have the most control of power and purse-strings… or to superficially demonstrate your “independent streak” by writing counter-intuitive articles that embolden beliefs and attitudes harmful to the general public. Do what’s required to “illuminate, as far as practicable, the minds of the people at large… without regard to wealth, birth or other accidental condition or circumstance.”

Smart and ‘easy’ tech vs. ‘the pleasure of finding things out’

Today’s information technology companies tout the coming era of intelligent digital assistants as a boon for the lives of everyone from overscheduled small-business entrepreneurs to parents of curious small children. Have a question? Just speak up and get the answer instantly. Need a task completed? Ask the AI and it shall be done.

Now, there are some applications where this sort of thing is undoubtedly helpful… a godsend even. Imagine, for instance, being paralyzed from the neck down, yet still being able to look up a colleague’s phone number, order groceries for delivery or post a new tweet, all without the help of anyone but an intelligent digital aide. In some circumstances, these technologies will seem nothing short of miracles.

In other circumstances, though? Not so much. Consider, for example, a TV commercial for Google Home that’s seen lots of airtime recently. In the ad, set in a cozy family living room at evening-time, a father is reading a book about the ocean to his young daughter. As kids do, the little girl keeps interupting the story: “Daddy, how big is a blue whale?” “Ooh, this is where Mom does a big whale noise!” “Do whales sleep?”

The dad is quick with answers, thanks to Google Home. “OK, Google, how big is a blue whale?” he asks, immediately getting an answer from the tabletop device: “Blue whale typically has a weight of 300,000 pounds.” “Huh,” the dad says, and returns to reading.

Contrast that answer to a child’s question with the following passage from physicist Richard P. Feynmann’s posthumously published book, “The Pleasure of Finding Things Out” (1999, Perseus Publishing):

“We had the Encyclopedia Britannica at home and even when I was a small boy [my father] used to sit me on his lap and read to me from the Encyclopedia Britannica, and we would read, say, about dinosaurs and maybe it would be talking about the brontosaurus or something, or the tyrannosaurus rex, and it would say something like, ‘This thing is twenty-five feet high and the head is six feet across,’ you see, and so he’d stop all this and say, ‘Let’s see what that means. That would mean that if he stood in our front yard he would be high enough to put his head through the window but not quite because the head is a little bit too wide and it would break the window as it came by.'”

Feynmann continues:

“Everything we’d read would be translated as best we could into some reality and so I learned to do that — everything that I read I try to figure out what it really means, what it’s really saying by translating and so… I used to read the Encyclopedia when I was a boy but with translation, you see, so it was very exciting and interesting to think there were animals of such magnitude — I wasn’t frightened that there would be one coming in my window as a consequence of this, I don’t think, but I thought that it was very, very interesting, that they all died out and at that time nobody knew why.”

What Feynmann was describing, as the title of his book puts it, was “the pleasure of finding things out.” In other words, the thrill of discovery, the joy of learning, the excitement of taking an unfamiliar path into new worlds of imagination and the mind. And I would argue that such explorations of discovery can, rather than being animated, be dampened and depressed by the likes of a Google Home or the Amazon Echo.

Quick, easy and automated answers have a downside, you see: they can contribute to making people less able to research and hunt down difficult answers on their own. It’s called “the paradox of automation.”

You’ve probably seen this in action in your own life. Before speed dial and smartphones, you might have known by heart the phone numbers for many of the most important people in your life. Today? You might not even be able to remember your own phone number.

The 2008 film WALL-E offered one vision of what increasingly easy and automated life might lead to: a society populated by people so reliant on technology they can’t move around without hover chairs and live on liquid nutrition because they can’t be bothered to even chew anymore.

By offering an easier, quicker alternative to consulting a printed dictionary, opening up a reference book or, yes, even Googling for answers the “old-fashioned” way, technologies like the Amazon Echo and Google Home can become the intellectual equivalent of WALL-E‘s hover chairs and Food in a Cup. You’re not ever going to get sucked into a fascinating, mind-expanding hour-and-a-half-long detour through Wikipedia and Websites for the Monterey Bay Aquarium, National Geographic, the IUCN Red List and WWF if you can just ask your desktop assistant how much a blue whale weighs, right?

That’s the problem. That hour-and-a-half-long detour can be an adventure that will lead you in directions you never anticipated with just one question. It can make you aware of the existence of the American Cetacean Society (yes, there is such a thing); introduce you to some of the taxonomic uncertainties about blue whales; allow you to explore photos, videos and sounds of every imaginable kind of marine mammal; and serendipitously come upon strange but fascinating articles like “A Brief History of Exploding Whales.” Google Home and Alexa aren’t designed to take you on such journeys. Nor will they tell stories like Richard Feynmann’s father did about dinosaurs being not just big, but big enough to smash your front window while trying to peek in.

In other words, you might find one thing out. But you’re much less likely to find out many wondrous, eye-opening, surprising and unexpected things on your own.

And where’s the pleasure in that?

The tech-social justice conundrum

Now, suddenly, our much-vaunted tech leaders find themselves confronted with a conundrum that’s been quietly evolving for a long time: the conundrum of whether it’s possible to create an innovative, data-driven, smart and futuristic society without also taking care to ensure a societal foundation of rules and laws that are just, fair, equitable and humane.

For decades, now, the Future-is-Here-Today tech sector has been driven by very smart men (mostly) who sold their customers and investors on a singular vision: that human life of tomorrow could be perfected through hardware and software. All that formula needed were the primary inputs of lots of financial backing and lots of a very specific type of braininess that viewed every human problem as one that could be solved with the right app or algorithm.

Lacking in this vision was adequate respect for — much less adequate interest in — the messy realities of government and politics, especially in a democratic society.

In its more benign forms, this vision simply viewed legacy, democracy 1.0 matters as mostly irrelevant: given the smartest and most innovative tech, the thinking went, people would be able to resolve all of society’s pressing problems with smart apps and increasingly affordable, accessible consumer devices. Obesity? Pollution? Lack of economic opportunity? Mercury in the soil or water? There’s an app for that! No need to attend town hall meetings or call your Congressman or -woman to urge legislative action in the right direction.

In its more aggressive, less-benign incarnations, this vision placed tech above governance and politics. Uber’s regular flouting of municipal taxi licensing requirements and business norms is an example of this. So too is “PayPal Mafia Don” (and now-advisor to President Trump) Peter Thiel, with his Libertarian-influenced love for things like “Atlas Shrugged” and “seasteading.” Also slipping into this category is another member of the “PayPal Mafia”: Elon Musk, who has long been visibly determined to eclipse public-sector programs in space, transportation and other areas with his own private-sector ventures such as SpaceX.

Understanding this mindset meant it should have come as little surprise when both Musk and Uber’s Travis Kalanick were named to President-elect Trump’s business advisory council.

It was only after the president-elect became the president that the pretty facade of the future that Silicon Valley has so long painted for us was smashed in by reality. (And it’s worth noting here that the male-dominated tech sector was relatively silent when women took to the streets by millions the week before to protest Trump’s policies.)

Brilliant visions of tech-enabled utopia, it turns out, can be quickly dispersed by grotesque nativism, racism, hate and willfully proud anti-intellectualism. The smart, algorithm-driven future, we suddenly find, can be derailed by an administration that bars from U.S. entry many of the bright immigrants and foreign workers who have been helping to build that future. Turns out good government and smart politics still matter after all… maybe even more so than shiny devices and clever software.

Only now, some Silicon Valley “thinkfluencers” are discovering, is the potential damage from neglecting society in favor of tech becoming painfully obvious. And the damage might only be beginning.

AI wins

Will AI take over human society?

It’s too late to ask that question. Because, based on a number of recent developments, it appears that artificial intelligence has already hijacked the world.

By this, I don’t mean that computers have attained sentience and conspired to conquer the planet. Rather, I’ve come to believe that algorithms and automatically generated content now overpower any possible efforts by humans alone to set the tone of the conversations we have on a daily basis.

Consider, for example, the recent discovery by Elon University’s Jonathan Albright of more than 78,000 AI-generated videos on YouTube that appear to be “harnessed as a powerful agenda booster for certain political voices.”

These videos, being publishing on some YouTube channels at the rate of one every three to four minutes, feature a series of images, presented slideshow style, taken from various places on the Internet with computerized voiceovers reading content from online news sites and other sources. Their topics? Lots about global politics, ranging from “netanyahu russia jerusalem” to “trump kremlin president” to “erdogan turkey regime police.”

“Everything about these ‘A Tease…’ videos suggests SEO, social politcs amplification, and YouTube AI-playlist placement: In addition to the video titles being keyword-packed and URLs pasted all over the video descriptions, the spoken text that’s already published on news sites should help to boost the overall relevance of these videos and any associated news-related ‘channels’ on YouTube,” Albright writes. “FakeTube is here, and AI-generated videos are probably being made faster than they can be identified.”

And then consider this research from data scientists Alessandro Bessi and Emilio Ferrara: “Social bots distort the 2016 U.S. Presidential election online discussion.” Yes, they said, social media can promote democratic conversations about important issues… but a large proportion — about one-fifth — of the pre-election comments made online appeared to have come not from humans but from bots.

“[I]t is important to stress that, although our analysis unveiled the current state of the political debate and agenda pushed by the bots, it is impossible to determine who operates such bots,” Bessi and Ferrara write in their study’s conclusion. “State- and non-state actors, local and foreign governments, political parties, private organizations, and even single individuals with adequate resources (Kollanyi, 2016), could obtain the operational capabilities and technical tools to deploy armies of social bots and affect the directions of online political conversation. Therefore, future efforts will be required by the machine learning research community do develop more sophisticated detection techniques capable of unmasking the puppet masters.”

Add to developments like these things like the growing threat of weaponized botnets to Internet security or Google’s opaque and questionable autofills to search queries like “Are Jews…” and “Are women…?”, and it’s hard to escape the conclusion that various forms of artificial intelligence now have more power over our lives than other real-life humans alone do.

It might not yet be Ray Kurzweil’s much-anticipated Singularity. But it is already singularly alarming in its implications for where we’re heading.

Inauguration day

And so we come to this day: Jan. 20, 2017. Inauguration Day. The day on which the U.S. White House becomes – in the eyes of many who voted for a different presidential candidate – Slytherin House, its occupant the Left’s own Voldemort.

During the 30 days leading up to today, I’ve been doing a lot of reading, scouring my bookshelves for inspiration and ideas about how to deal with today and the days, weeks, months and years to come. I also embarked on a little project during that time, tweeting key quotes from works I thought might be relevant for this moment in history. I did it as a countdown: 30 days, 30 works, 30 sets of quotes to think about in the run-up to Trump.

I found it to be a valuable experience, for myself if no one else. I revisited a lot of books I haven’t opened in years, from past events that significantly influenced my thinking over time.

Coming of age as I did during the Watergate era, I couldn’t escape signs that the Nixon presidency could have critical lessons for us during the presidency just begun today. The brilliant and much-missed Molly Ivins – whose 2004 book, “Who Let the Dogs Out?” was the subject of my Day 8 tweets – had choice words about the 37th president.

“Nixon was a sorry, sick human being, with a gift for exploiting lower-middle-class resentment, envy, and bigotry for his own political purposes,” Ivins wrote. “This country remains a nastier place today because of Nixon.”

Ivins’ concerns about the state of U.S. politics in the post-9/11 era also resonated:

“I may be an optimist, but I am also as frightened as I have been for this country since the Saturday Night Massacre under Richard Nixon, when I really thought he might call out the troops. In a different way, almost with our permission, I think we’re that close to losing all of it – the Constitution, freedom, rule of law, even the dream of social and economic justice.”

And that was in 2004!

Nixon, Watergate, Woodward and Bernstein, and “All the President’s Men” were a big reason I went into journalism, rather than science, my first love. But science has always heavily informed my perspective on writing and reporting, and the works of several science legends also came up during my Twitter project.

On Day 9, for example, with 21 days to Trump, I tweeted 34 excerpts from Carl Sagan’s 1996 book, “The Demon-Haunted World.” The entire volume is essentially Sagan’s cri de coeur for better education in science and critical thinking. The following comment seemed especially prescient in light of today:

“Those who seek power at any price detect a societal weakness, a fear that they can ride into office… Whatever the problem, the quick fix is to shave a little freedom off the Bill of Rights… The pretexts change from year to year, but the result remains the same: concentrating more power in fewer hands and suppressing diversity of opinion – even though experience plainly shows the dangers of such a course of action.”

The quote from Sagan’s book that stuck with me the most, though, was – Godwin’s Law notwithstanding – his recounting of Leon Trotsky’s description of the prevailing mindset in Germany in 1933:

“Not only in peasant homes, but also in city skyscrapers, there lives along side the twentieth century the thirteenth. A hundred million people use electricity and still believe in the magic powers of signs and exorcisms… Movie stars go to mediums. Aviators who pilot miraculous mechanisms created by man’s genius wear amulets on their sweaters. What inexhaustible reserves they possess of darkness, ignorance and savagery!”

Other passages that haunted me, even though I didn’t feature them in my Jan. 11 Twitter thread, came from Hedrick Smith’s 1976 book, “The Russians,” in which he described how the Soviet system – through a combination of censorship, repression, economic punishments and mis/disinformation – worked to break many dissidents. One of the saddest quotes came from a friend of a man named Leonid Petrovsky, who dared to speak against neo-Stalinism and quickly found himself unable to find work of any kind at all: “Now he is in no mood to make any protests,” the friend told Smith. “He is a good man, honest, but quiet. He is afraid.”

Beyond such chilling words, I also found inspiring ones. On Day 26, my Twitter subject was Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” speech – delivered during the 1963 March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom. While I’ve read and heard excerpts from King’s speech many times in my life, sitting there and reading it from start to finish on the evening of Jan. 15 brought me to tears. Building masterfully to a crescendo that gives you goosebumps, the language in King’s speech is beautiful, masterful, awe-inspiring. Read it and see for yourself… really, if you haven’t read it in a while, you need to.

So what lessons did I take away from my 30-day dig into history? And how might they help us in navigating the uncertain future? These are key things I learned:

One, the past always offers parallels for the present. This is, in a way, reassuring… because if times were bad in the past and yet we’re still here, there’s hope that — 10 or 20 years down the road — we can say the same thing about today.

Two, the more things change, the more some things stay the same. Demagogues have always lurked in our political landscape, no matter where or when we grew up. Authoritarians, racists and bullies have always been with us… and always will be. But so too have philosophers and artists, scientists and soldiers for social justice. So don’t believe people who say that any one moment marks the “end of liberalism” or the “end of conservatism” or, silliest of all, the “end of history”.

And, finally, knowledge matters. Ignorance is dangerous. But cynicism is even worse. When people throw up their hands, decide there are no such things as facts and everyone – the left, the right, the media, scientists, artists – is lying, that’s when things go from bad to worse.

“There is an unbelievable cynicism among people,” the Soviet physicist, mathematician and computer scientist Valentin Turchin said in “The Russians.” “No one stands for the truth. And if anyone says he is above Party and is trying to speak the truth alone, he is lying. This cynicism greatly helps the authorities keep the intelligentsia in line and exclude the ‘wild dissidents’ from society. People can travel to the West and hear Western radio broadcasts and it makes no difference, so long as there is this pervasive cynicism that it is just the other side speaking. This cynicism provides the stability of the totalitarian state today in place of the fear of the Stalinist years.”

There’s nothing new about ‘fake’ news

During the interview for my first full-time newspaper reporting job, years before anyone had heard of – or even conceived of – the World Wide Web, I remember the managing editor of the small suburban weekly asking something to the effect of why he should hire me, a recent graduate with a bachelor’s degree in geology, to work as a journalist.

It was a fair question. And my answer, while it might sound facile to someone hearing it for the first time, was one I actually kind of surprised myself with… but realized as soon as I said it that I believed fully (and still do today).

“Science is the search for truth,” I said (or at least suggested in a similar mix of words – it was, after all, a long time ago), “and so is journalism. Both are looking for real answers.”

All these years later, I now find myself pained at seeing how much journalism – now both online and off – is not looking for real answers. I’m pained at how much is “fake news.” Or lazy “he said she said” reporting. Or news tainted by false equivalencies and both-siderism. Or just plain propaganda.

Still, if I’m honest, “fake news” has existed in many varieties for a very long time. Readers just didn’t tend to see it if the fake part clearly didn’t conflict with their own personal realities.

For instance, people of color have long understood that many things they heard and read in the news really weren’t true… stories about how things like “separate but equal,” red-lining, voter disenfranchisement and vast inequalities in policing and courtroom outcomes weren’t really a problem. (Look no further than the recent news about Canada putting Viola Davis on the $10 note, 70 years after she was convicted on tax charges… because she refused to comply with whites-only seating in a theater. She was only pardoned on those charges, by the way, in 2010, 45 years after her death.)

Women, too, have long known to read between the lines in media reports that often haven’t acknowledged their full experiences with things like sexual assault, domestic violence or workplace discrimination.

As for people who didn’t fit in with the norms of mainstream heterosexual society? Well, for many years, they might as well have not existed at all, for all the times their issues and concerns were presented objectively in the mainstream press.

As Elon University communication professor Jonathan Albright wrote recently in The Guardian, “It’s an unfortunate reality that news reporting is often at odds with the interest trifecta of politics, profits, and public opinion.” That’s why, even in this day and age, news that families have been charged up to $16 a minute to talk on the phone with relatives in prison – reaping a hefty profit for phone and prison companies alike – or that women who have miscarriages can be sentenced to prison depending on the state they live in don’t generate far more national headlines and outrage: the “wrong” people are wronged in these and other examples of injustice, and the powers-that-be don’t care enough on a first-tier level.

Which brings us to now, when the rise of Trump has suddenly forced new media navel-gazing about how they failed to recognize the concerns of the “white working class” and the white – as PEOTUS puts it – “poorly educated.” (Notice too that all the media’s sudden scrutiny has settled on the “narrative” of that population – the white working class – and that alone as being the population that they’ve failed to acknowledge.)

Well, duh. It’s only now that a critical mass of non-POC, non-LGBTQ and non-college-educated voters have discovered what these other groups have long known: most “mainstream” news coverage has long focused on only the interests of a chosen few. For far too long, too many of those free-trade deals, regulation-streamlining bills, education “choice and “reform” measures, tax “reforms” and more weren’t for most of those voters outside the chosen few, and they’ve long known it.

And you know what? The outcome of this last election isn’t likely to change that.