WE HAVE A SITUATION ON THE INTERNET WHERE MORE PEOPLE HAVE A VOICE BUT HOW THAT VOICE IS REACHED IS SLOWLY BECOMING VERY LIMITED. SO, WE SEE MAINSTREAM MEDIA USING FACEBOOK AS ITS COMMENT FORMAT. THIS LIMITS WHAT PEOPLE SAY BECAUSE THEY KNOW THAT FACEBOOK IS BEING USED BY GOVERNMENT AND BUSINESS TO MONITOR FOR EMPLOYMENT FOR EXAMPLE. THEN, LOOK AT THE WAY THAT BLOGGERS LIKE ME ARE TREATED BY SEARCH ENGINES. IF YOU LOOK AT MAYOR RAWLINGS-BLAKE'S WEBSITE AND MINE, YOU WILL SEE THAT MY WEBSITE HAS FAR MORE VISITORS EVERY DAY THAN HERS. YET YOU WILL NOT SEE ME OR MY WEBSITE IN A SEARCH FOR RAWLINGS-BLAKE. IT IS BECAUSE BLOGS ARE CATEGORIZED DIFFERENTLY BY SEARCH ENGINES AND DO NOT APPEAR IN SEARCHES UNLESS SOMEONE GOOGLES MY WEBSITE NAME.....CITIZENS OVERSIGHT MARYLAND. COMBINE THAT WITH THE ABILITY OF ENTITIES TO PAY FOR THEIR POSITION IN THE SEARCH AND YOU SEE THAT CRITICISM OF A TOPIC IS PUSHED FURTHER DOWN THE LIST. PEOPLE DO NOT USUALLY GO BEYOND THE FIRST 10 SEARCH RESULTS. SO OUR ABILITY TO FREELY CONVERSE IN A WAY THAT WILL LEAVE DOCUMENTED OPINIONS IS ACTIVELY AND DELIBERATELY BEING CURTAILED.
THIS IS SERIOUS AS WE WATCH MAINSTREAM MEDIA GIVE US ONLY WHAT THE TWO PARTIES SAY AS POLITICAL DISCOURSE AND THAT DISCOURSE IS CORPORATE. THIS IS WHAT I MEAN BY SOCIAL MEDIA/INTERNET POLICY BEING BADLY IN NEED OF REFORM.
SO, I CAN AND WILL SEND MY WEBSITE ADDRESS ALL ACROSS THE COUNTRY TO LABOR AND JUSTICE ORGANIZATIONS TO PROMOTE MY WEBSITE. PEOPLE WILL THEN ENTER MY WEBSITE NAME TO GET TO THE SITE. THEY WILL NOT GET TO ME BY GOOGLING JACK YOUNG OR MARTIN O'MALLEY. IT IS EASY TO SEE THE BARRIER THIS CREATES TO FREE SPEECH AND ELECTIONS. IF PEOPLE ARE UNABLE TO GET INFORMATION ON REAL ISSUES OUT TO THE PUBLIC......YOU HAVE A CAPTURED SYSTEM.
SHOUT LOUDLY AND STRONGLY AGAINST THE MARGINALIZATION OF PUBLIC DISCOURSE ON ALL INTERNET POLICY. WHETHER NET NEUTRALITY LAWS, FEDERAL ELECTION LAWS, OR FEDERAL COMMUNICATION LAWS.....ALL THESE FEDERAL AGENCIES SHOULD BE WORKING TO PROTECT SPEECH ESPECIALLY WHEN A DEMOCRAT IS IN OFFICE.
BELOW ARE THE ISSUES AMERICANS HAVE SAID ARE IMPORTANT AND ESPECIALLY DEMOCRATS......DO YOU SEE THEM ANYWHERE IN THE POLITICAL DISCOURSE?
THIS IS MY COMMENT TO PUBLIC MEDIA.
We have for 2 years had the fiscal progressive voice in this debate silenced as Third Way corporate liberals join with Republicans to offer corporate/wealth solutions. The US has the same political dynamic as the UK.....with Liberals and Labor having opposing interests and we want all discussions on fiscal policy issues to reflect this dynamic.
80% of people identify wealth inequity as the top priority. 80% of people identify corporate power as the top priority. Most economists identify wealth inequity and corporate power as the cause of domestic economic stagnation. So these issues should dominate all discussion about fiscal/job recovery. If you only give a free-market/global perspective you miss both of these issues....which has been the case for two years now. This must change now!
We all know that the Bush Tax Cuts have drained government coffers and created the crumbling public systems we have today. The goal for him was downsizing government as is the goal of Third Way Liberals. Most people do not want crumbling infrastructure and loss services so therefor we want all Bush Tax Cuts to end....period. That will bring $4 trillion in revenue to the table. All that needs to be said is that it will raise taxes on lower-middle by a few thousand and middle-class by a few thousand more. Four thousand in taxes for someone making $80,000 is not prohibitive and to seek to make it sound so comes with an agenda.
Most people want Social Security and entitlements protected and strengthened so we do not want to extend the payroll tax reduction as that cripples these programs. Politicians know that. We need to end these reductions and simply raise a few percentages the amount of deduction to make these programs more sustainable. That is not so much money.
The reason all of these taxes feel harder to handle is that wages are the lowest in US history......they are third world. People with strong wages do not mind paying taxes. That is the number one issue in this fiscal debate yet it won't be mentioned with only Third Way corporate commentators.
Will Fact Checks Always Be Ignored By Politicians?
by Dana Farrington NPR
November 11, 2012 5:40 AM
Moderator Candy Crowley applauds as President Obama shakes hands with former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney during the second presidential debate on Oct. 16.
Michael Reynolds/AP Just because there's more fact checking, doesn't mean there's more truth telling.
Given this, David Carr of The New York Times declared that journalistic efforts to set the record straight during "the most fact-checked [presidential] election in history" didn't work.
"Both campaigns seemed to live a life beyond consequence, correctly discerning that it was worth getting a scolding from the journalistic church ladies if a stretch or an elide or an outright prevarication did damage to the opposition," wrote Carr.
Bill Adair of PolitiFact says Carr "really misfired."
"Our mission is to inform readers, not change the behavior of politicians," wrote Adair, whose group occasionally partnered with NPR on election coverage.
Whether or not it's the mission, are there more effective ways fact checking could interrupt the politicians' narratives?
What if there were fact checks crawling on the TV screen during a debate or speech, for example? Adair responded to It's All Politics via email:
"We already provide instant information during debates through our Twitter feed, which has 171,000 followers. And during debates, we post a Twitter widget on our site so people can get up-to-the-minute links to related fact-checks. In the future, we could easily do that on TV through a crawl on a screen.
"Would that have a stronger impact? Perhaps. But the candidates already know that they are going to be fact-checked, so I don't think the immediacy makes much difference.
"We are like cops on a highway with radar guns. The drivers know we are there and sometimes they decide to violate the speed limit anyway."
Of course, Adair said a Twitter-like stream on TV would work only with previously assessed claims. Still, he said PolitiFact is working on ways to shrink the gap between when people hear a claim and when they look up its trustworthiness.
"One way we're doing that is our Settle It! mobile app, which allows people to quickly search our database from their phone or tablet. Another way is the sound recognition technology that's been developed by the creators of the Super PAC App."
In his PressThink blog, New York University's Jay Rosen said journalists are in a "new phase" of reacting to misleading information since campaigns "seem able to override" fact checking. "So what's the next innovation?" he asks.
Adair, as mentioned above, doesn't believe stopping lies is the point. But here's what he sees in the future:
"The fact-checking itself is really just old shoe-leather journalism. The next step is to harness technology to get it in front of more people when they need it."
But people might not always need it immediately, says Brendan Nyhan, assistant professor of government at Dartmouth College. Nyhan has advocated for "blind debate coverage," watching the debates without simultaneously monitoring Twitter. He has also written about fact checking for the Columbia Journalism Review.
Nyhan suggests an effective tactic might be to have a fact checker on TV right after the debate, "before immediate spinning of who won or lost." Or maybe split the debate into three segments with fact checking intermissions.
Real-time fact checking by moderators can be messy business. Nyhan says it would be difficult to get the candidates to agree to a format that integrates fact checking in the first place. Regardless, verifying candidates' claims is "hard to do on the fly," he says.
Adair says checking a new claim can take anywhere from an hour to several days. Plus, there's the nuance factor: one Pinocchio or four?
"If [the moderator] gets something wrong, it could make things worse," Nyhan says.
CNN's Candy Crowley wandered into fact checking territory during the presidential debate she moderated on Oct. 16. Mitt Romney said it took President Obama 14 days to call the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, an "act of terror." Crowley told Romney that Obama had, in fact, called it an act of terror. She added:
"It did as well take two weeks or so for the whole idea of there being a riot out there about this tape to come out. You are correct about that."
As Politico reports, Crowley tried to further clarify her statement in later interviews, and her actions in the debate faced criticism from the right. On Fox News, National Review editor Rich Lowry said, "It's not the role of a moderator ever in these debates to be the fact checker."
Ironically, perhaps, the more adamant fact checkers are about their facts, the more partisan they may appear. Mother Jones' Washington bureau chief David Corn wrote in September:
"To judge credibility, the fact-checkers must be regarded as credible judges. But each time they are pulled into a scuffle with politicians, they can look more like political actors to the public — an assumption that especially benefits those politicians who lie with the greatest abandon."
Nyhan says he goes back and forth about the overall impact of fact checking. He says he believes the fact-checking movement is starting to shift journalism away from he-said-she-said stories. But that has a counterforce, he says: "The gaffe coverage might be dumber than ever before."