The Motivation behind Fake News

Fake news may be a fight not over truth, but power, according to Mike Ananny, a media scholar at the University of Southern California. Fake news “is evidence of a social phenomenon at play — a struggle between [how] different people envision what kind of world that they want.”

Ideological fake news lands in the social media feeds of audiences who are already primed to believe whatever story confirms their worldview.

Brooke Borel writing for FiveThirtyEight

Choosing the Misery

Force yourself to make a different choice for a short time, for at least an hour. Do something physically hard that, under different circumstances, you can easily do and that you usually enjoy, perhaps a brisk walk or a short hard run. If you can do it with a good friend who is not overly sympathetic, so much the better. While you are walking or running, especially with a friend, you will notice you are not depressing. For a short time, you are not thinking about your unhappy relationship, and you feel much better. But as soon as you finish, you tend to go back to thinking about the relationship that has gone bad, and the feeling comes back. To depress, you have to keep thinking the unhappy thoughts. To stop these thoughts, change what you want or change your behavior. There is no other way.  

William Glasser, Choice Theory

7 Media Webinars this week about investigative journalism, diversity, sports, public records & more

Tue, March 28 - 'Nellie Bly: The Investigative Journalist Who Reformed America'

What:  A brief overview of Nellie's upbringing, a discussion of her two most high-profile accomplishments, including tales of her exposés, interviews, ordeals, and activism.

Who: Dave Gardner, a licensed New York City tour guide.

When: 8:30 pm, Central

Where: Zoom

Cost: $10

Sponsor: New York Adventure Club

More info

Tue, March 28 - Diversity in News Leadership

What: How to break into news management and help others from marginalized communities grow in their careers as news leaders.

Who: Cristina Silva, Managing Editor for USA Today and Sharif Durhams, Deputy Managing Editor for The Washington Post; Sara Kehaulani Goo, Editor-in-Chief of Axios;  Dorothy Tucker, Investigative reporter, CBS Chicago; Tim Archuleta, Editor-in-Chief of El Paso Times; Migdalia Figueroa, President of Telemundo Orlando.

When: 5 pm, Eastern

Where: Zoom

Cost: Free (RSVP by March 27)

Sponsor: Society of Professional Journalists, Los Angeles Chapter

More info

 

Tue, March 28 – SPJ Sports Zoom

What: Suzy Kolber will talk about and answer questions about her award-winning career

Who: Suzy Kolber, ESPN Monday Night Countdown Host    

When: 7 pm, Eastern

Where: Zoom

Cost: Free

Sponsor: Society of Professional Journalists

More info

 

Wed, March 29 - Accessing Public Records that Governments hold close to the Vest

What: A panel discussion and Q&A on common and more investigative Freedom of Information requests, why certain public records are difficult to obtain and what newsrooms can do to hold governments accountable.

Who: Carolyn James, editor and publisher of three weekly newspapers, Timothy Bolger, the editor-in-chief of both the Long Island Press and Dan’s Papers, Charles Lane, a senior reporter focusing on special projects at WSHU Public Radio, an NPR member station serving Long Island.

When: 7 pm, Eastern

Where: Zoom

Cost: Free

Sponsor: Press Club of Long Island

More info

 

Wed, March 29 - "Under the skin": A conversation about health and racism

What: Linda Villarosa will talk about how a story she wrote for the New York Times evolved into a book that exposed how race and ethnic prejudice in the medical system and society at large have contributed to the deaths of generations of Black women and children. Learn more about the people she interviewed, how to find people who will share their experiences, and how to bring context when writing about local and national public health trends.

Who: Journalist and author Linda Villarosa, former health editor at The New York Times.

When: 1 pm, Eastern

Where: Zoom

Cost: Free

Sponsor: The Association of Health Care Journalists

More info

 

Wed, March 29 - Blogging Best Practices for Nonprofits

What:  Current trends in nonprofit blogging; Blog writing and formatting best practices; How to blog to boost SEO for your website; How to design your blog to maximize call-to-actions; How often your nonprofit should blog and the top five blog content ideas

Who: Heather Mansfield, Founder of Nonprofit Tech for Good

When: 1 pm, Eastern

Where: Zoom

Cost: Free

Sponsor: Nonprofit Tech for Good

More info

Thu, March 30 - Journalism's Role in Democracy Webinar

What: Explore journalism's role in American democracy during a time of widespread disinformation and misinformation.

Who: The Washington Post's Christine Emba

When: 1 pm, Eastern

Where: Zoom

Cost: Free

Sponsor: Lorentzen Center for Faith and Work at Concordia College

More info

Earnest was right, but no on listened

As legend has it, Ernest Duchesne was a student at a French military medical school in the 1890s when he noticed that the hospital’s stable boys who tended the horses did something peculiar: They stored their saddles in a damp, dark room so that mold would grow on their undersurfaces. They did this, they explained, because the mold helped heal the horses’ saddle sores. Duchesne was fascinated and conducted an experiment in which he treated sick guinea pigs with a solution made from mold—a rough form of what we’d now call penicillin. The guinea pigs healed completely. Duchesne wrote up his findings in a thesis, but because he was unknown and young—only 23 at the time—the French Institut Pasteur wouldn’t acknowledge it. His research vanished, and Duchesne died 15 years later of tuberculosis (a disease that would someday be treatable with antibiotics). It would take 31 years for the Scottish scientist Alexander Fleming to rediscover penicillin, independently and with no idea that Duchesne had already done it. In those three decades, untold millions of people died of diseases that could have been cured. Failed networks kill ideas.

Clive Thompson, Smarter Than you Think

What a TikTok Ban Won't Do

While Congress has been up in arms about TikTok, it has failed to pass even the most basic comprehensive privacy legislation to protect our data from being misused by all the tech companies that collect and mine it.

The even deeper problem is that putting TikTok under state control, banning it or selling it to a U.S. company wouldn’t solve the threats that the app is said to pose. If China wants to obtain data about U.S. residents, it can still buy it from one of the many unregulated data brokers that sell granular information about all of us. If China wants to influence the American population with disinformation, it can spread lies across the Big Tech platforms just as easily as other nations can.

it would be much more effective for China to just hack every home’s Wi-Fi router — most of which are manufactured in China and are notoriously insecure — and obtain far more sensitive data than it can get from knowing which videos we swipe on TikTok.

Investigative journalist Julia Angwin writing in the New York Times

Two kinds of Coping Strategies

Psychologists like to group coping strategies into two main types: emotion-focused and problem-focused. Emotion-focused strategies change the way we feel, like distracting ourselves, getting support from friends, or looking at the situation from a different perspective. Problem-focused strategies, on the other hand, involve taking action to solve the problem directly.

No one strategy works all the time, and you’ll often see people get stuck in their favorite way of coping. If you tend toward distraction and denial, you might avoid dealing with a problem that you actually could have solved; if you’re an inveterate problem-solver, you might feel helpless and angry when confronting a problem—or a loved one’s—that has no solution, when all that’s really needed is support and connection. 

Kira Newman writing in Greater Good

The Secret of Success

Survivorship bias pulls you toward bestselling diet gurus, celebrity CEOs, and superstar athletes. You look to the successful for clues about the hidden, about how to better live your life, about how you too can survive similar forces against which you too struggle. Colleges and conferences prefer speakers who shine as examples of making it through adversity, of struggling against the odds and winning.  

The problem here is that you rarely take away from these inspirational figures advice on what not to do, on what you should avoid, and that’s because they don’t know. Information like that is lost along with the people who don’t make it out of bad situations or who don’t make it on the cover of business magazines – people who don’t get invited to speak at graduations and commencements and inaugurations. 

The actors who traveled from Louisiana to Los Angeles only to return to Louisiana after a few years don’t get to sit next to James Lipton and watch clips of their Oscar-winning performances as students eagerly gobble up their crumbs of wisdom. In short, the advice business is a monopoly run by survivors. As the psychologist Daniel Kahneman writes in his book Thinking Fast and Slow, “A stupid decision that works out well becomes a brilliant decision in hindsight.”

Before you emulate the history of a famous company, Kahneman says, you should imagine going back in time when that company was just getting by and ask yourself if the outcome of its decisions were in any way predictable. If not, you are probably seeing patterns in hindsight where there was only chaos in the moment. He sums it up like so, “If you group successes together and look for what makes them similar, the only real answer will be luck.” 

Entrepreneur Jason Cohen, in writing about survivorship bias, points out that since we can’t go back in time and start 20 identical Starbucks across the planet, we can never know if that business model is the source of the chain’s immense popularity or if something completely random and out of the control of the decision makers led to a Starbucks on just about every street corner in North America. That means you should be skeptical of any book promising you the secrets of winning at the game of life through following any particular example.

David McRaney Read more here

Tuesday Tech Tools: 56 Data Visualization Tools

Below are the nine most recommended.

Carto*
Perhaps the best interactive mapmaker but a high learning curve though more of a time investment than a technical-background requirement. No coding needed to look impressive. Used for location intelligence and and journalism alike. Free with paid plans. Video examples here.

Canva*
Graphic design tools. Create social media graphics, headers, slides, flyers, photo collages, posters, infographics, even mind maps for concepts using drag-and-drop. 60k templates. Clip-art library available or upload your own images. Share to social media from the app or download a jpg, PDF, etc. for posting. Free. $12 a month for more options.

Data Wrapper*
Tool for journalists looking to create fast, easily-to-understand visualizations but useful for anyone. Easy to embed. Free version allows creation of 10k charts.

Easely.ly*
Create infographics. Video sample here.

Florish*
A data visualization tool that makes it easy to create both standard charts and a mobile-friendly animated charts. Some customization available. Examples.

Infogram*
Infographic tool especially useful when working with complex data. No coding skills needed. Works with Google Sheets or Dropbox. Create interactive illustrations. 35 types of charts and 200 types of maps. Includes a built-in spreadsheet tool for data editing. Basic version is free but requires the Infogram logo. Upgrades run from $19 to $67 a month.

Meograph*
3D animation of people from 2D video of people. Video explanation.

PiktoChart*
Flat but beautiful interactive graphics. Easy-to-use. Video explanation.

Thinglink*
Create hot-spot graphics. Make images interactive by adding music, a voice over, and text.  Free . Sample.

You’ll find all 56 here.

The theory of multiples

If you look at the world’s biggest breakthrough ideas, they often occur simultaneously to different people.

This is known as the theory of multiples, and it was famously documented in 1922 by sociologists William Ogburn and Dorothy Thomas. When they surveyed the history of major modern inventions and scientific discoveries, they found that many of the big ones had been hit upon by different people, usually within a few years of each other and sometimes within a few weeks. They cataloged 148 examples: Oxygen was discovered in 1774 by Joseph Priestley in England and Carl Wilhelm Scheele in Sweden. In 1610 and 1611, at least four different astronomers—including Galileo—independently discovered sunspots. John Napier and Henry Briggs developed logarithms in Britain, while Joost Bürgi did it independently in Germany. The law of the conservation of energy was laid claim to by four separate people in 1847. Ogburn and Thomas didn’t mention another multiple: Radio was invented around 1900 by two different engineers, working independently—Guglielmo Marconi and Nikola Tesla.

Why would the same ideas have occurred to different people at the same time? Ogburn and Thomas argued that it was because our ideas are, in a crucial way, partly products of our environment. They’re “inevitable.” When they’re ready to emerge, they do. This is because we do not work in a sealed-off, Rodin Thinker fashion.

The things we think about are deeply influenced by the state of the art around us: the conversations taking place among educated folk, the shared information, tools, and technologies at hand. If four astronomers discovered sunspots at the same time, it’s partly because the quality of lenses in telescopes in 1611 had matured to the point where it was finally possible to pick out small details on the sun and partly because the question of the sun’s role in the universe had become newly interesting in the wake of Copernicus’ heliocentric theory. If radio was developed at the same time by two people, that’s because the basic principles that underpin the technology were also becoming known to disparate thinkers.

Even if you assume the occurrence of true genius is pretty low (they estimate that one person in 100 is on the “upper tenth” of the scale for smarts), when you multiply it across the entirety of humanity, that’s still a heck of a lot of geniuses.

When you think of it that way, what’s strange is not that big ideas occurred to different people in different places. What’s strange is that this didn’t happen all the time, constantly

Clive Thompson Smarter Than you Think

The Coming Textpocalypse

From a piece of genre fiction to your doctor’s report, you may not always be able to presume human authorship behind whatever it is you are reading. Writing, but more specifically digital text—as a category of human expression—will become estranged from us. 

Am I worried that ChatGPT could have (written this article) better? No. But I am worried it may not matter. Swept up as training data for the next generation of generative AI, my words here won’t be able to help themselves: They, too, will be fossil fuel for the coming textpocalypse.

Matthew Kirschenbaum writing in The Atlantic