Donald Trump

Influx of right-wing users led to much greater Reddit polarization before 2016 U.S. election: ��TV study

geoff.vendeville — Thu, 02 Dec 2021 17:08:14 +0000

Influx of right-wing users led to much greater Reddit polarization before 2016 U.S. election: ��TV study

geoff.vendeville Thu, 12/02/2021 - 12:08

Cutline

(Photo by InkDrop/Shutterstock)

Don Campbell

Topic

Global Lens

Donald Trump

machine learning

��TV Scarborough

US Politics

A rise in political polarization on Reddit forums before the election of Donald Trump was driven by new, largely right-wing users, University of Toronto researchers suggest in a new study.

The paper, published this week in Nature, challenges the theory that polarization on Reddit was primarily caused by existing users who became more extreme through membership in online echo chambers.

Ashton Anderson (photo by Ken Jones)

“Polarization on Reddit was disproportionately driven by new users appearing on the platform, and the effect was quite substantial,” says Ashton Anderson, assistant professor in the department of computer and mathematical sciences at ��TV Scarborough and lead author of the study.

“We saw some existing users becoming polarized in 2016, but the effect was really driven by new users who joined the site closer to the right-wing extremes than existing users.”

It’s been suggested that being part of like-minded online communities such as Reddit can lead to polarization, but what isn’t clear is whether existing individual users are influenced to move towards more ideological extremes, or if it’s new users joining these communities that causes the effect.

Anderson and PhD student Isaac Waller developed a machine-learning technique to assess social stances, including political leanings, across 10,000 different subreddits – or online communities within Reddit – from a sample of 5.1 billion comments over 14 years.

They found that the political activity of individual users did not become significantly more polarized over this period, but that the platform as a whole did become more polarized around the time of the 2016 election. The 2016 change in platform-level polarization was 2.17 times what it would have been if new users “arrived at the average 2015 polarization level, despite only accounting for 38% of political activity
during 2016,” the researchers wrote.

“What we’re seeing here is that platform polarization is not being driven by people themselves changing. Rather, it’s the composition of the platform that’s changing,” Anderson says.

He points to the rise in popularity of r/The_Donald, a subreddit created in 2015 dedicated to discussing and promoting Trump. (Reddit removed the subreddit after the Capitol Hill attack, saying it violated its policies against promoting hate and inciting violence.) Anderson says, as online communities grow, they generally move towards the centre as they become more diverse. But r/The_Donald remained near the extreme right-wing.

“Reddit genuinely changed in the sense that the political activity on the site was increasingly becoming more homogeneous and moving farther and farther away from the centre,” he says.

While these new users shifted right-wing discussion further to the right, the researchers found that activity on left-wing and centrist communities barely became polarized at all. Some polarization did happen on the left, but Anderson says the effect was nowhere near as large as that experienced on the right.

The researchers note that the new users driving this polarization only accounted for a fraction of activity on the site. “They were a minority of the users, but they drove the majority of polarization during that period,” Anderson says.

Anderson says the method developed in this study can also be used to quantify the social make-up of other online communities. He says this can help better understand the social contexts of online behaviour, such as toxic language being used in predominantly old or young communities, and to inform the design of other online platforms.

The findings suggest that an increase in polarization may come down to changing dynamics of a specific population, rather than a broader, society-level change in beliefs.

“Sometimes, especially in these online communities, it might not be that people within the community suddenly move toward these partisan extremes,” he says.

“Large-scale polarization, at least in online communities, might simply be caused by a turnover in the people using them.”

Republican Party needs to wage ‘internal war’ on conspiracy theories: ��TV’s Ryan Hurl

rahul.kalvapalle — Tue, 12 Jan 2021 17:19:23 +0000

Republican Party needs to wage ‘internal war’ on conspiracy theories: ��TV’s Ryan Hurl

rahul.kalvapalle Tue, 01/12/2021 - 12:19

Cutline

(photo by Paul Morigi/Getty Images for MoveOn)

Topic

As U.S. President Donald Trump’s term draws to a close, many are wondering what the future holds for him and for the Republican Party in the wake of last week’s violent pro-Trump riots at the Capitol, which left five people dead.

On Monday, Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives introduced a resolution to impeach Trump, charging him with inciting an insurrection.

This comes on the heels of technology companies such as Facebook, Twitter and Amazon all taking steps to suspend the use of their platforms by Trump and far-right elements.

��TV News spoke to Ryan Hurl, an assistant professor in the department of political science at the University of Toronto Scarborough, about the push to impeach Trump, the social media bans and where the Republican Party goes from here.

Why are Democrats moving to impeach Trump now, given that his term ends in just over a week?

I think that the simplest explanation is many Democrats want to discourage the kind on contentious politics that Trump has engaged in, particularly after the election. Trump has acted in a politically irresponsible way and it is necessary to send a statement that this is unacceptable – if you challenge the legitimacy of the electoral system, or, I should add, the constitutional-political order or the economic system, if you tell people that ordinary politics have failed and are hopelessly corrupt, then it isn’t very surprising if people take this to its logical conclusion and engage in political violence.

Of course, not all Democrats support this – presumably because, even if Trump deserves it, impeachment is unlikely to reduce political tensions in the short term.

What repercussions could Trump and his allies face over the rioting and broader damage to the democratic system and processes?

It isn’t clear to me that Trump has engaged in criminal conduct as opposed to making very, very bad decisions after the election. Political speech can be punished in the United States, but only when the speaker encourages imminent, lawless actions. That is an exacting standard.

Impeachment need not be based upon criminal actions, but, of course, the main punishment associated with impeachment is removal from office. It is very difficult to know how the public would respond to a “fast-track” impeachment trial.

However, there are additional punishments that can be imposed other than removal from office – specifically, Trump could be barred from holding appointed federal office. It is also possible to impeach a president after they have left office, so it isn’t absolutely necessary to proceed with impeachment over the next few weeks.

As for the rioters, they engaged in criminal conduct and should be punished accordingly. It is difficult to know what the long-term effects will be because we don’t know if the events of Jan. 6 are part of an ongoing campaign of political violence or if it was a protest that turned into a riot. The next few weeks will shed light on this question.

Long-term, the GOP will have to find a way to address the “QAnon” wing of the party – and by address, I mean get them to abandon their beliefs. The party will have to conduct an internal war on conspiracy theory and get people to focus on the unglamorous work of ordinary politics.

What are your thoughts on Trump being banned from using Twitter?

I think there is a huge difference between banning someone for spreading poorly thought-out conspiracy theories and banning someone in the context of violent insurrections. Facts are the best cure for conspiracy theory – the best available cure, anyway, and certainly not foolproof.

It seems to me that banning Trump from Twitter in the immediate aftermath of the election would have done little to convince his supporters that the election was legitimate. In all likelihood, it would have made things worse. There are ways to communicate and share information besides Twitter.

What happens next?

I doubt my ability to predict the future at this stage. I do not envy the task of President Biden, who has to find a way to respond to the assault on the Capitol without enflaming political tensions even further.

At the very least, I assume that the relevant officials will not, in the future, simply assume that Trump supporters can be easily controlled. The difference between a protest and an attempt at insurrection and murder was probably several hundred members of the National Guard.

Social media's decision to dump Trump too little, too late: ��TV's Megan Boler

rahul.kalvapalle — Mon, 11 Jan 2021 21:22:10 +0000

Social media's decision to dump Trump too little, too late: ��TV's Megan Boler

rahul.kalvapalle Mon, 01/11/2021 - 16:22

Cutline

(photo by Stephan Schulz/picture alliance via Getty Images)

Topic

Ontario Institute for Studies in Education

Social Media

Twitter

United States

U.S. President Donald Trump no longer has access to the massive social media following that was a feature of his presidency after Twitter, Facebook, Google, Apple and Amazon all took actions to halt or limit his use of their platforms in the wake of last week’s violence on Capitol Hill.

Twitter and Facebook both locked Trump’s accounts, while Apple, Google and Amazon removed the app Parler – favoured by Trump’s supporters and the far right – from their web hosting services.

The moves came after a violent pro-Trump mob stormed the U.S. Capitol as lawmakers worked to count electoral votes from the presidential election, won by President-elect Joe Biden. Five people died.

��TV News spoke with Megan Boler, a professor in the department of social education at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (OISE), about how Trump’s presidency has impacted the social media landscape, why social media companies have chosen to act against him now and what the future holds for him and his supporters in the online world.

How vital has social media been to the Trump presidency?

It’s so important to recognize that it was an absolute historical precedent having a president who had a direct, unmediated line of communication to his base in this way.

In the past, we would have had a president holding press correspondent meetings and that would give journalists and editors an opportunity to ask questions and perhaps to mediate some of the lies, but he was essentially able to produce – as everyone has spoken about – “alternative facts,” or an alternative reality with his base, culminating in this last, most damaging lie regarding the allegation that the election had been stolen.

It was absolutely vital to his presidency and part of what was necessary for him to begin to systematically erode the foundations of democracy – both in terms of setting new precedents for how he spoke to his base to his attacks and erosion of trust in the fourth estate and in journalism. So I can’t emphasize strongly enough how vital social media has been.

There have been calls for social media companies to ban Trump’s accounts for some time. Why have they taken this step now?

Most obviously because if they had not, they would have looked so bad and it would’ve hurt their reputation. They simply had to or their integrity would’ve been in question, although for many, it already is and was in question for the past four years – particularly, one could say, since Charlottesville, Va. Because one can argue – and I think one of the most dangerous arguments we’re seeing – is that hate speech equals free speech. And that is something that we have to educate all quarters of the public about.

As long as things remain solely online and solely expressions and text, everybody can say “This is a matter of free speech.” But in the instance of Charlottesville, and in the instance of what we saw happen last week, it was an occasion in which the violence poured over from online to offline, and that was what was particularly disturbing.

People are debating what it was that we witnessed at the Capitol and whether it was actually a coup attempt. I don’t understand how people can even question whether it was, but people seem to question what kind of violence that was – if it was just a mob gone crazy or a one-off.

In any event, it was violence that moved from online into the real world, and that’s part of what pushed this over the edge and forced the social media companies to make this decision.

In making that decision, have companies such as Facebook and Twitter set a precedent by taking responsibility for content published on their platforms?

We’ve seen such a rollercoaster over the past four years in terms of Facebook in particular having been called to the stand to face censure and legislative challenges as to why they are not taking action. So Facebook’s record in terms of not taking any responsibility for what they have fomented is just shocking.

There are occasions – such as when Facebook took InfoWars off [the platform]. So, there are moments here and there where they decide something has gone far enough.

But I think we’re all on the edge of our seats waiting to see what the next move is going to be.

What does the future hold for Trump and his supporters on social media, now that he’s no longer on Twitter and Facebook?

The thing that’s most disturbing is that lots of other stand-ins are doing Trump’s work for him. The far right is extremely well-orchestrated. I suppose in many ways, Trump has clearly been the newly born Christ-figure and saviour of this movement, but I think he has mobilized a movement and there are plenty of other leaders in the wings who can take up that slack. So it doesn’t really matter whether he has a Twitter account or not.

What are they going to do about Josh Hawley, Ted Cruz and other names like Jack Posobiec and Candace Owens? There are plenty of other people who are fomenting the far right and keeping this movement alive and radicalizing new members.

This also touches on something I think is so crucial: In 2017, the scholar and journalist Whitney Philips wrote a study called The Oxygen of Amplification in which she outlined the ways in which journalism has to be so careful about how it reports on this. I have been so disturbed by the repetition of those images that we saw at the Capitol. That is doing the publicity for the far-right and for white supremacists. Those images have emboldened people. That is success for them.

I really hope that, in addition to social media companies taking responsibility for censoring people, we will also take stock of the fact that we have to be very careful with how we report on this.

Could there be a broader fallout for social media companies?

There was a movement after the Cambridge Analytica scandal where there was a big cry to get off Facebook – and many did. In particular, it was not just to get off social media, but specifically to get off Facebook and use different kinds of social platforms. So we may see that.

Right now, the focus isn’t on what the broader public will do but what’s going to happen to the far right. It’s really great that you’re asking that question because it is a moment where we all have to say: “What are the social implications of social media?” We clearly have not taken them seriously enough.

Many would say the genie is out of the bottle, the Pandora’s box has been opened and there is no going back – and I think, in many ways, that is true. So now we’re faced with really difficult questions of legislation, policy and reform – and it’s going to be a long, uphill battle.

What are the lessons to be learned from the social media landscape of Trump’s presidency?

I really fear that it’s too late, but I think some directions are important to think about.

First, we should think about what it would mean to reinvigorate local news because that has just devastated the news media landscape. Local news is essentially happening through these social media platforms. So, thinking about whether there could be greater funding for publicly funded media. That would create shared media that’s responsible for certain kinds of standards. That might be a model to think about. So, really encouraging people to unplug from social media.

The other key aspect of this is demanding there be policies that social media monopolies abide by, and that there be limits on the monopolies. We know that major lawsuits have begun against Facebook and there are hopes that maybe that will have an effect.

As well, thinking about how we’re going to deal with the rise of white supremacy and this kind of fascism is really, really critical. What I mentioned about ensuring that we begin to educate the public about why hate speech is not free speech is really crucial. In my mind, that’s the first and foremost thing because any move that is made right now to limit these other accounts of the far-right is going to be seen as censorship.

So, we need to have really critical public education about what constitutes hate speech and what constitutes free speech – perhaps particularly in Canada because the U.S. does have more of a history of legal debate about this, and I think it’s important for Canada to rethink its legislation around hate speech policy.

How have traditional news media been affected by Trump’s use of social media?

One thing I find really interesting is that Trump has made so much money for media and for the news. He has kept the news alive for four years. So, there’s an interesting tension in the news industry – on the one hand, we can have a great deal of sympathy that the news industry, in light of the internet, has been losing so much revenue and that they have to do what they have to do to stay alive.

That said, after 2016 it was very clear that the news had been responsible for giving Trump an incredible amount of free advertising and publicity – far more than they’d given Hillary Clinton – and that’s because Trump filled news. We have some sort of phenomenal, insane fascination around the world with Trump.

There are real, moral questions about the news having reported on Trump’s Twitter feed because so often those posts were lies and yet the news would repeat them. As we know, that’s highly problematic. The repetition of a lie makes it seem true – and even if you do counter it, it never really succeeds in correcting information.

I’ve noticed that in the absence of Trump having Twitter, there’s still just as much conversation – we’re still talking about it – and I’m so curious to see the extent to which we will continue talking about Trump even when he’s not president. I predict he will still be on the front pages of most of our news sites.

How a researcher at ��TV's Citizen Lab helped ID Capitol Hill rioters: Toronto Star

Christopher.Sorensen — Mon, 11 Jan 2021 19:59:38 +0000

How a researcher at ��TV's Citizen Lab helped ID Capitol Hill rioters: Toronto Star

Christopher.Sorensen Mon, 01/11/2021 - 14:59

Cutline

Members of a violent mob enter in the Senate chamber on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C. on Jan. 6 as Congress held a joint session to ratify the results of the 2020 election (photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)

Topic

Global Lens

Munk School of Global Affairs & Public Policy

Citizen Lab

Donald Trump

Faculty of Arts & Science

United States

After a mob stunned the world last week by laying siege to Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., the University of Toronto’s John Scott-Railton sought to identify the masked men and women behind the violence.

Scott-Railton, who works for Citizen Lab at ��TV’s Munk School of Global Affairs & Public Policy in the Faculty of Arts & Science, has been using photo enhancement techniques, open source search techniques and public tips gathered from social media to identify members of the violent throng that sought to overturn the results of the U.S. presidential election, according to a profile of Scott-Railton in the Toronto Star.

In collaboration with the New Yorker magazine, Scott-Railton determined that one individual was a U.S. Air Force combat veteran. Scott-Railton notified the FBI of his suspicions after piecing together the man’s identity through the insignias adorning his helmet and body armor, the New Yorker piece said.

Scott-Railton's Capitol Hill project – which has drawn interest from media outlets in the U.S. and around the world, including CNN, USA Today, the Independent and Germany’s Bild online – is part of his broader Citizen Lab work, which focuses on malware, phishing, online disinformation and other digital threats to civil society.

Scott-Railton told the Star that he has been overwhelmed by input from the general public.

“The volume of tips and information now is unlike anything I have ever seen,” he said.

��TV expert calls Capitol Hill violence an ‘extremely disturbing challenge to American democracy’

rahul.kalvapalle — Wed, 06 Jan 2021 22:40:13 +0000

��TV expert calls Capitol Hill violence an ‘extremely disturbing challenge to American democracy’

rahul.kalvapalle Wed, 01/06/2021 - 17:40

Cutline

(photo by Win McNamee via Getty Images)

Topic

Hundreds of supporters of U.S. President Donald Trump stormed the Capitol building in Washington, D.C. on Wednesday, halting a joint session of Congress in which votes cast by the Electoral College were set to be counted – a standard procedural step in the presidential election process.

The mob broke windows and clashed with police, while members of the House and Senate, as well as Vice-President Mike Pence, were evacuated from the building.

The National Guard was summoned to bolster security amid the violence, which came after Trump addressed supporters at a Washington, D.C. rally and refused to concede the election to President-elect Joe Biden.

��TV News spoke with Renan Levine, an associate professor, teaching stream, in the department of political science at the University of Toronto Scarborough, about what the unrest means for the U.S., its democratic processes and the future of the Republican party going forward.

How unprecedented is the unrest in Washington, D.C.?

When we look around the world, yes, violence often accompanies elections and losing sides do contest – sometimes violently – the transfer of power. But that has not happened on this scale in America since the 1800s.

As inspiring as it is to hear President-elect Joe Biden talk about “this is not America,” the truth is that violence has certainly been used before and after U.S. Election Day, especially against racialized minorities. That gives a lot of us tremendous pause watching these images. This is a day when an African-American man and a Jewish man were elected senators from the state of Georgia – a state that has lynched both Jewish and African-American men in its past.

This is a big deal and this attempt by people who are waving Trump flags and Confederate flags are clearly evoking a history of violence towards racialized minorities. Racialized minorities are being told that, somehow, their votes don’t count or should not matter in the same way that other voters’ votes should count or should matter.

What does the refusal of President Trump and his supporters to accept the results of the election mean for American democracy?

Today should have been a boring, staid day. But it wasn’t. It quickly became identified by the president and many of his supporters as the day to stage a protest, to stage an insurrection in opposition to what should have happened today – which was a pro forma reporting and accepting of the election results.

There have been previous incidents where members of the House and Senate have objected to some aspect of the returns, but that was always in races where the opponent had already conceded, and they were objecting in order to bring attention to some concern, some issue with the process – which is very different. This isn’t raising a concern – both what is happening and as led by a number of senators and members of Congress – this was them saying, “No. We want to stop certification of results and we are going to continue to signal that we do not accept these results.”

So, this is a new and extremely disturbing challenge to American democracy, including American democratic institutions and American democratic norms, that has ensured peaceful and largely uneventful transfers of power.

Is there any mechanism to forcibly remove President Trump from office?

Mechanisms within the 25^th Amendment have been followed, but the amendment has never been used. The 25^th Amendment, I think, would be dangerous in these circumstances.

It would certainly be fast, but it’s designed for when the president, for various reasons, is incapable of leading – like if the president is comatose or if the president is going to go under general anesthesia for a short time. It allows for a transfer of power to the vice-president or, in the absence of a vice-president, to the speaker of the house in the event the president is incapable of carrying out his or her responsibilities.

I don’t think it’s designed for this kind of situation, where people like myself are concerned that the president is derelict in his responsibilities to uphold the constitution. That recourse is very clearly set out in the constitution and that’s an impeachment.

Where does the Republican party go from here?

One of the things Canadians need to remember is that one of the hallmarks of American political parties is the lack of strong central control over who gets party nominations and what the party says.

Before the violent protests today, there was a reckoning going on. There were Republicans, some of whom had been stalwart Trump supporters, saying the election is over and we need to accept these results; others were saying that millions of Americans have concerns and we should be taking every step to protect our democracy and ensure that those concerns are addressed in a way that gives people confidence in the democratic process.

There will be a struggle and that struggle will likely continue because it’s not like there are mechanisms saying that Minority Leader Mitch McConnell will be able to say “Okay, I’m throwing you guys out of the caucus,” or “I’m firing you, you’re gone.” They could kick people out of the caucus, but it’s highly unlikely.

When it comes to nominations, they may withhold an endorsement, but one of the current Republican senators, Lisa Murkowski, was already elected after being defeated in a Republican primary by someone else.

So, they don’t have a lot of control. They’re probably going to be fighting. We’re probably going to see, in a year’s time when there are some gubernatorial races or in two years’ time and certainly in four years’ time, fights within the Republican party as to whether or not they’re going to completely reject Trumpism or whether there’s going to be some element of continued embrace of Trump the man or Trump the ideology.

��TV researcher on how media coverage of Trump's cognitive exam may have compromised test itself

Christopher.Sorensen — Mon, 23 Jul 2018 14:24:00 +0000

��TV researcher on how media coverage of Trump's cognitive exam may have compromised test itself

Christopher.Sorensen Mon, 07/23/2018 - 10:24

Cutline

U.S. President Donald Trump shakes hands with White House Physician Rear Admiral Dr. Ronny Jackson following his annual physical in January (SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty Images)

Topic

University of Toronto researchers are warning the medical community that a popular cognitive test may be compromised due to the extensive publicity it received after U.S. President Donald Trump took it.

Recently, Trump’s physician announced that the president achieved a perfect score on the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), a test for mild cognitive impairment that's often the first step toward dementia. Media covered the story extensively, leading ��TV Faculty of Medicine researchers to investigate the impact this exposure could have on test-takers. One of the authors, Dr. Eric Coomes, a third-year medical resident in internal medicine, spoke with ��TV writer Heidi Singer about the study.

Why were you concerned about coverage of the MoCA?

Watching the news stories on the MoCA in relation to President Trump’s cognitive evaluation, we were impressed by the mass dissemination of information about this test, which was primarily only known to the medical community. As readers were exposed to the test, and in some cases even being invited to self-administer the test online, we wondered if there could be an effect down the road. We wanted to quantify the degree and nature of the [impact of the] test’s dissemination.

We searched the news cycle for a period in January and found 190 articles discussing the MoCA in association with President Trump. Of those, we found over half revealed either parts of or the full content of the MoCA questionnaire to the general public. More than one in six articles invited people to take the test, many posed as a self-challenge. A smaller proportion even provided answers so people could see how the test is graded.

How problematic is that?

Previous studies have demonstrated a potential for a learning effect on the MoCA. It may be that your previous exposure will strengthen your future scores. The impact would likely be greatest among people with very mild cognitive impact. People with more severe cognitive impairment would be unlikely to remember having seen the answers to the test previously. But with people who are healthy or at the very earliest stages of cognitive impairment, there may be some effect. At this point, however, the risk associated with media dissemination is hypothetical. It would be interesting if future tests looked at this.

Is it best for health providers to avoid this test for the short term?

There’s an easy way out. All the articles presented version one of the test. There are other versions – two and three – that have different word lists and content. We published a letter in JAMA Neurology advising providers to ask people whether they’ve been previously exposed, and for those who have, consider using alternate versions of the test.

For how long?

It depends whether there’s ongoing media interest in this test. This was the first time an American president underwent formal cognitive evaluation while in office, with mass media coverage. Only time will tell whether this will happen in the future. Until the learning effect of media coverage is better characterized, it will be hard to know how long an effect might last.

What kind of reaction have you received to your study?

We’ve all been impressed at how much interest there’s been in the study. There’s been a really positive response among our peers. There’s been quite a bit of local and international media interest. The goal of our piece was not to infer any conclusions about the president, but rather to look at the impact of media dissemination of a cognitive evaluation.

Why do you think there has been so much interest?

It provided an impetus for lots of outlets to discuss the topic of the president’s cognitive testing. But it also gave some media an opportunity for self-reflection. The New York Times linked to their own previous coverage, in which they published contents of the questionnaire.

It was an excellent opportunity to explore the relationship between media and medicine and show how public-sphere events have an impact on clinical practice. The interplay between medicine and the general world is often overlooked, but as practitioners we need to be aware of that interplay. This is a perfect example of how they intersect.

Time for a digital detox? ��TV expert training journalists for the ‘fake news’ era

Christopher.Sorensen — Fri, 13 Jul 2018 18:40:10 +0000

Time for a digital detox? ��TV expert training journalists for the ‘fake news’ era

Christopher.Sorensen Fri, 07/13/2018 - 14:40

Cutline

Jeffrey Dvorkin, the director of the journalism program at ��TV Scarborough, has written a new book to help train journalists in an age of disinformation (photo by rawpixel via Unsplash)

Topic

University of Toronto Scarborough

When Jeffrey Dvorkin began his journalism career at CBS News in 1972, “the assumption was that no one is going to lie to you.”

“There was a complete agreement that the news you got from your local newspaper or off the local radio or television was fine,” says Dvorkin, who was then a graduate student. “Partly because we may have been a bit naive, but it was also about how news and information was a kind of cultural glue that kept a society together.”

Nearly 50 years later, Dvorkin is the director of the journalism program at the University of Toronto Scarborough, where graduates enter an entirely transformed media environment. In the midst of the digital era, news organizations' resources are plummeting while the quantity of information – and the speed that it's delivered to consumers – is skyrocketing. To prepare up-and-coming journalists for this environment, he wrote Critical News Literacy, a textbook that hits shelves this summer.

The book covers topics including truth and verification, bias (both good and bad), deconstructing news and its sources, and the consequences of fake news. The book also calls for the “best traditions of journalists” – which Dvorkin dubs “curiosity and skepticism” – to be imparted to the public. Each chapter concludes with an ethical dilemma ripped from the headlines of Dvorkin’s time as the first ombudsman for National Public Radio (NPR).

One of the book’s major themes is understanding what constitutes reputable information, suggesting the acronym “VIA,” which stands for “verification," “independence" and “accountability."

“If one of those elements might be missing from a piece of journalism or a news report that you’re looking at, reading, listening to, then you should be questioning the whole thing,” Dvorkin says.

“There’s still a lot of people who are easily changed by that misinformation and disinformation.”

Dvorkin argues the problem of fake news is magnified by an assumption in journalism: digital is better for communicating and, thus, more digital is even better

Inspiration came to Dvorkin in New York, at Stony Brook University, where he teaches four journalism classes per year by video. He observed American students struggling to be part of the “Trumpian environment.” Upon learning of Dvorkin’s planned study leave, one professor encouraged him to write a book on that very theme.

In 2017, while redesigning introductory courses for the ��TV Scarborough journalism program, Dvorkin realized his 12 lectures could be written into chapters (the book will not be required for his courses).

He argues the problem of inaccurate information, including fake news, is furthered by a an assumption in journalism – that digital is better for communicating and, thus, more digital is even better.

“Instead, people are so overwhelmed by this stuff that they’re in retreat,” Dvorkin says. He explains that this is why some pull away from the news, only visit sites that confirm existing beliefs or withdraw entirely to watch cat videos.

He says the solution is to develop a new set of instincts. Dvorkin hopes Critical News Literacy will introduce students to the idea that it is acceptable to take regular breathers from technology.

“It’s a big challenge, but it’s one that I think is urgently needed at this point,” he says.

This would require a mental shift for students since it would require to them to view technology as a tool. However, Dvorkin says this could “give them a kind of an empowerment.”

Dvorkin hopes this sense of control will extend to other aspects of digital life, including self-image, insecurity and the mental health issues that impact young people who grow up entrenched in technology.

“I think that this idea of a digital detox is really important. We have to figure out the ways we can do it,” he says. “One way is to give people a sense that they control the information, not the other way around.”

‘Don’t expect any form of denuclearization quickly’: ��TV expert on Trump's North Korean deal

ullahnor — Wed, 13 Jun 2018 15:30:48 +0000

‘Don’t expect any form of denuclearization quickly’: ��TV expert on Trump's North Korean deal

ullahnor Wed, 06/13/2018 - 11:30

Cutline

North Korean leader Kim Jong-un and U.S. President Donald Trump meet during a historic summit in Singapore on Tuesday (photo by Kevin Lim/The Strait Times/Handout/Getty Images)

Noreen Ahmed-Ullah

Topic

Global Lens

Donald Trump

Faculty of Arts & Science

Global

Humanities

Munk School of Global Affairs & Public Policy

North Korea

U.S. President Donald Trump was quick to declare his landmark summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un a success. This morning, he continued on that path, tweeting, “There is no longer a nuclear threat from North Korea…sleep well tonight!”

The two leaders met in Singapore on Tuesday, signing a declaration on denuclearization and reducing tensions. Trump has said Pyongyang has agreed to complete denuclearization, and that the U.S. would end joint military exercises with South Korea.

Andre Schmid, associate professor of East Asian studies in the Faculty of Arts & Science and the Munk School of Global Affairs, offers up a reality check on the pact and the history of U.S.-North Korea relations.

What’s your take on the summit and North Korea agreeing to denuclearization? Why did North Korea accede so quickly?

North Korea has a long history of calling for denuclearization as part of its diplomatic strategies. For most of its history – or, at least, ever since 1958 when the United States first introduced nuclear weapons to the Korean peninsula – these calls for denuclearization focused on the weapons of others. As North Korea developed its own weapons, its calls for denuclearization have been framed largely in a specific phrase: “denuclearization of the peninsula.” This creates an opening to contemplate the possibility of its own denuclearization but the point of this phrase, often missed by the North American media, is that North Korea never sees this in isolation and never defines it as unilateral denuclearization. Don’t expect any form of denuclearization quickly.

It’s been remarkable to watch as Trump has been completely able to frame the issue of denuclearization in the English-language media. When he first started, his policy was for a quick “win.” Remember when it was all supposed to happen – “no problem” – in six months? He changed his tune as the summit approached – evidence that he, too, can learn once in a while. But, quite incredibly, the media now uses the initial terms he set – the quick resolution – as the criteria for judging the success or lack thereof of the summit. Did any one seriously expect Trump to return after a short sit-down with Chairman Kim with a resolution to a decades-old challenge?

Should we trust North Korea to uphold its side of the bargain on denuclearization and destroying a major missile testing site? Why the change of heart in North Korea?

It’s quite clear that North Korea is willing to destroy certain facilities as well as curtail some of its experiments and testing as part of an agreement or to create a diplomatic opening for an agreement. This shouldn’t be read as a willingness either to denuclearize completely or to permit the type of verification protocols that, for example, were implemented however briefly in the Tehran deal. My guess is that we are going to have to learn to live with the fait accompli of North Korea as a nuclear state. The realistic question is how can they be limited and controlled.

Why the change of heart in North Korea? That’s the big question. In part, it is in reaction to the change of heart in the countries surrounding them – in South Korea, a president elected on a platform of engagement who is willing to be a flexible mediator; in the U.S., the swaggering bellicosity of the Trump administration, as well as the tensions with China. It’s still unclear how much, if any, impact the UN economic sanctions have had on North Korea's economy since, according to the latest assessments coming out of Seoul, the North Korean economy continues to grow. That growth relates to the greater emphasis Kim Jong-un is putting on the economy – though it’s still too early to know his intentions in this realm. Loosening the sanctions to create more possibilities for the economy is also a motivation – though, again like with so many North Korean matters, we do not know how much of a priority this is.

Another way of looking at this is that North Korea has been successfully pursuing a long-term strategy of developing nukes precisely because it was a rational and cheaper way to defend itself while offering various other negotiating possibilities on the international stage. We wouldn’t be having this summit, and North Korea would likely simply be ignored if it were not for the nukes. If you believe this, the North Korean regime’s strategy – minus the cost on segments of the population, of course – has been been what Trump likes to call a “win.”

What has the U.S. agreed to? What security guarantees is Trump talking about?

That’s another big question: What is the U.S. willing to give in negotiations. I have to admit I’m surprised that Trump gave up on the joint military exercises – something that North Korea and China have called for, for many years. You can be sure that will be insufficient for the North Koreans.

A peace treaty to end the Korean War (1950-53), which was terminated with only an armistice, would be at least a starting point.

This has been such a strange relationship, starting with threats, then an agreement to talk, then the talks being called off and then being called back on again. Can you speak to how this has all unfolded and whether this is reflective of Trump or Kim Jong-un?

North and South Korean states have a long history of tumultuous relations with many stops and starts, many hopes and many dashed hopes. Throw in Trump’s personality to that mix, and it is not surprising that an already dramatic international issue has ratcheted up the spectacle. In terms of the fundamentals, however, the same questions and struggles remain beneath that spectacle. There is still no clear path to a negotiated peace in Northeast Asia.

What does this mean for Canada?

There’s a fundamental question: What can Canada do? Since establishing diplomatic ties with North Korea in the early 2000s, we have done very little – this despite the proud tradition of our diplomatic service having worked to establish productive relations with the People’s Republic of China well before the United States. The recent Vancouver summit on North Korea, sponsored by Global Affairs Canada, offered some possibilities, which I hope will be taken up now that the United States is talking with North Korea. Of course, any initiative with North Korea will inevitably be overshadowed by our relation with Washington, D.C., especially after the debacle of the G7 summit. But if there is any issue where more actors need to be engaged, it is on the Korean peninsula. The Canadian government should be working closely with the South Korean government – the real movers on the Korean peninsula – to determine what positive role they can play.

Closing in on Trump: ��TV expert weighs in on latest developments in the Russian probe

ullahnor — Tue, 17 Apr 2018 14:13:52 +0000

Closing in on Trump: ��TV expert weighs in on latest developments in the Russian probe

ullahnor Tue, 04/17/2018 - 10:13

Cutline

The raid on the records of Michael Cohen, U.S. President Donald Trump's personal lawyer, has raised new questions about the possibility of an indictment or impeachment of the president (photo by Yana Paskova/Getty Images)

Noreen Ahmed-Ullah

Topic

Global Lens

Donald Trump

Faculty of Arts & Science

Global

History

Humanities

Munk School of Global Affairs & Public Policy

With last week's raid on the records of Michael Cohen, U.S. President Donald Trump's personal lawyer, there is heightened speculation about the possibility of indicting or impeaching the president.

There's also much to consider about Trump's own options as he's openly contemplated the idea of striking first. He could fire U.S. special counsel Robert Mueller, who is heading the investigation into Russia's involvement in the 2016 presidential election, or deputy attorney general Rod Rosenstein, who oversees the probe.

Either scenario could lead to a constitutional crisis, said Robert Bothwell, a professor of history and international relations in the Faculty of Arts & Science and the Munk School of Global Affairs. There are constitutional questions about whether a sitting president can be indicted. Nor is it clear whether Trump could actually have Mueller fired. Bothwell said there would first need to be a change in public opinion or the “defections” of about two dozen congressional Republicans.

“My educated guess is that at some point Trump will get out of control. He will panic, and do something counter-productive,” Bothwell told ��TV News. “So if we have a raving Trump out in public, even the shameless Republicans in Congress might reflect that this is not what they want from a U.S. president.”

Do you think we’re close to a Trump indictment?

Mueller has been very cautious. The question is: Who is next to be indicted. If it’s the lawyer, Michael Cohen, that would be remarkably quick work, but they may have been preparing for this long in advance of last week’s raid on him. If it’s the president, or really anybody very important, Rosenstein has to sign off on it. There would then be a constitutional crisis.

Or, Trump fires Mueller. That probably, but not as certainly, would also produce a constitutional crisis. At least that’s what the opposition keeps saying. For it to happen, there would have to be some defections among the congressional Republicans, or a really big change in public opinion. It would have to be enough to move Trump’s enablers among the congressional Republicans. We are looking at a minimum of 25 defections.

The crisis would probably hinge on the question of whether the president is above the law, i.e. cannot be indicted but only impeached. U.S. constitutionalists are split on the issue, so the effect would be a prolonged argument taking much time, while an urgent crisis bubbles.

Either action deepens the case for obstruction of justice, and both raise the question of whether the president is above the law. The framers of the constitution left only one way of expelling the president from office – impeachment – and the question is: Does that provision absolve him from the ordinary workings of the law while he's in office? (Gerald Ford’s pardon of Richard Nixon in 1974 prevented an actual prosecution in the regular courts, so there does not seem to be any doubt that the president can be criminally liable after leaving office – one reason, perhaps, why Trump would want to stay in the White House as long as possible.) So, is the president above the law or exempt from the law while in office?

My educated guess is that at some point Trump will get out of control. He will panic, and do something counter-productive. Let’s say Cohen is indicted – that might do it. He was pretty close last week after the raid on Cohen. So if we have a raving Trump out in public, even the shameless Republicans in Congress might reflect that this is not what they want from a U.S. president. Even the pointless – but showy – air raid on Syria, with plenty of advance notice to the Russians so they could have the Assadists move their chemical production ingredients, evoked cries of “wag the dog,” and soon it will be common opinion that Trump talks big but does little, and that his foreign policy shows are just that – show.

Along with Trump firing Mueller there's also speculation he may fire Rod Rosenstein or Attorney General Jeff Sessions. What is the likelihood of that versus firing Mueller?

That’s more of a question for a psychologist than a historian. Trump’s original firing of [former FBI director James] Comey in 2017 seems to me both impulsive and fearful. And it had disastrous results for Trump. So since then he has been held back by the fear that a similar action might blow up in his face. The trouble is if a greater fear comes along. The evidence is, Trump does seem to be strongly motivated by fear of “some” things. One of those things is the “salacious” parts of the famous dossier [of Christopher Steele, the former British spy who raised the possibility that Trump may be vulnerable to Kremlin blackmail], to which he returned several times in his conversations with Comey – is that connected to his unvarying deference to Putin? What has he got to hide?

Can you explain why Trump would be more worried about the Cohen investigation than the Mueller one?

This raises the fear question again. Cohen seems to have had tapes and files. With tapes, Trump may be on them. With files, might they not bear on Trump’s financial involvement with Russia or Russians? And then there is Cohen’s putative trip to Prague. If that actually occurred, and there seems to be some evidence that it did, it would confirm an important assertion in the dossier of Christopher Steele, who asserts that Putin has or very likely has compromising information on Trump.

Martin Luther King, 50 years after his assassination: George Elliott Clarke on how to carry on the movement

ullahnor — Wed, 04 Apr 2018 17:45:13 +0000

Martin Luther King, 50 years after his assassination: George Elliott Clarke on how to carry on the movement

ullahnor Wed, 04/04/2018 - 13:45

Cutline

American civil rights leader Martin Luther King addresses crowds in 1963 during the March On Washington at the Lincoln Memorial, where he gave his "I have a dream" speech (photo by Central Press/Getty Images)

Noreen Ahmed-Ullah

Topic

Global Lens

Donald Trump

George Elliott Clarke

Global

Race

U.S.

Fifty years after the assassination of Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., George Elliott Clarke, a professor in the University of Toronto's department of English and Canada's former parliamentary poet laureate, reflects on the civil rights leader's legacy.

He says that even as Americans and Canadians today consider King's “I have a dream speech,” we need to embrace the message behind the words and launch another mass movement for change.

“You need to have a grassroots movement of the type that King inspired, a mass movement that would bring together Black Lives Matter, #MeToo, folks opposed to wanton gun violence,” said Clarke (pictured right).

“That would be the real legacy of Dr. King – to have that kind of mass movement sparked and active right now.”

What is Rev. Martin Luther King's legacy? Where are we today with race relations?

As we look at 50 years, half a century since the assassination of Dr. King, I think that just as we often celebrate the “I Have a Dream speech,” it’s really important to focus on his entire legacy.

It was a legacy rooted in the struggle for liberation and also involving concepts that he borrowed from Mahatma Gandhi, in terms of Mr. Gandhi’s successful drive to achieve independence for India and simultaneously Pakistan when those two nations were born out of the beginning-of-the-end of British imperialism.

It is very significant that Dr. King adopted the strategy of non-violent mass resistance and civil disobedience from Mahatma Gandhi in order to encourage millions of African-Americans, especially those in the south of the United States, to struggle for their basic human rights and their civil liberties. Because of that, he was able to lead a successful revolution. He was able to move masses of African-Americans from a state of near peonage, from a state of being violently oppressed via police and other instruments of state power into positions of equality, greater power, dignity and decency.

King’s movement also succeeded in getting the Voting Rights Act passed in 1965. He made it possible for more African-Americans to aspire to equality for opportunity, to be able to apply for jobs in whatever field they thought they were qualified, and progress, ascend, move into management, become professionals and become owners of various enterprises. I don’t think it’s possible to understate the magnificence of that achievement. He made it possible for African-Americans to elect governors and senators, and representatives in Congress who reflected their heritage, race, or were respectful of their needs and desires as voters, and in that way made it possible for African-Americans to feel truly a part of the American republic.

His movement was revolutionary, and he did liberate millions of people from peonage, slavery-like conditions, from experiences of inhumane treatment, attacks on their dignity making it possible for them to dream of rising as high as their talent would allow them to, including becoming eventually president of the United States. In all of history, not many people get the right to call themselves liberators.

Like Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King is one of the very few who can talk about liberating people. It is one thing to become the leader of the country, to be a prime minister, president or king or dictator for that matter. It is another thing to move millions of people from conditions of pseudo-enslavement to the possibility of living decent lives with the opportunity of economic advancement and even attaining social prestige. King achieved all that. It cannot be understated. He is a true hero for anyone interested in liberating people from conditions of poverty, illiteracy and oppression.

At the same time, at the point of his death he was organizing what became known as “Resurrection City.” The radical idea was that poor people, black, brown, white, yellow from across the U.S. would descend upon Congress and physically occupy the monuments, the buildings in order to impress upon legislators that they needed to have resources redirected from the Vietnam War to uplift millions of Americans from positions of poverty to middle class status. Some scholars believe that it was because of King’s radical agenda in the spring of 1968 that he was eventually assassinated. There are still questions about how James Earl Ray received the money and weapons to carry out the assassination and the connivance perhaps of various branches or a branch of the U.S. government that permitted or encouraged the assassination to take place.

I do think it is important to remember that King did not die simply as a liberal speaker of liberal nostrum of equality and dignity and humanity, but he died as a champion of freedom and equality of poor people. He was simply a Christian humanist who really tried to put those principles into play in a society that viewed itself as being about Judeo-Christian values and humanitarian values. At the time he was struck down by an assassin’s bullet, he was challenging that and calling people to task for their hypocrisy.

Martin Luther KIng (third from left) and other civil right leaders during the March on Washington on Aug. 28, 1963 (photo by AFP/Getty Images)

Have we realized King's dream of racial equity?

King realized some success in terms of opening up the American political process to a more African-American representation, which meant that we finally had a chance to put a lot more Black people in Congress, have a lot more Black people become senators and governors, and even president. He also made it possible for more Black Americans to become middle class, to become professionals, to build businesses. But to a certain extent, the agenda of equality was also short-circuited by the apparent success of the civil rights movement.

Because folks could see there was visible change, it was possible for people to say, “OK, we have accomplished King’s dream. We’ve gotten there. We’ve made it to the promised land.” At the same time that that’s true, there is persistent inequality, underemployment, unemployment, as well as racist behaviours, especially on the part of police forces versus Black youths and Black men in particular. It might sound incendiary, but if you’re a Black American – especially Black male, especially young Black male – and you do not feel that you have the right to move unhindered and unhampered through a city street, drive down a particular road, buy a house wherever you might be able to afford, or aspire to ascend in whatever institution or organization in which you find employment, and if you feel like your life is in constant jeopardy because someone might feel that you are not where you are supposed to be and they can get away with shooting you – whether it’s an armed citizen or a police officer – then you’re still living in a police state.

This is where the teachings of Malcolm X continue to haunt the dream of Martin Luther King Jr.

While it’s extremely important to have that dream, and work for that dream, I think it’s also important to maintain a degree of Malcolm X realism, that some people who have power and privilege don’t want to give it up and are quite prepared to continue to oppress others “by any means necessary” in order to maintain their own hegemony, their own high status within society. For that reason because of the entrenchment of notions of white supremacy, including the idea that Black people should not be permitted to occupy high office, earn high employment or enjoy high status outside of stereotypical entertainment and sports, it has left people feeling they are still in an unequal position. Keeping in mind that the election of someone who seems to be as president of the United States, quite OK with notions of white nationalism or white supremacy or simple racism against African-Americans, Latinos, Muslims – 50 years after King’s assassination this should also suggest that the dream of real equality and real liberty for all has not yet been achieved.

I would say this is a terrific moment now as we focus on this anniversary, especially for Americans of all backgrounds, to think about rekindling a mass movement that would bring together anti-sexist, anti-homophobic, pro-environmentalist, the anti-gun lobby, progressives and everyday citizens in the United States to turf out all the politicians who represent a backward, regressive, inhumane, environmentally destructive agenda. Vote them all out. Clean house and do it while chanting, “Remember Dr. King, Remember Dr. King.” In order to do that, you need to have a mass movement. You need to have a grassroots movement of the type that King inspired, a mass movement that would bring together Black Lives Matter, #MeToo, the folks opposed to wanton gun violence.

That would be the real legacy of Dr. King to have that kind of mass movement sparked and active right now. If anybody really want to get rid of what people consider regressive backward Republicans, they need to start educating the electorate now.

How should we embrace his message now, especially with the rise of white supremacists?

Look, the whole planet went through 500 years of white European control from the beginning of the 16th century to the beginning of the 21st century. That European Caucasian control of the entire planet, economically, politically and militarily, it had to include notions of white supremacy. Even though many nations are now free of obvious European control and are able to enjoy more self-determination, it doesn’t mean that the underlying ideology of white supremacy has disappeared. It’s still here. We see it in terms of carding here in Toronto where police officers want to stop somebody who happens to be brown or Black, and ask them to explain why they are where they are. This is because of the white supremacist view that Black people especially shouldn’t be able to enjoy freedom of mobility. Even though slavery is long over, it doesn’t mean the attitude that Black people should not be able to move freely has disappeared.

Same with stopping people for driving the wrong kind of car or living in the wrong kind of neighbourhood. The idea behind those notions, right here in Toronto, right here in Canada, is that Black and brown people should be poor. They should have to always justify their possessions, whether it’s an expensive car, expensive house or expensive neighbourhood by essentially demonstrating that we’ve been permitted to have these items because we’re understood to be OK, because otherwise we should be somebody’s employee, somebody’s peon, we should be somebody’s “slave.” Those attitudes, even though they’re not often voiced, still persist in our society. Canada, like the United States, was a slave-holding society. Just because we got rid of slavery, or the British Empire did in 1834, doesn’t mean that the attitudes that supported slavery disappeared. They’re still there. Just like the attitudes that oppressed Indigenous people. Residential schools may be long gone – that does not mean that the attitudes that allowed for residential schools have disappeared. Even though there may be physical advancement, progress, people are not walking around in chains anymore, people aren’t forced at gunpoint to do this or that, it doesn’t mean the underlying attitudes have disappeared.

That’s the struggle that exists now. If we really want to have real liberty and real equality, we have to overthrow all these notions that justify white privilege and white power.

I value being in Canada. I value the multicultural nature of our society, and I think we are going to become more and more multicultural, more and more hybrid, a Métis society. I think that is our future, a beautiful future that we need to nurture and protect, especially since the country adjacent to us seems to be going rapidly in the wrong direction.

Donald Trump

Influx of right-wing users led to much greater Reddit polarization before 2016 U.S. election: ����TV study

Republican Party needs to wage ‘internal war’ on conspiracy theories: ����TV’s Ryan Hurl

Social media's decision to dump Trump too little, too late: ����TV's Megan Boler

How a researcher at ����TV's Citizen Lab helped ID Capitol Hill rioters: Toronto Star

Read more about John Scott-Railton in the Toronto Star

����TV expert calls Capitol Hill violence an ‘extremely disturbing challenge to American democracy’

����TV researcher on how media coverage of Trump's cognitive exam may have compromised test itself

Time for a digital detox? ����TV expert training journalists for the ‘fake news’ era

‘Don’t expect any form of denuclearization quickly’: ����TV expert on Trump's North Korean deal

Closing in on Trump: ����TV expert weighs in on latest developments in the Russian probe

Martin Luther King, 50 years after his assassination: George Elliott Clarke on how to carry on the movement

Influx of right-wing users led to much greater Reddit polarization before 2016 U.S. election: ��TV study

Republican Party needs to wage ‘internal war’ on conspiracy theories: ��TV’s Ryan Hurl

Social media's decision to dump Trump too little, too late: ��TV's Megan Boler

How a researcher at ��TV's Citizen Lab helped ID Capitol Hill rioters: Toronto Star

��TV expert calls Capitol Hill violence an ‘extremely disturbing challenge to American democracy’

��TV researcher on how media coverage of Trump's cognitive exam may have compromised test itself

Time for a digital detox? ��TV expert training journalists for the ‘fake news’ era

‘Don’t expect any form of denuclearization quickly’: ��TV expert on Trump's North Korean deal

Closing in on Trump: ��TV expert weighs in on latest developments in the Russian probe