Hypocrisy much?

Dan Rather and Elliot Kirschner are shocked the Rs would repeat the phrase, "Let's Go Brandon". Did they object to what Rashida Tlaib said about Trump or what Robert De Niro said to a standing ovation? Will they voice similar concerns about groups affiliated with the Ds, like Sunshine. Perhaps they allow people to use the actual vulgar terms but not euphemisms. Or, maybe they allow Ds to be vulgar but not Rs.

Is the WSJ Editorial Board a group of racists who support vigilantes?

An earlier post called the outrage over what Tucker Carlson said about vigilantism a sham and a shame. I wonder if an editorial by the WSJ will generate the same reaction. Here are the first and last paragraphs of the editorial.

"The violent protests of the last three months in Portland, Ore., escalated on Saturday night into a right-left confrontation that resulted in one man shot dead in the streets. This is what happens when political leaders fail to perform the most basic responsibility of government to protect innocent lives and property.

...

"Vigilantism isn’t the cause of the current urban violence, but it could become one result of the failure to control violence. Americans have watched for weeks as rioters burned and looted businesses that people spent a lifetime building. Yet mayors like Ted Wheeler have let it happen. Inevitably, average citizens will move to defend themselves if elected officials won’t protect them. The proper place to do that is at the ballot box, however, not in the streets with guns."

Stating that "average citizens will move to defend themselves" is a more restrained way of asking "[h]ow shocked are we that 17-year olds with rifles decided they had to maintain order ... ?"

Is Tucker Carlson a racist who supports vigilantes?

The uproar over what Tucker Carlson said after a teenager allegedly shot and killed two people and shot and wounded a third is a shame and a sham. Here is what he said.

"Kenosha devolved into anarchy because the authorities abandoned the people. Those in charge, from the governor on down, refused to enforce the law. They’ve stood back and watched Kenosha burn." (Tweet, almost verbatim transcript.)

"Are we really surprised that looting and arson accelerated to murder? How shocked are we that 17-year olds with rifles decided they had to maintain order when no one else would?"

Reaction has been severe. Folks says that Carlson justifies or defends the shooter. Robert Reich says “If they don’t take action after this, every one of Fox News’s executives, directors, and advertisers is complicit in Tucker Carlson’s racist, murderous rants."

I see a difference between what Carlson says and a justification, defense, or racist murderous rant. I see a prediction that 17-year olds with rifles decide to maintain order when the government does not. If saying that people steal more when no one stops them does not justify or defend the thief. Nor does saying that more people defend their property themselves when the government fails to protect the property justify or defend the vigilante. Neither response is surprising because the response is predictable. Neither statement justifies or defends the response. 

I suspect that what Reich says about Carlson is a despicable attempt to attract eyeballs; Carlson does not mention race during the segment and takes care to proclaim both that he does not have all the facts and that a trial will determine whether or not the shootings were murder. Reserving judgement is neither racist nor murderous.  

Carlson is no angel here. The headline, "Two people killed in riots", makes the riots appear to be the cause of death. In fact, the allegation is that a vigilante killed two people. That the vigilante was responding to the riots does not make the riots the cause of death.

Discussing the consequences of violent protests and the governments reaction or lack of reaction to them is an important component of a meaningful analysis of the impact of defunding the police and reforming policing. We need more meaningful analysis of the impacts, not partisan narratives.

Should we "follow the science?"

The emphasis by some politicians and reporters that public policy should follow the science is a shame and a sham. By following the science, they mean implementing policies that Dr. Fauci and others who study rates of infection, hospitalizations, ICU and ventilator usage, and deaths from COVID-19 recommend. If these expert scientists tell us that imposing shutdowns, masks, or other dictates would save some level of lives because the rates exceed some level, "following the science" means that the politicians would follow the recommendation and impose the recommended shutdowns, masks, or other dictates. This singular focus on the adverse impacts of COVID-19 ignores the reality that the implementing the recommendations imposes its own costs. What happens to current income when the government commands people not to work? What happens to learning and future incomes when the government commands students to learn remotely? What happens to death rates from other diseases? What happens to rates of depression and suicide now and in the future? This sample of questions shows that anyone trying to determine the best response to COVID-19 should balance many competing priorities.

I agree that the "most elemental duty of the politician [is] the balancing of competing priorities." Politicians who say or imply that that COVID-19 is the only priority shirk their most elemental duty. For reporters not to press them to ask about how they balance competing priorities stifles the honest and difficult debate we need.  

Trump claims mail-in voting leads to voter fraud without evidence

The repeated editorial comment by the media that Trump fails to present evidence to support his claim that mail-in voting leads to voter fraud or that the claim is unsubstantiated is a shame and a sham. Any sentient human knows fraud occurs. It also understands that mail-in ballots are more prone to fraud than in-person voting. Moreover, substantial evidence exists that fraud occurs. See this report by Politico, this database complied by the Heritage Foundation, this academic study of voting by non-citizens, and the recent problems with and abuses of mail-in and absentee ballots in New York, North Carolina and New Jersey. 

Commentators can argue about whether fraud is widespread or not and how many outcomes it affects. The argument is constrained because we don't know how much fraud occurs. We don't know because we don't examine many elections or ballots closely. Prosecutors have little reason to investigate unless the fraud is egregious or obvious. Moreover, if the "right" candidate won the prosecutor may not want to investigate. Not finding fraud when no one is looking for it does not prove that fraud does not exist. 

Is Biden's claim about masks accurate?

I fear that Biden's claim about the efficacy of wearing masks and the media's complacency in reporting it are both shams and and shames. Biden claimed that "The estimates by the experts are that it [mandatory mask wearing] will save over 40,000 lives in the next three months." A quick Google search reveals no support for the claim. The search does reveal that in June the IHME forecast that wearing masks would save 33,000 by October. Perhaps Biden rounded up and presumed that the mandate would make people go back in time to change their behavior retroactively. Otherwise, how would wearing masks for three months save 40,000 lives when wearing them for five months would save only 33,000?

Compounding the exaggeration is the lack of any attempt that I have seen by the media to press him on the basis for his recommendation. The media stresses the inability of Trump to "follow the science" and repeats endlessly that he makes statements "without evidence". What is the science that says wearing masks for the next three months would save 40,000 lives? What evidence did he provide to support his claim other a vague reference to "experts"? The media mocks Trump when he says, "people say". Saying "experts say" is no better.

What is Russia trying to do?

What we are hearing about Russian interference in the 2020 election is a sham and a shame. I don't know whether to blame the intelligence reports or the news media. Here is what AP reports:

"Just weeks into this year’s election cycle, Russia already is actively interfering in the U.S. presidential campaign in hopes of reelecting President Donald Trump, and is also trying to help the candidacy of Sen. Bernie Sanders on the Democratic side, intelligence officials have concluded.

The Russian efforts are aimed at undermining public confidence in the integrity of U.S. elections and stirring general chaos in American politics, intelligence experts say" (https://apnews.com/1398cc440971a3f39d95346a875d3726, 21 Feb 2020).

I suspect that the second paragraph is accurate. I am confident that "the Russian efforts are aimed at undermining public confidence in the integrity of U.S. elections and stirring general chaos in American politics." The best way to undermine confidence and to stir chaos is to focus on non-traditional candidates with a core of fervent followers. Therefore putting out disinformation that is favorable to Trump or Sanders is probably the best way to undermine confidence and to stir chaos.

However, I challenge the statements in the first paragraph. No one knows who Russia hopes wins the nominations or elections. To claim otherwise is speculation. Moreover, the first paragraph contradicts itself. It  states that the goal is to help reelect Donald Trump and also to help Bernie Sanders. Unless having Bernie be the Democratic nominee helps Trump win the election, the two goals in the first paragraph are not the same.  

Holman Jenkins of the WSJ makes my point more emphatically. "We are idiots if we think the Russians are asking themselves what they can do to advance Trump’s cause. The Kremlin is asking how to keep American politics roiled and distrustful. ... The real upside of Russia’s meddling comes from keeping Americans unreasonably and unnecessarily poisoned against each other."

I see two possibilities for why the media keeps repeating something they cannot know. The first possibility is that the news media is not thinking. Instead, they are repeating a narrative about Trump and Russia without recognizing that the account is speculative and internally inconsistent. The second possibility is that the news media is repeating phrases from an intelligence briefing or a leak from a briefing and do not want to stray from the language of the source. The first possibility tells me that the news media is being lazy. The second possibility tells me that the intelligence agency or person describing the report is putting "spin" on the facts.

We need truth today. We need facts unvarnished with spin or narrative. We need reporters who say what they know and who refrain from speculating about things they can't know and from repeating mindlessly an what someone leaking a confidential report said was in the report.

Note: Reference to Holman Jenkins is a revision to the original post.

Where is the outrage?

The coverage of the FBI's abuse of FISA to obtain a warrant to spy on Carter Page is a sham and a shame. The Horowitz report "identified at least 17 significant errors or omissions in the Carter Page FISA applications and many errors in the Woods Procedures" and "at least 19 references to the status quo’s threat to 'constitutionally protected activity,' notably the 'First Amendment.'” The FISA court found the report so troubling that it issued a rare public order for the FBI to report soon what it is doing to prevent making mistakes in the future. The Horowitz report also notes that it failed to find "documentary or testimonial evidence” of anti-Trump bias. Both the finding so many mistakes and the lack of finding bias deserve more attention. Here are questions I would try to answer if I were a reporter.

1. Is four mistakes per application typical? The 17 mistakes for Carter Page occurred over four applications.
2. Can the public rely on the FISA court to preserve our liberties?
3. Has the time come to eliminate FISA and stop the FBI and CIA from spying on US citizens without "normal" warrants?
4.  How many of the mistakes in the applications for Carter Page favored getting the warrants and how many worked against getting it? I presume that the answer is 17 to 0 in the next question.
5. What is the probability that all 17 mistakes favored getting the application if the probability of one mistake favoring the application is 50%. Answer = 1/131072 = 0.000007629394531 = 0.0007629394531%.
6. Is such a low probability of making so many of the mistakes in favor of getting the warrants more consistent with systematic political bias or lack of anti-Trump bias?

The lack of attention in the news media to the  abuse of FISA by FBI is shocking. If we cannot rely on the FBI to play carefully and straight then FISA cannot protect our Constitutional rights. I fear that loss of those rights is too great a price to pay for whatever benefits we are getting.

I am surprised at the lack of attention to the preponderance of mistakes that favored getting the warrant. Any possibility that political bias leads the FBI to spy on a citizen, much less a politician, strikes at the very heart of a free and fair democracy.

Media Coverage of Russian Interference in the 2016 Election

The media's coverage of Russia's interference in the 2016 election is a sham and a shame. I fault the press for not doing more to explain the overlapping goals that the Russians may have had. I also fault the press for not doing more to tell us details about the about number of ads, number in favor of Trump, number against Trump, number neutral, how the intelligence agencies determined the numbers, and how the researchers for the press determined the numbers. 

I see two narratives of the interference, the narrative I think is accurate and the narrative that predominates in the media. My narrative is that the primary goals of the interference Russia was to increase political and social discord in the US and to create mud to throw at us when we claim that their elections are rigged.  The narrative that predominates in the media has three legs. "The Russian government interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential election with the goal of (1) harming the campaign of Hillary Clinton, (2) boosting the candidacy of Donald Trump, and (3) increasing political and social discord in the United States" (number for items in list added). My preferred narrative focuses the third leg on for two reasons. First, since achieving the first two goals was the best way to achieve the third goal, the third goal is subsumes the first two. Second, the third goal is consistent with more of the ads run by Russia. 

The best way to sow political and social discord is to appeal to marginalized voters, attack presumptive winners, and foment dissent with the process for people who favor marginalized candidates. Ads that disparage H. Clinton, promote Trump, appeal to far right voters. attempt to suppress votes by African Americans are great ways to sow political and social discord. Ads in favor of Jill Stein, the Green party candidate, and Bernie Sanders, a candidate for the Democratic nomination, and ads that contradicted ads that people say favored Trump or disparaged H. Clinton can also increase discord by are not consistent with the narrative that the goal of was to harm the campaign of Hillary Clinton and to boost the candidacy of Donald Trump. I have trouble understanding how targeting "users who had shown interest in particular topics, including black history, the Black Panther Party and Malcolm X" helps elect Trump. Ongoing disinformation efforts seem to me to be more consistent with my narrative that a narrative that includes electing Trump as a goal.

My preferred narrative includes a fourth goal. I think that Russia also wanted to throw mud on our election so that they could reply, "Pot, don't call the kettle black", when we complain that their elections are rigged. All of the ads mentioned above and the release of the email messages from the DNC are consistent with this fourth goal. What better way to create discord and evidence of rigged elections that to release emails from the DNC that disparage groups of voters or demonstrate that the DNC had their thumb on the scale in favor of H. Clinton and against Bernie Sanders. 

I fault the press for not doing more to explain the overlapping goals that the Russians may have had. I recognize that a simple story is easier to sell and that, "Russians wanted Trump to win", is simpler that "Russians wanted to sow discord and ads for Trumps and to marginalized groups is a great way to sow discord". However, selling simple stories is not great journalism. Telling a complex story simply is.

I recognize that my preferred narrative differs from summary from US government intelligence agencies. The agencies speak of sabotage and trying to help Trump win the election, not sowing discord and throwing mud. The report released by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and "produced by the CIA, the FBI, the NSA, and the ODNI, asserted that Russia had carried out a massive cyber operation ordered by Russian President Putin with the goal to sabotage the 2016 U.S. elections. The agencies concluded that Putin and the Russian government tried to help Trump win the election by discrediting Hillary Clinton and portraying her negatively relative to Trump, ... The report contained no information about how the data was collected and provided no evidence underlying its conclusions." Moreover, In May 2018, the Senate Intelligence Committee stated that, "Our staff concluded that the [intelligence community's] conclusions were accurate and on point. The Russian effort was extensive, sophisticated, and ordered by President Putin himself for the purpose of helping Donald Trump and hurting Hillary Clinton."

I have three possible responses to the summary from the intelligence agencies. The first response is that they may be correct and I may be wrong. Perhaps electing Trump was the real purpose of the Russian interference rather than a means to the real purpose of sowing discord. The second response is that the overlap between the goals is so substantial that figuring out which one is "correct" is pointless. The third response is that the agencies mis-characterized the interference. Intelligence agencies are not infallible; after all, these folks were sure that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Perhaps impartial observers would see so much evidence of interference that is NOT consistent with an attempt to elect Trump that they would conclude that an attempt to sow discord and to create mud is the best explanation for the actions. The Nation reports that the common narrative exaggerates the sophistication and misstates the apparent goal of the Russian disinformation.

I fault the news media for failing to press the intelligence agencies to learn more about how they reached the summary. The report released by the intelligence agencies did NOT present evidence. Why didn't the news media press them to provide evidence Better yet, why didn't a news agency conduct an independent investigation. News agencies studied intensively the votes in Florida after the 2000 election; why not the Russian ads in the 2016 election? No one knows if the ads ran 99 for Trump to 1 for Clinton or 50 for Trump, 20 for Stein, to 20 for Sanders, to 10 for Clinton. No one knows how they counted ads that prompted a rally to protest police violence against African Americans.

Press coverage of Baghdadi

Rolling Stone opines that the coverage of the death of Baghdadi in the news media is a sham and a shame.

Where is Walter Cronkite when we need him?

Too much news coverage of politics is a sham and a shame.