Mediaboss Marketing

I watched this entire Harvard webinar today: Dismantling disinformation. It is described below:

Weve all seen the perils of disinformation. But how do we combat it? This panel will explore concrete proposals for dismantling disinformation in communities, on social media, and through public policy and regulation. Well bring together experts from multiple fields including communication, education, behavioral psychology, and First Amendment law to tackle an issue that could well shape the future of public health. This is a conversation about solutions, and the role each of us can play in limiting the impact of false content.

Here are a few items of information that I picked up:

MODERATORBrandy ZadroznySenior Reporter, NBC News

Vineet AroraDean for Medical EducationThe University of Chicago Pritzker School of Medicine

Raven BaxterDirector of Diversity InitiativesUniversity of California, Irvine, School of Biological Sciences

Rene DiRestaResearch ManagerStanford Internet Observatory

Nabiha SyedCEO of The Markup and Fellow at Yale Law School

Eric Holdeman is a contributing writer for Emergency Management magazine and is the former director of the King County, Wash., Office of Emergency Management.

Read the rest here:
The Perils of Misinformation and Disinformation - Government Technology

Last week, readers heard from the Democratic candidates for the Third Congressional District (CD3) race. Now, its time to hear from the Republican incumbent, Representative Lauren Boebert, and GOP challenger, Don Coram. The Sopris Sun got the chance to ask a few questions of these Republican candidates.

Representative Boebert is nearing the end of her first term in office her first bout in politics and is determined for a second.

Q: What do you consider were your greatest accomplishments during your first term?

I kept my promise and fought the good fight, Rep. Boebert began. In Congress, Ive done exactly what I said I was going to do in my Contract with Colorado that I introduced when I first ran for office. Ive put America first.

She continued, Ive provided better care for veterans, fought federal land grabs and kept my oath to defend the Constitution including the Second Amendment. Ive fought the deep state. Ive worked to bring free market reforms to reduce health care prices in rural Colorado. Ive stood for life. Ive fought globalists. Ive introduced real solutions to the Biden border crisis. Ive supported American energy. Ive voted against tax increases. Ive voted against raising the national debt. Ive supported school choice and Ive held myself accountable to the people of Colorado. Ive never wavered in my beliefs once, and Ive always voted with my conscience. What you see is what you get and Ive stayed true to my rural Colorado roots.

Q: Are there aspects to serving in congress you can improve upon?

My only regret in Congress is that there are only 24 hours in a day. I wish I could spend all day, every day meeting people across CD3 to take all of your stories to Congress. I have spent countless days traveling across CD3 and I have met some of the most amazing people in the world from veterans who have incredible stories about sacrificing for our country to law enforcement officers courageously protecting our communities; from teachers working to train up the next generation to a single mom working two jobs to support her kids. I truly believe that I represent the best group of people in the entire country and I only hope that I am worthy of the trust they have placed in me. Not a day goes by that I am not humbled by the responsibility they have given me and I hope to do well by them.

Q: Congress is divided and gets little accomplished. What have you done to fix this? And, what would you continue to do?

As a member of the minority, I speak up as loudly as I can to make sure bad bills and bad policies are exposed and opposed.

For example, said Rep. Boebert, [President] Joe Biden was fully prepared to hand out $450,000 to illegal immigrants until I spoke up about it and introduced a bill. Because of my public pressure campaign, they dropped this proposal.

She continued, Ive been laying the groundwork for a Republican majority, introducing bills that will help get the country back on track, put a stop to the woke madness that is infiltrating everything from our military to womens sports, get our fiscal house in order, deliver solutions for CD3 and get the government off the backs of our citizens so they can live free and prosper.

Q: What are your top three goals, should you be elected to another term?

No. 1, Fulfill my oath to protect the Constitution from any and all threats posed to it by the Biden administration. I successfully led the charge to stop the Disinformation Governance Board from infringing on our First Amendment rights and I am ready to fight future unconstitutional power grabs.

Second, Advocate for policies that matter most to rural Colorado, like passing my Active Forest Management, Wildfire Prevention, and Community Protection Act [introduced July 1, 2021] to mitigate the risk of wildfires to our communities, increase resources for rural communities by reinvesting forestry revenue into local priorities and improve the ecological health of our forests. Additionally, Id like to pass my I-70 Detour Act [introduced April 14] to study alternatives to I-70 through the Glenwood Canyon and prevent closures, reduce traffic for local communities and increase Colorados emergency preparedness.

Lastly, Be a leading voice for conservative policies. When Republicans take back the House in November, many RINOs [Republicans in name only] will backtrack on their promises to voters and start legislating like [Senator] Mitch McConnell. I was appointed to the Future of American Freedoms Task Force to make sure that Republicans have our plans in order for when we take back the House. I will work as hard as I can to hold others accountable and make sure that we keep our promise to legislate like conservatives.

Don Coram announced his candidacy for CD3 in January 2022. He brings with him over a decade of experience legislating from Colorados General Assembly.

Q: What led you to become a candidate for CD3?

Well Ive lived a long time, thats the first thing; and you get a lot of experience if you live long enough. Coram grew up on a farm and ranch operation in Montrose County and later built upon his fathers livestock business.

I got involved in politics several years ago, he told The Sopris Sun. Frustrated with the direction the Republican Party was taking, he decided to participate and was appointed as second vice-chair of the Montrose County Republican Central Committee. In that role, he helped Scott Tipton run successfully for the Colorado State House of Representatives and later assumed that seat himself when Tipton was elected to represent CD3 in 2010.

Coram went on to the state senate in 2017, representing District 6. The recent redistricting left Coram without a seat and he was encouraged to pursue the congressional position.

Q: Congress is divided and gets little accomplished. What could you do about this?

You need to change the culture. I remember the days lets go back to Ronald Reagan and Tip ONeill, two opposite members but they knew how to work together. You need to work for solutions and not call on Republican or Democrat issues its American solutions that we need to solve. Im a centrist, theres no doubt about it, but center-left and center-right are not too far off.

He continued, Im going to go back to the founding of our nation. In his farewell address, President Washington said, The biggest threat to our young republic [is] excessive partisanship and putting their self interests before the needs of the nation and were right there, right now.

Q: What are your top three goals, should you be elected?

First, To create a coalition of people where we can actually accomplish passing legislation. When its all one party for and one party against, that doesnt work. You need someone that is a negotiator In a good piece of legislation, probably neither party gets everything they want.

Coram said that hes been criticized for negotiating, to which he replies, the signers of the Declaration of Independence took 56 days to get to that resolution; and putting time, effort and work into coming up with resolutions is what I intend to do.

Next, and again pointing out his background in agriculture and natural resources, Coram stated, Im very concerned that if were not careful were looking at a food shortage. He mentioned that his friends in agriculture were paying $2 a gallon for diesel last year compared to $5 a gallon as of late.

Im concerned that a lot of our agricultural producers may not be profitable Im concerned that were going to end up with a lot of farm sales. Weve already got 40% of our produce coming from outside the U.S. borders. Im concerned that well be more reliant on foreign countries for our food and a nation that cannot feed itself cannot survive.

Lastly, I spent 12 years in the General Assembly on ag and natural resources, and water is a big deal. Were looking at the 100-year anniversary of the [Colorado River] Compact and theres going to be some conversations about that. Coram noted that the compact was made during wetter times compared to the current drought. I think its vital that we have someone with some knowledge and background in water to be the voice of Colorado when were talking about that issue.

Boebert and Coram faced off in their first debate in Ignacio outside of Durango on May 26. A subsequent debate has not yet been scheduled. The primary occurs June 28.

See the original post here:
Meet the Republican candidates vying for CD3 nomination - Aspen Daily News

The Department of Homeland Security's announced "pause" of its Disinformation Governance Board, 21 days after creating it as a "national security" measure, probably is itself disinformation.

DHS realizes that its 10-thumbed debut of this boneheaded idea almost doomed it, so the "pause" feigns deliberation while the department plots the DGB's resurrection.

Government pratfalls such as the DGB are doubly useful, as reminders of government's embrace of even preposterous ideas if they will expand its power, and as occasions for progressives to demonstrate that there is no government expansion they will not embrace. Progressives noted approvingly that DHS was putting a disinformation "expert" - a "scholar" - in charge, so science would be applied, including the "science" of sorting disinformation from real information.

Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas's short-lived choice as DGB executive director was Nina Jankowicz. Before becoming, for three weeks, head of the "nonpartisan" (so said the president's press secretary) disinformation board, Jankowicz had a colorful career chastising "Republicans and other disinformers." The contents of Hunter Biden's laptop? "A Trump campaign product," she decreed. Her certitudes are many.

To assuage the anxieties of those uneasy about government bestowing the imprimatur of truthfulness on contested propositions, DHS officials said the disinformation board had no "operational authority or capability," and denounced as a "great misperception" the idea that the board's mission would involve dispelling what it deems unhelpful statements. The White House said the DGB would "prevent" the circulation of disinformation, yet without trying to "adjudicate" truth or falsehood.

Barack Obama, commenting on disinformation and offering a sample of it, recently called himself "pretty close to a First Amendment absolutist" while fondly remembering the Fairness Doctrine (1949-1987) as part of the "framework" that made broadcasting "compatible with democracy." That doctrine allowed the federal government to require broadcast entities - all dependent on federal licenses - to be what government considered fair and balanced.

Using radio spectrum scarcity as an excuse, even before the Fairness Doctrine was created, Republicans running Washington in the late 1920s pressured a New York station owned by the Socialist Party to show "due regard" for other opinions. What regard was "due"? The government knew. So, it prevented the Chicago Federation of Labor from buying a station, saying all stations should serve "the general public."

In 1939, Franklin D. Roosevelt's administration conditioned one station's license renewal on ending anti-FDR editorials. (Tulane Law School professor Amy Gajda's new book, Seek and Hide: The Tangled History of the Right to Privacy, reports that earlier, FDR had "unsuccessfully pushed for a code of conduct for newspapers as part of the Depression-era National Recovery Act and had envisioned bestowing on compliant newspapers an image of a blue eagle as a sort of presidential seal of approval.") John F. Kennedy's Federal Communications Commission harassed conservative radio, and when a conservative broadcaster said Lyndon B. Johnson used the Gulf of Tonkin incident in 1964 as an excuse for Vietnam escalation, the Fairness Doctrine was wielded to force the broadcaster to air a response.

As the Disinformation Governance Board floundered in ignominy, Mayorkas, the DHS secretary, said, "We could have done a better job of communicating what it is and what it isn't." It is ever thus: No progressive ideas are foolish or repellant, although a few are artlessly merchandized.

But to be fair to DHS, it has more employees (240,000) than Richmond, Va., has residents, and there is enough disinformation in circulation to preoccupy all of them. The Manhattan Institute's Brian Riedl offers some examples from the administration that conceived the DGB:

President Joe Biden said the $2.4 trillion Build Back Better spending bill "costs zero dollars." Biden calls today's inflation, which ignited a year before the invasion of Ukraine, "Putin's price hike." Speaking in 2021 about his American Rescue Plan, Biden said, "According to Moody's ... this law alone will create 7 million new jobs." Moody's actually said the law would add 4 million jobs to the 3 million that would be created without the law. Last year, the Biden administration said Moody's predicted "19 million jobs" would be created by the American Jobs Plan. Moody's actually predicted 2.7 million jobs over a 10-year period, with the other 16 million representing the baseline of expected job growth.

If - when - the DHS's "pause" ends and a resuscitated disinformation board buckles down to protecting Americans from falsehoods, it will of course concern itself with only disinformation of foreign origin, the theory being that only this sort threatens national security. The theory will, of course, be disinformation.

We are making critical coverage of the coronavirus available for free. Please consider subscribing so we can continue to bring you the latest news and information on this developing story.

See the original post:
Watch for a return of the ignominious Disinformation Governance Board - Lebanon Reporter

LAWRENCE When a sexual assault survivor tells their story to a journalist, they may have any number of reasons for doing so, but almost certainly not because that reporter would be required to pass the information on to university administrators. Yet Title IX, the landmark gender equality in higher education legislation, has been used to make student and university-affiliated journalists required reporters of sexual assault in an attempt to prevent them from reporting publicly on the issue. A new study from the University of Kansas titled Investigative vs. Mandatory Reporting: Weaponizing Title IX Against Journalists explores such situations and recommends how to avoid such use of the law.

In 2019, National Public Radio and Pro Publica published several articles about sexual assault by faculty at the University of Illinois. Administrators responded by designating affiliated journalists at the Springfield NPR station mandatory reporters. While that may be one of the most high-profile cases, it is not the only situation in which institutions have used Title IX as a way to prevent reporting on sexual assault. That indicates a troubling trend of using the law to cover misdeeds instead of as a way to protect and help survivors, the authors wrote, noting that it could be stopped through legal and policy changes as well as extra-legal practices by journalists.

Genelle Belmas, associate professor of journalism & mass communications, and Harrison Rosenthal, an attorney who recently completed his doctorate in media law at KU, have published their study in the NYU Journal of Legislation and Public Policy.

During the Obama administration, Title IX was expanded to include wide-net requirements of mandatory reporting or responsible employees. Any university employee with such a designation is required to report to supervisors any case of sexual harassment or sexual assault they hear of. While the intent is to ensure cases of abuse are not ignored, it has been used to ensure student journalists or those associated with public media affiliates such as National Public Radio stations do not have anonymity with sources discussing abuse.

It frustrates the purpose and objective of Title IX when its weaponized like this, Rosenthal said. Weve learned it is unfortunately not a unique incident and student journalists especially have been designated mandatory reporters in higher ed and in K-12.

In the Illinois case, the stories still came to public light because of the partnership with Pro Publica, a media outlet not affiliated with any university, unlike roughly two-thirds of National Public Radio affiliates, the authors wrote. In that case, the university was not able to prevent the outlets coverage and did not attempt to do so. However, the designation of NPR affiliates associated with the university represents a troubling effort to keep publicly damaging information from reporting in the media, the authors wrote.

The authors traced how Title IX guidelines both widened reporting and later gave more leeway to those accused of sexual harassment or assault under former President Trumps Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos.

There is nothing stopping universities from implementing these rules on any employees theyd like. The DeVos rules are very clear on that, Belmas said. K-12 rules are also very clear: Everyone reports, but higher ed rules have more leeway on who is a responsible employee.

The authors wrote that there is no blanket policy at American institutions for how they designate which employees are mandatory reporters, though schools in the South tend to use a wide-net approach, while northern schools tend to be narrower. Authors wrote, however, that legislators and universities should do away with the wide-net approach, especially as it applies to student and affiliated journalists.

It is a perfect confluence for an end run around the rules and the intention of the law, Belmas said. If these requirements are in place for journalists, they cannot guarantee anonymity to these students anymore.

Belmas and Rosenthal made several recommendations to prevent misuse of Title IX.

The most effective way to do this would be to amend the law itself, Rosenthal said. That probably will never happen, given the divided, political nature of the country and federal government and what would need to happen to make it a reality.

State governments would have the ability to prevent such tactics, however. Title IX provides states authority to amend their own laws on who is required to be a mandatory reporter. Perhaps the simplest route, the authors wrote, is for institutions to change their own policies on who is a mandatory reporter and ensure that both student and affiliated journalists are not designated as such.

Its as simple as universities knowing this is a problem, and because of that, through the stroke of a pen, saying, We are going to excuse journalists from being mandatory reporters, Rosenthal said. Title IX and the federal government give them the power to make that change.

Whether governments or institutions make legal or policy changes, journalists have options to ensure their reporting on sexual assault or harassment is not stifled, the authors wrote. They can partner with off-campus affiliates such as NPRs work with Pro Publica in the Illinois case. Reporters can also share information via methods universities cannot regulate, such as personal social media accounts or news outlets outside of the universitys purview to bring such information to light. In the meantime, misuse of Title IX is damaging to victims, free press and the public, the authors said.

That is a direct assault on Title IX and the First Amendment. Its subverting a law intended to provide protections for sexual assault survivors, Belmas said. That is very pernicious to me. How dare anyone hide their misdeeds behind the law itself?

Image credit: iStock

The rest is here:
Study recommends how to prevent 'weaponizing' Title IX to cover up sexual assault | The University of Kansas - KU Today

from the better-late-than-ignored-indefinitely dept

Its 2022 and yet we still havent received a nationwide blessing from the countrys top court that recognizes a First Amendment right to record public officials carrying out their public duties. In most cases, this involves cops, whose public activities are far more public than those of most other public servants.

For whatever reason, the Supreme Court has avoided establishing precedent, despite the omnipresence of cameras carried in the pockets of every cell phone owner in America. Cell phone video has proven instrumental in several police misconduct cases, perhaps most importantly in the George Floyd case, where a witness video helped secure a murder conviction for white police officer Derek Chauvin, who knelt on the unarmed Floyds neck for nearly 10 minutes, ending the arrestees life.

Maybe the nations top court is just waiting for a case that it likes. Its had plenty of opportunities to affirm this right but has ignored them. The court that seems poised to overturn nearly 50 years of reproductive rights may just be waiting for a complicated case that allows it to tip its hat to the First Amendment while erecting all sorts of exceptions that make a right-to-record meaningless. The Supreme Courts history as a protector of police, rather than the people they serve, makes it the worst option for the establishment of citizens rights. But its also the only option for people seeking precedent that would force every cop anywhere in the nation to play by the rules.

Until the Supreme Court decides to address this issue, its up to appellate courts to define precedent in the jurisdictions they preside over. This may create a legal patchwork, but at least the patches encompass several states, rather than small jurisdictions within certain states.

Right now, another appellate court is being asked to affirmatively recognize a right to record police officers. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, which presides over Colorado, Kansas, Wyoming, Oklahoma, Utah, and New Mexico is handling a case involving a plaintiff who sued after Colorado police officers prevented him from recording a traffic stop. Here are the details, as reported by Colleen Slevin for the Minneapolis Star Tribune.

In the Colorado lawsuit, Abade Irizarry said he was filming a police traffic stop in the city of Lakewood when he claimed Officer Ahmed Yehia stood in front of the camera to block Irizarry from recording. The officer was on foot shined a flashlight into Irizarrys camera and the camera of another blogger. Then Yehia left the two, got into his cruiser and sped the cruiser toward the two bloggers, the lawsuit said. The cruiser swerved before reaching the bloggers and they were not hit, according to the lawsuit.

The case was heard in federal court in Denver, where a magistrate judge sided with lawyers for Yehia and dismissed it last year, agreeing with Yehias lawyers, who contended the right to record police was not clearly established by the time of the incident in 2019.

Fortunately for Irizarry, he has more than usual rights groups in his corner. None other than the US Department of Justice is advocating on Irizarrys behalf, arguing in favor of citizens right to record. The DOJ filed its own amicus brief last fall. Somehow, despite this being forwarded to the 10th Circuit nearly a year ago, it has yet to issue a ruling. It is just now hearing oral arguments on the case and, again, the DOJ is helping Irizarry out, arguing again that citizens have a right to record police officers.

Natasha Babazadeh, an attorney for the Justice Departments Civil Rights Division, urged a three-judge panel from the court to rule in that filming police is a constitutional right and said there has been an increase in the number of lawsuits filed against police by people saying they could not record them in public.

If the court sides with the plaintiff (and there seems to be little reason why it shouldnt), this would establish a right to record in the Tenth Circuit, bringing the total to seven out of thirteen circuits that have established this right. The addition of this precedent would make it that much more difficult for the Supreme Court to continue ignoring an issue that has been steadily gaining momentum for the past two decades.

Unfortunately, the establishment of a right to record wont do much for this plaintiff. It will probably be argued (successfully) that the lack of precedent did not make it clear officers could not directly impede the plaintiffs efforts to record the traffic stop. This will probably still be the conclusion even though these police officers were on notice as early as 2014 that there was presumptive right to record based on precedent established in other circuits.

But courts should refuse to continue humoring this sort of law enforcement gamesmanship. On one hand, cops love to argue anything that can be seen by passersby has no inherent expectation of privacy. But on the other hand, they argue anything they do that can be witnessed by passersby is somehow more deserving of an expectation of privacy or at least, a large number of restrictions that would allow officers to go about their business with no permanent (outside) record of their actions. This is de facto bullshit and should not be given credence by courts. Hopefully, the Tenth Circuit will establish this right going forward and, in doing so, force the Supreme Court to again take notice of an issue it has chosen to neglect.

Filed Under: 10th circuit, 1st amendment, abade irizarry, ahmed yehia, recording police

Originally posted here:
10th Circuit Appeals Court Asked To Recognize A First Amendment Right To Record Cops - Techdirt