The Journalism Jam. The Problem they Created

Since 2016 the hot button topic throughout news and social media is how the Russians affected the last Presidential Race in favor of the dishonest Donald Trump over the dishonest Hillary Clinton, through their use of BOTS and other algorithms to generate news stories. While that is true (in fact we have ourselves have been involved in many countries elections, trying to sway them into a more favorable outcome. Just during the Obama Administration the United States was deeply involved in the Israeli Election against Netanyahu and the Brexit Vote which we tried to vote down. Both failed.), Russian bots completely infiltrated FACEBOOK as well as TWITTER (reports out earlier this week suggest INSTAGRAM has Russian meddling), we have to ask why and how have BOTS become about.

Sadly we don’t have to far from our own media sources.

WIRED magazine ran a four part series on NEWS WRITING BOTS last February [2017].

In 2013, Amazon Billionaire, Jeff Bezos bought the floundering Washington Post. At the time Bezos had zero journalism experience (and some say still doesn't. But how many owners of companies today really know the businesses they own?) and immediately set out to overhaul the Post. And to be fair has done just that. In three years The Post has exploded and has become more susceptible for the digital age. However here inlies the [beginnings of] the problem.

THE RISE OF BOTS.

Back in 2013 AI-Journalism was in infancy with only a handful of companies actually generating automated content. Producing bare-bones data more useful in the sporting world and for stock analysts. Bezos’s strategists, though, saw something more. Seeing potential for AI systems to begin data mining story ideas in effort to provide a more seamless interaction between humans and computers. And in 2014 started evolving stories in a short period of time.

ENTER HELIOGRAF

Debuting during the RIO OLYMPICS Heliograf began auto-publishing stories that had a stronger editorial voice than some of their writers on staff. Heliograf works like this: Editors create templates for stories using key phrases, which then the AI would generate narratives for whatever potential outcome. This way news outlets could have stories ready to go at a moments notice and be first to publish. Because in today’s age of journalism, it’s not about the accuracy but who’s first with the story that counts. With AI Bots, the potential of constant reversals and gaffs would almost be eliminated. Not only that, news services could tailor their on-line and print media to a larger market by developing stories in every market rather than just a few and not having to employ thousands of journalists to do it. And in the cash strapped world of media this was a win-win.   

As the 2016 Presidential Election came rolling around it was a no brainer for the media to let loose their newest creation for fast stories. And in 2016 the Washington Post was not alone in the AI News game. With the likes of Systems called WIZZBIT, NEWSTRACER, and most noteworthy BUZZBOT. Just to name a few.

In theory, as well [at times] in practice, AI algorithmic prediction tools help journalists gauge the integrity of say a tweet. The technology then scores emerging stories on the basis of “credibility” and “newsworthiness” by evaluating who’s tweeting about it, how it’s spreading across the network, and if nearby users have taken to Twitter to confirm or deny breaking developments, collect any information from on-the-ground sources at news events. The AI then can create short videos, condense news articles into a script, string together a selection of images or video footage, and even add narration with a synthesized newscaster voice.

So it’s no wonder that hackers from the Russia and/or China or North Korea would take great pains in infiltrating this. With AI data mining what people are looking at, a staff of hackers the size of less than a small business office could create thousands of false stories via tweets and social media posts that then the story writing algorithms would generate and post stories.

In the 2012 election it took twenty-five hours for human journalists to compose a small fraction of election results whereas in 2016 AI posted more five hundred articles in the same amount of time. Most of it hit the web with little to no human supervision.

When the news media lives on HOW MANY CLICKS A POST CAN GENERATE and how easy it is for a group of hackers can infiltrate systems (The Democratic Committee and the SONY hack to just name two) no one stopped to say “wait a minute?”

AI is a good tool for writers in media. It can find relevant data far faster than a person can. But replacing PEOPLE with BOTS is both ridiculous and stupid. And until the media and we ourselves figure that out we are store of more and more of this.

In the end, what we [America] called that most needed thing, an unbiased media will, and some says already, be destroyed and burnt to ash.  

Election 2016: Bernie Sanders v The DNC

Apparently the DNC isn't Feeling the Bern.

The Sanders camp filed paperwork on March 26, 2016 to continue their ongoing lawsuit against the Democratic National Committee over the incident from 3 months prior. Bernie Sanders arguing that the DNC barred his campaign unfairly from accessing voter information and how to reach potential democratic voters that is contained in the 50 STATE VOTER FILE that the DNC keeps.

The DNC contends that a campaign staffer for Sanders improperly accessed data that was for the Hillary Clinton campaign. (Sanders officials did admit that the access occurred and that it was done by mistake do to a glitch in the DNC server) Because of this event the DNC suspended the Sanders people from the server and list of voters at a critical time in December. The two groups came to a resolution a day later and Sanders was once again allowed to use the DNC data.

Although it didn't end there.

The Sanders Campaign files suit stating that the Democratic National Committee over reacted and harmed their ability to campaign equally against Clinton's. Also, Sanders lawyers are saying that the DNC is supposed to give notice of suspension prior to acting. Something that Sanders claimed never took place.

Both the DNC and the Sanders Campaign say things are going smoothly between the two, with Marc Paustenbach, the DNC Press Secretary, telling Political that "productive discussions" are under way for a settlement (Sanders is seeking $75,000 in damages) despite the accusations from critics of favoritism of Hillary Clinton and how that Chairwoman, Debbie Wasserman Shlutz, was the 2008 campaign co-chair for Clinton. Sanders' people and supporters also criticize Shlutz of having only 6 Debates between the two candidates and holding most of them on weekends where viewership would be low and would benefit the Clinton Campaign.

Shlutz flatly disputes the accusations, saying in an interveiw with FOX NEWS "There is just no shred of evidence to suggest that I'm favoring Hillary Clinton..." Shlutz goes on to say that if was then she isn't doing a very good job at wrapping up the nomination for Clinton. 

Election 2016: The Business of Politics and the Secret to Trump's Success

Since the turn of the century the mainstay and established GOP powerhouses are slow when it comes to running Presidential elections and from the looks of things 2016 is going to no different.

Back in 2008 the GOP found themselves so focused on the Hillary Clinton Campaign that they failed to take notice or even respect the fact that the rising star of Barack Obama was gaining ground with his ability to organize an army of pavement pounders to get out his message --Even Hillary herself was caught off guard. Despite the fact that his background was community organizer. In the end the GOP ran their standard "trusted" campaign with the McCain nom. To combat Obama and to try to get ahead of their "supposed" war on women (never mind the Clintons' version) lead to the GOP's great faux pas in that of making Sarah Palin the VP choice. 2012, in the end, would be no different despite their wins in the mid-terms, with their pick in the stiff, robotic form of Mitt Romney. The only smart thing they seemed to do back in '12 was try to court the younger vote, break the mold that has been the stagnating the Republicans for two decades that they are old, rich and white with the some what unlikable Paul Ryan (hey, he digs "Rage Against the Machine"). 

Now we turn to 2016. Obama is done. Termed out. who will precede him to the oval office. And the cast of characters couldn't be more vast. Early on the media declared that the race was pretty over and was going to be Jeb Bush v. Hillary Clinton even before either candidate threw their hats into the proverbial ring. While the two played coy, pretending if they had to debate with themselves about if they wanted to get in, although we all knew that was going to be the case. Hillary at first was the media's and self declared nomination for the Demarcates and Jeb believed this to be the case for him as well. Then two things happened. Two possibly the strangest things in modern politics: Enter Socialist Bernie Sanders and businessman and media whore Donald Trump.  

At first Trump wasn't taken seriously. Looked on as possibly another Ralph Nader or if he ran as an independent maybe even a Ross Perot, as he descended down his golden escalator for his big announcement. But leave it to Trump to trump the field of naysayers. 

Since his announcement of running for President, Trump has been a thorn in the side of pretty much everyone. Leaving people in both parties and the media scratching their heads in wonderment.

To look at the Trump campaign you would think it was set for disaster from the onset. But in truth his weaknesses are some of his strengths. The real secret to his success is that Trump has been a media figure since the 1980's. And has been on the forefront of social media. Back in '08 the media was all about Obama and his Blackberry. How he would have to give it up. By '12 the Demarcates were running Facebook and Twitter ads recruiting the young to vote while the Republicans were still playing catch up. (If you look back as far as the 90's and Bill Clinton, where you saw him on MTV and late night TV playing the sax while the GOP dismissed him for it). Trump has been a household name for the last decade just with his Reality Television program The Apprentice. Everyone knows who Trump is. Knows what he's about. How he acts. At the moment their are no real skeletons waiting in the closet to come and derail his juggernaut. The man has no filter when it comes to his mouth --another thing that in the past has upset and killed other candidates-- and pretty much says whatever is on his mind. Trump has tapped a vein in today's society that is tired of the usual brand of bullshit politics. How they tell you what you want to hear and in the end have their own agenda. Or end up selling themselves too much and effectively tying themselves to the wrong agenda once in office. Which is another of his strengths --and something that Romney back in '12 failed to do: Donald Trump is mostly financing his entire campaign. And with Campaign strategies that Cruz and Rubio seem to be running, how until late, the field of prospective candidates is (was) so wide their thinking is all I have to do is stay close to the top spot and when the others start to fall away I'll be able to pick up momentum and votes. And if that didn't work out hope for a brokered convention where Cruz and Rubio stand a better chance than Trump for getting the party's nom. It's no wonder why Trump has dominated the race.

But since the Iowa Caucus (the only loss for Trump) and how the field has began to shrink (now down to 5) this strategy doesn't seem to be panning out the way they were hoping. The big boost both Cruz and Rubio were hoping for when Jeb finally called it quits didn't materialize. If anything it made the two other front runners look somewhat weaker. Out of the all the candidates only Cruz looks to win his home state. While Rubio did have a good last debate, acting like a man who wants to be president, Trump still has 16 point lead [02/25/16] on him with Cruz not far behind. On top of all that, Rubio's momentum from his debate win was cut short with Trump trotting out one time President hopeful Chris Christy with his endorsement for Trump. 

Feelings are that by the March 15th primaries the race for the GOP nomination will be locked in for Trump.

Is Trump a breathe of fresh air that the GOP needs if it wants to stay viable in the future? Or is this the beginning of the end of the Grand Ol' Party built on Lincoln? Fact is both are answers are correct. The Repubs need a new face. At first the Tea Party seemed to be the answer until it fell apart by being hijacked by big money people. However, when you look at the other side of the aisle and that of the Dems, they seem to be facing the same problems. Bernie Sanders has upset the cart that has kept the DNC in power for the last decade --first with effectively turning the last two years of Bush into lame duck and 8 in the oval office. Sanders has shown cracks that the Demarcates would rather stay hidden (with their own big money people issues). They are losing the young (their mainstay for years now) for promises of a better cheaper tomorrow as we see large crowds out for Bernie Sanders rallies and his #FeeltheBern dominate social media. One has to stop and think about why Sanders isn't on top of the DNC heap the same way Trump is for the GOP. Is it that the young fail to get out and vote or is it media bias as some claim. One fact is that Hillary has done a better job capture the African-American vote. In that case there, Sanders has a long road ahead for the nom which seems further and further away from him after each primary. However, the longer he stays in the race the Hillary Campaign seems to take more cracks. Giving the GOP a different set of talking points other than Benhazi.  

If the 2016 run for the white house has showed us anything is that people are done with status quo.