Tag Archives: News

Kindness of strangers

I have a small magnetic wallet at the back of my phone. It holds 4 cards snugly. After work finished, I took my work Mastercard and one other card out, with intentions of replacing them. But before I did, the two remaining cards fell out. I didn’t notice until the end of a busy day where I had been on a long walk and at a shopping mall as well as work and home.

The missing cards were my Visa and my Driver’s license. I quickly put my card on hold, freezing it from use, and started the hunt. I retraced my steps that day and couldn’t find them. Then I was contacted by a postal worker, who found my cards and returned them to my mailbox. He then found me and my wife on Facebook and messaged us both.

I’ve thanked him in a message, but haven’t had communication back yet to find out where they were found.**

There are always reports about scammers, theft, and violence that make the news. It’s just nice to know there are good, kind, thoughtful people out in the world.

____

** Update, he found them in a mailbox near the trail I walked. So it was two good people: the first who put them in the mailbox, and the mail carrier who delivered them to my house!

From the horses mouth

I’ve already seen some really good deep fakes of famous people that both look and sound real. That was over a year ago and the technology is far better now. I just watched this NBC Nightly News clip on TikTok:

The whole video is cautionary and a little scary, looking at Artificial Intelligence (AI) as a possible threat to Humanity. At the 2:17 minute mark this was said,

“AI tools can already mimic voices, ace exams, create art, and diagnose diseases. And they are getting smarter every day.

In two years by the time of the election, human beings will not be able to tell the difference between what is real and what is fake.”

It occurred to me that the lead up to the next US election is going to include countless deep fakes that will be virally shared and reposted and re-shared, which will be far more convincing than anything we’ve seen so far. The clever ones won’t be far fetched in content, they will be convincing because they will subtly send people down a specific narrative without being outrageous or egregious and easy to spot. For example: Biden supporting and endorsing some ultra-left wing, ‘woke’ group the makes the right outraged. Or Trump speaking to a friend about how he hates guns and the NRA. Each of these can be completely fabricated and completely convincing.

This is really scary because where you get your news will be vitally important. Hopefully major news outlets would vet the videos and verify authenticity before sharing, but digital newspapers are always worried about missing the scoop and letting other networks go viral. Many less reputable sites will share the fake videos just because it fits their narrative. Other sites will knowingly share the fake videos because their intent is to mislead, and to feed anger and vitriol to their naive followers.

Conspiracies will be magnified and any mention of the videos being fake will be counter argued that reports of the video being faked are just the way the government is trying to keep the truth from you. The message being, the fakes are real and the reports of them being fake is the fake news. People already believe fake articles with no fact-checking, they are going to be completely fooled by extremely convincing fake videos.

My advice, find websites that you trust and make sure the web url is correct. Follow people you trust and question anything suspicious from them that isn’t from your trusted sites. If it’s not from your trusted site, if it’s not right from the horses mouth and it seems suspicious, consider it fake until you verify.

How serious is this? You don’t have to be famous to be deep faked. Here is a story of a mom thinking she was talking to her kidnapped daughter, convinced it was her voice on the phone with her kidnappers, but it was a fake and her daughter was upstairs in her room. The point of the video is to have a safe word with your family because anyone’s voice can be easily faked.

We are entering a time when people are defining truth differently, when fakes seem more like truth, and when sources of information are going to be as important as the information itself.

Website domains matter

I think in an era of fake news and deepfakes, we are going to see a resurgence and refocus on web page branding. When you can’t even trust a video, much less a news article, the source of your information will become even more important.

I was on Twitter recently, after the tragic earthquake in Turkey and Syria, when I came across a video of what was claimed to be a nuclear reactor explosion in Turkey. The hashtags suggested that it was a video from the recent crisis, but with a little digging I discovered that it was an explosion many years ago and nowhere near Turkey as was suggested. The video had tens of thousands of views, likes, and retweets. I didn’t take the video at face value, but many others did. I reported the tweet, but doubt that it was removed before it was shared many more times.

Although I wasn’t fooled this time, I have been fooled before and I will be fooled again. That said, part of my ‘bullshit detector’ is paying attention to the source. Recently I saw a hard-to-believe article online by a major news station… except that the page was designed to look like the major news station but had a completely different web address. The article was fake. What drew my attention to it being fake was that it seemed more like an advertisement than a news article. Otherwise I probably would have been fooled. As soon as I was suspicious, the first thing I did was ask myself if this really was the news organization I thought it was? I went into my browser history and looked for the website this morning to take a screenshot of the article, and I found this:

The website is down… which is good, but again I wonder how many people it fooled? It was a website surprisingly high up in a google search just a few days ago, and so I clicked thinking it would be legitimate.

When looking for information from controversial people or topics, it’s going to get harder and harder to know if the source of the information is reliable. One sure fire way to be certain is to look at the website. In some cases even if the source is legitimate, you might still have to question the accuracy of the source, and use a tool like MEDIA BIAS/FACT Check to see what kind of bias the site tends to hold. But you will build a repertoire of reliable sites and go to them first.

More and more the web domain will be the ultimate litmus test that will help you determine if a claim or a quote (delivered in written, audio, or even video format) is legitimate. Because fake news and deepfakes will become more convincing, more authentic looking, and more prevalent… and that trend has already started.

The News in Question

I’m already not a fan of the news. My wife will often watch the 6pm news and I usually put headphones on and listen to something else. A few days ago I was cutting some vegetables and the news was on in the background, and after 5 depressing reports one after another I had to stop listening.

Yesterday and today I had a number of news items cross my social media feed. One was a tragic incident in Korea where people were crushed and trampled. This is actual news, and, like above, very depressing. But a few other items were about news being faked or misinformation sharing.

Here is an example: A viral video of a politician being stopped by chanting audience members who were doing a derogatory chant… except in the actual footage the crowd is happily chanting the politician’s name. The fake version is the one going viral, and even making it onto supposed ‘news’ websites.

It’s bad enough that news is so negative to begin with, but it’s hard to weed out what’s real and what’s fake. It’s getting much harder to recognize the difference. And it’s getting even more important to be able to discern the difference. Do most people even try? Or do they just choose their news sources and narratives they want to follow and follow them blindly?

When I read any sensational headlines these days my first instinct isn’t to be shocked or enraged, my instinct is to question: Is this real? What’s the bias? Where should I look to fact check or validate this?

The news used to answer the questions who, what, where, when, how, and why… now it’s me that questions the news.

All atwitter

I’m fascinated by Elon Musk’s takeover of Twitter. This is going to get interesting because while social media companies pretend to have community guidelines that are designed for the public good, they are private companies that can make arbitrary decisions… and they often do. There are always stories in the news about how certain perspectives are silenced, or questions about why some extreme groups are banned while others are not.

But in the end, they are private companies and they can make arbitrary decisions. Elon wasted no time making some of his own:

“Elon Musk fired key Twitter executives Thursday, one of his first moves as the official owner of the social media platform. According to reports from the New York Times, CNBC, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post and other outlets, Musk fired CEO Parag Agrawal, CFO Ned Segal, general counsel Sean Edgett, and head of legal policy, trust and safety Vijaya Gadde.” ~ TechCrunch

I suspect that he is going to make some very subjective decisions in the coming weeks, and while the narrative used to be, “we are looking out for you as best as we can,” Elon’s message will be more like, “I’m running a private company and I make the decisions.” He will say he is trying to ‘clean up’ Twitter, but his decision-making will be very personal and I’m not sure his perspective on public good will be transparent or based on public feedback.

I’m uncertain where he’s going to take Twitter, but I don’t think the social media landscape will look the same 6 months from now.

Complaint driven change

Change is good. We learn, we grow, we adapt, we change. Change is essential, and I like to think of myself as a change agent.

But change isn’t always easy. And the adoption of change is never distributed evenly nor does it affect people equitably. In many cases, when change happens it upsets people who are not ready for change… and that invites complaints.

Squeaky wheels start to squeak.

Something we need to be careful about is that change is happening for the right reasons. This can be hard because no matter what you do, the people most resistant to change are often the loudest. So you are doing things one way and it isn’t efficient or effective, and people complain. You change to a new way that works better. Now, there are happy people (quietly) enjoying the new approach, but a new group are unhappy. That new unhappy group might not be big, and they might not like the new system only because they liked the old way… but they are the loudest group.

This group might be the most vocal, they might make the most complaints, but they shouldn’t be the reason not to move forward, or to quickly change again, before seeing the positive aspects that the new changes have created.

There will always be squeaky wheels. There will always be naysayers and complainers. It’s important to empathize and support these people. It’s also important to learn from these people, but they should not be the drivers of change. A small but loud group should not be allowed to slow down or alter change just because they are the loudest.

—-

Afterthought: I wish news media thought about this… news today is about attracting eyes and clicks, and the small squeaky groups get far too much attention.

Fully missing the point

I saw a post on LinkedIn yesterday that was more like a post you’d see on Facebook. It was essentially a ‘proud’ American saying, ‘This is my Pride flag’ with a picture of an American flag. And while I see no issue with an American being proud of their flag, I think that’s a purposefully insensitive way to express it. The comments were quite literally written from two fractured camps, and included comments that discussed women’s rights and abortion.

Then today there was this LinkedIn story, “TikTok has a new reigning champion. Khaby Lame, a 22-year-old Senegalese-born creator, became the most-followed person on TikTok last night, surpassing American TikTok star Charli D’Amelio”, and the headline was, “World’s most followed person on TikTok, Khaby Lame, is a Hafiz and practicing Muslim.” I’ve seen previous articles emphasizing that he was a factory worker. In both cases there were comments asking why his religion or his poor beginnings mattered?

What I find frustrating to see is how many people miss the point:

You can be proud of a country without intentionally belittling the pride flag. When Charli D’Amelio became the number one person followed on TikTok the storylines did not have the same emphasis as Khaby Lamé’s. I’m not sure if anyone can tell you her faith based on headlines written about her?

But it’s not just the headlines, it’s all the people that are in the comment section who also miss the point. That’s what concerns me. The headlines are a problem, but so too is the fact that so many people not only don’t see the problem with the headlines but actually support them.

Headlines matter, and when they miss the point, so do many that read the message.

Missing the point

“The meaning of your communication is the response that you get.”

This is a quote I heard in a communication course that I took in my early 20’s, more than a half of my life ago… but I remember it and it is a bit of a mantra for me. So, when I share something and the message isn’t clear, I recognize that I need to take at least partial responsibility. An unexpected response tells me that my communication was not clear enough to get the response I expected.

Yesterday I was mad. I actually expected a shooting like the one in a Texas school to happen. I didn’t know it would be a school, but I saw the publicity the supermarket shooting in Buffalo the week before got and I figured another high profile shooting was coming. When it happened, and when it was a school, I was angry. That anger came through in my post, Enough is enough. But writing it wasn’t enough for me. I don’t pretend I have an audience big enough to make a genuine difference. So, I sent it to some local and some US reporters that I have access to via Twitter. It only went to accounts that allow Direct Messages, so that I was sending the messages privately.

One reporter responded. I won’t name him, because I have a lot of respect for him and I appreciate him responding to me… he was the only one. These were his words:

David, I don’t agree with you one bit. The rate of mass shootings in Canada (and MANY other countries) versus the US is so vastly different, with practically no difference in the way media treats the subject. That in itself is evidence of a flaw in your logic. I am in the businesses of shedding light on the issues that erode our safety and security because ignoring a problem never makes it go away. Do I wish these events never happened? Am I heartbroken and traumatized by what I see and hear and have to filter for our audience? You’re damn right I am. I hate every minute of it. But am I to blame? Not at all. Why don’t you direct some of your energy at those who refuse to put restrictions on killing machines and those who pull the trigger?

And this was my response:

I’m only saying don’t report their names. Don’t highlight their lives. Yes this is a US problem, I’ve mostly sent this to US news. But how hard would it be not to dignify the killers. To remove any mention of their identity? The stats tell us these are more likely to happen after a high publicity act. The people doing the copycat act know they will be (in)famous like the other killers before them. I know gun laws in the US are a big problem… but that doesn’t diminish the fact that all news outlets are making it worse. Apologies if you think I’m blaming you, I’m not. I’m blaming a news system that glorifies killers. That’s the part I am struggling with. Stop naming the killers. Stop highlighting their lives. That’s my point. It’s not about you, it’s about this:

That is the part media outlets play. And all of them can do better.

He took it as a personal attack, and he missed the point. I blame myself. I should have written a plea, not a condemnation. The irony to me is this line he shared, “I am in the businesses of shedding light on the issues that erode our safety and security because ignoring a problem never makes it go away.” The simple fact is that by glorifying the killer, he and his colleagues are eroding our safety and security. They are publicizing to the weak and the disturbed that they too can become famous.

“Am I heartbroken and traumatized by what I see and hear and have to filter for our audience?” He said. Yes, filtering for the audience is part of being a news reporter, and what I’m asking is for him and his colleagues to filter out the names of the idiots with guns. I’m not saying, ‘Don’t report the news.’ I’m not saying, ‘You are responsible.’ I am saying that highlighting and profiling the idiots with guns erodes public safety and security. How hard would it be for news media to have a simple code of conduct:

  • Do not mention a mass shooter’s name.
  • Do not share images of them.
  • Do not investigate their lives, profile them, or quote them.

That’s what I wanted to say. But that’s not what I communicated. I can’t blame anyone for missing the point, when I failed to make the point clear.

Enough is enough

I invite everyone to write a letter to the news editors and producers of their favourite newspaper and newscasts, and feel free to borrow freely from what I share below:

An Open Letter to News Editors:

You wouldn’t do it. You wouldn’t quote a Nazi manifesto and share their message. You wouldn’t promote hateful messages of racism. You wouldn’t incite a riot. Yet day after day, year after year you promote gun violence and mass shootings. You contribute to them. You incite them. You shoulder part of the responsibility. Shame on you for perpetuating the problem.

There are decades of research that suggest publicizing mass shootings and suicides lead to more of each. This is a known fact. We know that publicizing high profile shooters will often lead to more shootings. Yet last week media outlets across North America shared detailed information about a killer in Buffalo who committed a senseless act of violence. Five years from now no one outside of Buffalo will remember the victims names, but there will be an unwell person in North Carolina, Florida, Washington, Nevada, or Philadelphia that will know the killer’s name… will have read his manifesto… will have saved photos of this evil person… all of which you shared, all of which you made possible.

What you are doing is unconscionable!

Remove the details of the murderer in the Buffalo story from your headlines, and it is unlikely that the school shooting in Uvalde Texas would have happened yesterday. That’s right, it happened because of you and your media colleagues. Because of you. You didn’t pull the trigger, but you are partially to blame.

And when I go to news articles about the Uvalde massacre, I see the killer’s name. I know where he worked, I can learn all about his life. What you are actually doing is inciting a similar incident. You are inviting it. You are partially responsible for it. You, the editors of newspapers, the producers of television news, you hold some of the blame for Uvalde. Shame on you.

Stop printing the killers name. Stop sharing their words. Stop sharing images of them. Stop profiling them. Stop the cycle of contributing to the problem. To continue is to be complicit. You are complicit, you are an accomplice to murder.

You can help break the cycle.

—–

Don’t share their names

It’s so senseless and sad. A radicalized idiot with a gun in Buffalo has taken the lives of innocent people.

I saw this response on TikTok, and the title of the post is ‘Don’t say their names’. I’ve said this before, and explained myself in a footnote:

*I referred to the person who murdered children and educators at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown last Friday as ‘Idiot with a gun in Newtown’. It would be a whole other blog post to speak of how horrible our news media is at iconicizing (not sure if that’s a word) murdering, evil, or deeply disturbed people who commit violent acts. On this principle, I do not name this murderer here. I chose to convey him as a nameless ‘Idiot with a gun in Newtown’. If that offends you, sorry.

When someone like the idiot with a gun in Buffalo commits such a senseless act, part of their desire to follow through with this is to be known. They know that their manifesto will be shared. They know newscasters will peruse their Facebook and Instagram pages and put images of them on the news. They know their name and face will be mentioned and shared.

They don’t deserve the acknowledgment. They deserve to remain nameless. They don’t even deserve the image of their face to be shared. Idiots with guns, that’s what they should be known as. Idiots. Nothing more. Let anyone thinking of doing this in the future know that they will be forgotten. That’s what they deserve.