Evolution of Non-Traditional News Sources

Presented to The Villages Philosophy Club, 5 August 2016. The ubiquitous smart phone camera and social-media have empowered “citizen journalists” to greatly augment, and in some cases replace, traditional news reporters and photographers. What is our part in this revolution and the mostly positive results?

When I was a kid, the only news sources were newspapers and the major broadcast networks, NBC, CBS, and ABC, first radio and then TV.

THE SMARTPHONE VIDEO CAMERA EFFECT

Nowadays, when surveillance cameras are everywhere and "everyone" has a SmartPhone with a camera, and many  of us have multiple channels on social media, a new type of "news" media has evolved.

Of course, the "major media" are concerned about losing their elite position at the head of the news "food chain", but even their reports often feature SmartPhone video and FaceBook postings and Twitter Tweets from celebrities..

There is no doubt that what I call the "SmartPhone Video Camera Effect" has some serious negative effects, distorting our collective view of things like the danger of criminal violence, extreme weather, terrorism, unjustified shooting of unarmed young (black) men and police officers.

However, IMHO, the overall effect is positive. As non-traditional news sources continue to evolve, we'll gain a more complete and overall more accurate view of the society we live in and the world around us.

EVOLUTION - THE BIG PICTURE

4.5 Billion years ago - the primitive LITHOSPHERE, HYDROSPHERE and ATMOSPHERE - The Earth started as a ball of molten material and gas. Over many millions of years, the land cooled and the tectonic plates that were to become the continents solidified and took form, along with the oceans.. "Litho-" means "Stone". "Hydro-" means "Water". "Atmos-" means "Vapor".  These foundational levels continue to evolve.

3.5 Billion years ago - the BIOSPHERE - According to the best available estimates, about three and a half Billion years ago, life originated and developed into primitive blue-green algae (single-cell bacteria).  Then, around a Billion and a half years ago, multi-cell life evolved. Around half a Billion years ago multi-cell life evolved into plants and animals. These forms of life continue to evolve. "Bio-" means "Life".

100,000 Years ago - the NOOSPHERE - Mammals we call the "Primates" ("prime" or "first rank") evolved around 60 or 70 Million  years ago, and then into the "Great Apes" and then into "Hominids".  "Humans" with large brains like our own evolved about 100,000 years ago. "Noos-" means "Mind".

EVOLUTION OF THE NOOSPHERE

100,000 years ago, when a Human had an idea, he or she passed it on to another, and, if it was a good idea, it would be passed on to many others. Perhaps, combined with other ideas, it would spread far and wide. Indeed, although it might take hundreds or thousands of years, really good ideas were practically guaranteed to eventually spread worldwide.

Thus, the original NOOSPHERE, the "mind" of the Earth, was worldwide, but incredibly slow. However, it is said that thinking, no matter how slowly, is still thinking!

With the invention of written language, monuments, clay tablets, papyrus documents, books, and newspapers, our ideas became inscribed into a fixed form that would extend beyond individual lifetimes.

Thus, the evolving NOOSPHERE developed a "memory" something like that of an individual human mind. The Earth's "mind" was then not only worldwide, but more stable, and perhaps a bit faster.

With the advent of the telegraph, telephone, and radio in our grandparents and parent's time, and television in our own time, the speed and extent of communications was greatly extended. Thus, the evolving NOOSPHERE developed a speed and extent of "thinking" that exceeded that of an individual human mind.

However, the NOOSPHERE did not really come into its own until the advent of computers, especially personal computers, and the Internet. Add to that emails, blogs, and Social Media, and any idea that occurred to any human anywhere on Earth could be transmitted instantly to any other human, and could be shared and discussed and further developed by dozens, hundreds, or millions of people.

With the advent of the Tablet Computer and the SmartPhone, "everyone" had access to a high-quality camera (both still and video) and a way to share those images instantly with others, potentially a large fraction of the human race.

I find it amazing privilege to have lived at a time when the evolving NOOSPHERE developed a worldwide "awareness" that greatly exceeds that of an individual human mind. The Earth's "mind" has worldwide awareness and photographic memory of unprecedented scope, speed, and "intelligence".

We cannot be certain if the Universe exists "in the Mind of God" or in the "Matrix", but we can be certain that we have created an incredible worldwide Mind and Matrix. The only question in doubt is if we shall be able to manage it or not!

CITIZEN JOURNALISTS

Anything new threatens the Elitist Authorities. The invention of written language was a threat to the keepers of "oral traditions" who passed down "history" from generation to generation. Once fixed into written form, these stories could not be altered as easily, which was an advantage for accuracy, but exposed many of the stories as unfounded "myths".

The invention of movable type made books available to more people, which was perceived as a threat to the religious and intellectual elite. Mass publication further diluted the power of the elite.

The elite, however, maintained control of the mass media (major newspapers, magazines, and radio and TV broadcasting). Professional authors and reporters wrote the news and, under the control of the massive media conglomerate publishing and broadcasting corporations, they passed on a version of what they considered to be the "news" to us, "the great unwashed public". Of course, we had a voice, of sorts, via letters to the editor. And, we could choose which newspapers and broadcast stations we would patronize, but, when they were all basically the same, our control was limited.

However,  with the advent of (mostly) conservative Talk Radio, with opportunity for listener call-in, the public found a greater voice. With the advent of Fox News and other conservative-leaning broadcasting, the (mostly) liberal elite were set back further. However, even conservative-leaning media are elite in a sense.

Thus, as I noted above, it was the advent of personal computers, the internet, and especially the SmartPhone and Social Media that have really unseated the elite, both left, right, and middle!

We Citizen Journalists now have a presence via blogs, YouTube, FaceBook, and other Social Media!

Even the mass media find themselves using video posted by Citizen Journalists as the most far-reaching, real-time window on whatever is happening anywhere in the world at any moment in time.

THE SMARTPHONE VIDEO CAMERA EFFECT

Anything new both illuminates and distorts current reality. Here are a few examples

IS EXTREME WEATHER DUE TO CLIMATE CHANGE INCREASING?

Many people are convinced that Global Warming (aka "Climate Change") is causing much more dangerous "Extreme Weather" events and that human activities, such as burning unprecedented quantities of fossil fuels, are mostly responsible.

Could it be that Citizen Journalist's graphic images and videos of Extreme Weather disasters, shared via Social Media and broadcast on TV news programs, are responsible for this misperception?

Is the US government, via NASA/NOAA http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/billions/ hopping on that meme in an unfair way to push the "Environmentalist" political agenda?

The graphic below seems to indicate a dramatic INCREASE in Billion-Dollar Extreme Weather events between 1980 and 2016.

However, while the data are adjusted for CPI (Consumer Price Index, basically inflation) since 1980, they do not take into account the 42% population growth, and the 67% GDP per capita growth since 1980! We are living in larger homes, and business, industry, and public infrastructure has increased. Thus, any given storm that hits in a highly populated and developed area will naturally cause more expensive damage than one that impacts a remote, unpopulated region.

For that reason, the cost curves in the above graphic (the gray and black lines) are misleading. The 2016 level is drawn more than double the height it should occupy if population and GDP growth per capita are considered!

Furthermore, the  bar  graph gives equal representation to a "Severe Storm" (average cost $2.2B) and a "Tropical Cyclone" (average cost $16.1B), which is seven times more. (Reminds me of the restaurant that advertised 50/50% surf and turf that was heavy on  the steak and light on the lobster. They used one lobster and one cow and figured it was 50/50%!)

IS VIOLENT CRIME INCREASING?

The graphic below, from

http://www.gallup.com/poll/179546/americans-crime-last-year.aspx

indicates that, although Violent Crimes actually DECREASED between 1993 and 2014, the general public believes that Violent Crimes have INCREASED year-to-year during that period!

Could it be that "citizen journalist's" graphic images and videos of Violent Crime incidents, shared via Social Media and broadcast on TV news programs, are responsible for this misperception?

Perhaps the amazing increase in SmartPhone and Tablet ownership, from fewer than 1 million in 2001 to over 200 million in 2014, is what distorted our perceptions.

WHICH US CITIES ARE MOST DANGEROUS?

ARCHIE BUNKER famously said "The only difference between New York and Los Angeles is that, when they shoot you in New York, you know why!"

If I asked you which major US cities are the most dangerous, which would  you guess? Well, since we are probably most sensitive to the number of especially noteworthy crimes, such as police shootings of unarmed men (especially Blacks) and the shootings of police by terrorists or mentally disturbed individuals, our perceptions may be distorted. The graphic nature of SmartPhone videos may add to the distortion.

The graphic above considers six large US cities. The leftmost panel shows that New York City, Chicago, and Los Angeles have the most Violent Crimes per year (NYC over 50,000, Chicago over 24,000, and Los Angeles over 19,000 in 2014). But, considering population differences, which  US cities are really  the most dangerous?

The rightmost panel gives the answer. Detroit, with 13,616 Violent Crimes in 2014, has only one-twelfth the population of NYC, so its actual Violent Crime RATE is 3.7 times greater! Similarly, Philadelphia has a 3.3 times higher rate, and Chicago a rate 2.1 times greater. San Jose, the safest of the cities shown in the graphic, actually has a population greater than Detroit, the most dangerous!

Ira Glickstein

Gun Rights and Wrongs (Main Menu)

 Some ideas on how new technology,

particularly "UltraSmart" guns that will fire only for authorized individuals, 

plus some common-sense reforms in liability for gun owners, 

might help reduce unnecessary gun violence, 

while being compatible with our Constitutionally guaranteed 

Second Amendment "Right to Bear Arms".

Part 1 - The Problem.  Is it too many restrictive gun LAWS, too many GUNS, or too many gun HOMICIDES?

Part 2 - New Technology. Might "UltraSmart" gun technology, that allows only Authorized Users to fire the gun, help address part of the problem?

Part 3 - Absolute Liability. Within the context of the Constitutional Second Amendment "right to bear arms", could gun owners, over time, voluntarily adopt "UltraSmart" guns, to mitigate the financial liability risks of owning conventional guns?

Part 4 - Aggressive Police Tactics. "Stop, Question (and Optionally Frisk)" has a disproportionate effect on Blacks, but it has been shown to save proportionately more Black than White lives.

CLICK TO Download my PowerPoint file

Advanced "UltraSmart" Gun Concepts 

1) Front-Facing Camera and Laser Spot to ID Target and Aid Shooter Aim, Safety and Reliability.

2) Rear-Facing Camera and Iris Scan to ID Shooter and Assure He or She is Not Drunk nor on Drugs.

3) Sensors in Hand Grip to further Positively ID Shooter. NOTE: Not all sensors need to be on all guns, just enough (perhaps six) to assure Authorized Person will be Reliably Recognized and Unauthorized persons will be Rejected

Ira Glickstein

Gun Rights and Wrongs (Part 1)

1988 Democratic Presidential Candidate Governor Mike Dukakis (Massachusetts),

"commands" the 50 caliber machine gun on an M1 Abrams Tank

GUN RIGHTS AND WRONGS

Some ideas on how new technology, 

particularly "UltraSmart" guns that will fire only for authorized individuals, 

plus some common-sense reforms in liability for gun owners, 

might help reduce unnecessary gun violence, 

while being compatible with our Constitutionally guaranteed 

Second Amendment  "Right to Bear Arms".

Part 1 - The Problem. Is it too many restrictive gun LAWS, too many GUNS, or too many gun HOMICIDES?

Part 2 - New Technology. Might "UltraSmart" gun technology, that allows only Authorized Users to fire the gun, help address part of the problem?

Part 3 - Absolute Liability. Within the context of the Constitutional Second Amendment "right to bear arms", could gun owners, over time, voluntarily adopt "UltraSmart" guns, to mitigate the financial liability risks of owning conventional guns?

Part 4 - Aggressive Police Tactics. "Stop, Question (and Optionally Frisk)" has a disproportionate effect on Blacks, but it has been shown to save proportionately more Black than White lives.

Part 1 - The Problem
Is it too many restrictive gun LAWS, too many GUNS, or too  many gun HOMICIDES?

Is there any way to resolve the diversity of opinion regarding gun control in the US? Will the "pro-gun" NRA ever agree to any new laws intended to reduce gun violence? Will the "anti-gun" forces ever give up their goal to banish private ownership of guns entirely?

Probably not!

However, for what it is worth, here are some ideas that may appeal to those of us in the middle. [This material is based on a talk I gave to an overflow audience of about 120 people at the Philosophy Club of The Villages, FL, on 8 January 2016. As you might imagine, the question, answer, and discussion period following my talk was quite animated!   CLICK TO Download My PowerPoint file

US CONSTITUTION, SECOND AMENDMENT (1791)

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,

 the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

This amendment, passed in 1791, consists of the above compound sentence, in plain English. However, the first phrase seems to be in conflict with the last two,

Is the "right to bear arms" only in the context of a "well-regulated militia"? Is this "militia" to be "regulated" by the government, and, if so, how can government regulation be crafted such that the "right of the people" is not "infringed"?

Well, as recently as 2008, the US Supreme Court, in District of Columbia vs Heller, ruled (5 to 4) that the right to bear arms belongs to individual people. However, like most "rights" it is not unlimited, and firearms may be regulated. For example, convicted felons, mentally defective persons, and others may be prohibited from purchasing and possessing guns. 

Furthermore, some types of firearms are off-limits even to upstanding mentally competent citizens. In other words, no one, not even 1988 Presidential Candidate Governor Mike Dukakis may privately own and operate the 50 caliber machine gun on an M1 Abrams Tank!

LEGAL PRECEDENT IN BRITISH COMMON LAW

Sir William Blackstone, the authority on British Common Law, wrote [1765] 

THE auxiliary right of the subject ... is that of having arms for their defense, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. ... and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.

Thus, the tension between the individual right of armed self-defense, and reasonable limits of law, has a very long history.

CURRENT SWISS LAW AND PRACTICE

Male citizens of Switzerland keep fully automatic firearms at home in case of a call-up. There is a very high personal gun ownership rate. Overall, the crime rate is low, but the gun suicide rate is the highest in Europe. The rate of homicide is considerably lower than the European average.


1996 AUSTRALIAN GUN BUYBACK 

After a 1996 massacre, the Australian government implemented a confiscatory gun buyback program that removed some 20% to 30% of personally owned guns from private possession. The 1996 Australian buyback is often hailed as a great success by US gun control advocates. What are the facts? 

The vertical blue line and bar indicates 1996, the year Australia instituted a major gun buyback program.
TOP (Gray background): Australian gun suicide and gun homicide statistics prior to and after the 1996 buyback program.
Middle (Gray background): Australian non-gun suicide and gun suicide statistics for the same period.
BOTTOM (White background): US gun suicide and gun homicide statistics for the same period.  

Australians and Americans speak English and share a British colonial background. Both countries have about the same area (3 vs 3.9 million square miles). However, gun ownership is vastly different (4 million vs nearly 300 million), Australia does not have constitutional protection of the "right to bear arms" nor does it have a strong gun lobby.

With those differences in mind, let us take a closer look at the data. 

[TOP section] Gun control advocates point out that, after the 1996 buyback, gun suicides declined from around 2 to 0.7 per hundred thousand, and that gun homicides declined from about 0.5 to 0.15 per hundred thousand, which is quite impressive. However, please note that, for several years prior to the 1996 buyback, gun suicides had been declining at a pretty rapid rate. So, how much did the buyback program accelerate the decline?

[MIDDLE section] Note that, in the two years after the gun buyback program, non-gun suicides increased from about 11 to 13 per hundred thousand, more than making up for the decline in gun suicides during that period! The message here is that when ready access to guns is denied, people intent upon suicide will use poison or asphyxiation or other non-gun means to accomplish their intent.  

[BOTTOM section] Despite the fact the US did not have a gun buyback program, our gun suicides and gun homicides declined significantly during the same period! 

When you see the Australian gun buyback statistics used by gun control advocates, you will most often notice that gun suicide and gun homicide data are combined, which has the effect of exaggerating the decline. Furthermore, they usually fail to note that gun suicide rates in Australia were on the decline even before the 1996 gun buyback, nor do they point out that US gun suicide and homicide rates declined during the same period, despite the fact we did not have gun buyback!

My conclusion is that, while the Australian experience is interesting, it has little or nothing to do with the gun control situation in the US.

US GUN DEATH STATISTICS 

About 2.5 million people die in the US each year, About 92% from natural causes, and only 8% are not natural, being due to accidents, malpractice, homicide, suicide, or legal intervention.

Gun-related deaths constitute only 1.3 percent of all US deaths. If Gun Suicides are excluded, the total of Gun Homicides, Accidents, Legal, and Other constitutes less than 0.5 % of all US deaths, as indicated in the graphic below. Most gun homicides are gang and/or drug related, i.e., criminals shooting each other. I've read that 80% of all gun homicides are gang and/or drug related but I could not find any clear statistical documentation for this claim. I'd appreciate comments from readers that confirm or dis-confirm this claim. 

US Non-Natural deaths in 2013 (from CDC http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf, Table 10.)

SOCIAL AND POLITICAL IMPLICATIONS OF GUN CONTROL 

The following list of pithy bullets represents my attempt to summarize the general positions espoused by some participants in the gun control debate. Please recognize that this is a "shorthand" description of what are often highly nuanced and complex positions. I do not pretend that all Libertarians subscribe exactly to the first set of bullets nor that all Liberals or Conservatives subscribe exactly to the latter two sets. 

Currently, the two leading candidates in the Democratic Presidential Primaries, Secretary Hillary Clinton and Senator Bernie Sanders have diverse opinions on gun laws. Sanders, who hails from a "pro-gun" state, takes positions that are, in many cases, closer to Republican views. Furthermore, among the many candidates in the Republican Presidential Primaries, some may say they lean more to the Libertarian view rather than what I have characterized as the Republican view. Also, not all members of the NRA fully subscribe to the official NRA position.

• NRA (and Libertarians) generally favor almost no control.

– The fewer new gun laws the better. 

Police should enforce current laws. Courts should impose severe sentences on gun-toting criminals.

• Democrats (and Liberals) generally favor strict control.

– The fewer guns the better. 

Easy access to too many guns is to blame when disturbed people or politically or religiously motivated terrorists cause mass shootings. Police brutalize and too often shoot unarmed Blacks.

• Republicans (and Conservatives) generally favor moderate regulation.

– The fewer unjust gun homicides the better. 

Aggressive police tactics in high crime areas are often necessary, even if they have uneven racial impacts. “Stop, Question (Optionally Frisk)” policies actually save proportionately more Black than White lives.

Discussion of the above bullet points:

NRA (and Libertarians) - I am not now and never have been a member of the NRA. However, while living in a rural upstate area of New York State for over three decades I did own and use a 12 gauge shotgun and a .22 rifle (both bolt-action). While I have never considered myself a Libertarian, I do like a lot of what John Stossel, the resident Libertarian at Fox News says.

In general, I would like to see current gun laws enforced, particularly as they relate to stiff jail time for anyone who uses a gun in commission of a crime. On the other hand, while I am skeptical about the ability of "the government" to do anything particularly well, I think there are some common sense changes to US gun laws that could help reduce unnecessary gun violence, as I will outline later in this series of postings.

So, while sympathetic, I cannot subscribe to the idea that the fewer gun laws the better.

Democrats (and Liberals) - A photo of Democratic icon and four-times elected President Franklin Delano Roosevelt hung on the wall of the Brighton Beach bungalow in Brooklyn, NY, where my brother and I lived with our parents and grandparents. My whole family voted Democrat up until my father scandalized us in the neighborhood by voting for Republican Dwight Eisenhower for President.

It was as an engineering student at the uber-leftist City College of New York where I discovered that the honorable appellation "Liberal" had been hijacked by Socialists and Democrats and turned upside-down and inside-out. I still consider myself a "Liberal" in the classical sense, as "the term used to designate the ideology advocating private property, an unhampered market economy, the rule of law, constitutional guarantees of freedom of religion and of the press, and international peace based on free trade." But, I digress.

At first glance, the idea that, since all gun violence involves a gun, it would be better if there were fewer guns, makes sense.

However, that does not follow logically. For example, all medical malpractice involves doctors and medical personnel, so (following parallel reasoning) it would be better if there were fewer doctors and medical personnel. Of course, that is ridiculous! Only a small percentage of doctors and medical personnel are bad, so what we need to reduce medical malpractice is fewer bad ones and more good ones!

The same is true of guns. Only a tiny percentage of guns are involved in unnecessary gun violence. Most of those (perhaps as many as 80%) are possessed by criminals, particularly gang members and drug dealers. So, rather than fewer guns overall, what we need to do is reduce bad gun possession by criminals, gang members and drug dealers. A very small percentage of guns are used by mentally-disturbed people and politically or religiously motivated terrorists, so we need to reduce their access to guns. Finally some guns deaths are accidental, including poorly secured guns inadvertently found by children, and guns used by people who are under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Therefore, it would be good if we could use new technology to allow guns to be fired only by competent adults.

As we all know, technological advances have made high resolution surveillance cameras very inexpensive. I think it is, on balance, good that these cameras are ubiquitous both outside and inside most businesses and many public areas, that police cars have dashboard cameras, that individual policemen have body cameras, and that virtually everyone now carries a cell phone camera.

As a result, damning images have been captured of policemen unnecessarily and brutally shooting unarmed people, including a disproportionate number of Black men. These videos have been broadcast for all to see and prove, even to "pro-police" people like me, that some policemen are trigger happy, and some are also racist.

Despite these videos, I do not think many Democrats/Liberals would seriously consider disarming law enforcement. I join all right-thinking Americans in condemning the policemen involved. I think it would be good if we could use new technology to reduce official misconduct by providing police with what I call "UltraSmart" guns that are designed to be safer and that automatically capture images of each shot, along with time and location data.

So, I cannot subscribe to the idea that the fewer guns the better.

Republicans (and Conservatives) - OK, I must confess here that I am an old Goldwater/Reagan Republican, and a Proud Conservative in the modern sense (i.e., Classical Liberal).

{Trump tangent, skip over if you wish} 

As postings to this Blog (one, two, and three) and my Facebook page demonstrate, I think Donald Trump has tapped into the deep frustration we feel after seven years of President Obama's brand of "change" and the GOP leadership's failure to effectively reign him in. Trump is shouting what we want to hear (yes, even what I want to hear), but his bluster does not stand close examination. His rhetoric is mostly generalities, and in the few instances when he gets specific, he gets his facts wrong. 

Donald Trump is a Crony Capitalist Democrat pretending to be a Republican. As recently as 2004, Trump told CNN's Wolf Blitizer "In many cases, I probably identify more as Democrat" and in 2007, also with Blitzer, he praised Hillary Clinton's ability to negotiate with Iran. Trump gave more of his ample money to Democrats than Republicans between 1989 and 2009 according to NPR. At the first GOP debate this year, he bragged: “I’ll tell you what, with Hillary Clinton, I said, ‘Be at my wedding,’ and she came to my [third] wedding. ... You know why? She had no choice, because I gave.” Until recently, Trump's views on military action in the mid-east, abortion, drug legalization, and health care have been more in line with leftist Democrats than with independents and Republicans. 

To repeat, Trump is a Crony Capitalist DEMOCRAT who is wrecking the Republican Party I know and love, with the inadvertent assistance of the ratings-hungry media, including Fox News, and the feckless response of the dozen other candidates competing in the Republican Presidential Primary, several of whom are excellent in my opinion. 

{end of Trump tangent} 

To gain traction in the primary process, Republican candidates must take anti-gun control positions close to that of the NRA because a substantial portion of Republican Primary voters demand it. I know many of these people personally as hard-working, upstanding, good family men and women who (like me) do not trust the government to do anything except take the money we earn and use it to buy the votes they need by promising and delivering unearned assistance to people who, in many cases, cannot or will not work consistently or hard. Unfortunately, many of these fellow Republicans will reject, out of hand, my ideas for common sense changes in gun regulations and the introduction of "UltraSmart" gun technology. Please note that the NRA does not, out of hand, reject the introduction of "Smart" guns, so long as they are reliable and safe and voluntarily adopted in a free marketplace.*

So, here is where I think most Republicans and Conservatives agree with me. That the problem is not too many guns, but, rather too many unjust gun homicides. The fewer unjust gun homicides the better. Aggressive police tactics in high crime areas are often necessary, even if they have uneven racial impacts. As I will show in Part 4 of this "Gun Rights and Wrongs" topic, "Stop, Question (and Optionally Frisk)" policies actually save proportionately more Black than White lives. 

So, I DO subscribe to the idea that The fewer unjust gun homicides the better

I hope my fellow Republicans and Conservatives will read and give fair consideration to my "UltraSmart" gun technology* concepts in the Part 2 of this "Gun Rights and Wrongs" topic.

* According to the NRA, they have "never opposed smart guns, believing the marketplace should decide their future. Rather, NRA opposes government mandates of expensive, unproven technology, and smart guns are a prime example of that."

Ira Glickstein

Back to MAIN MENU                     CONTINUE TO - Part 2 - New Technology. 

Part 1 - The Problem. Is it too many restrictive gun LAWS, too many GUNS, or too many gun HOMICIDES?

Part 2 - New Technology. Might "UltraSmart" gun technology, that allows only Authorized Users to fire the gun, help address part of the problem?

Part 3 - Absolute Liability. Within the context of the Constitutional Second Amendment "right to bear arms", could gun owners, over time, voluntarily adopt "UltraSmart" guns, to mitigate the financial liability risks of owning conventional guns?

Part 4 - Aggressive Police Tactics. "Stop, Question (and Optionally Frisk)" has a disproportionate effect on Blacks, but it has been shown to save proportionately more Black than White lives.

I am Charlie - Je Suis Charlie

The most recent issue of the French satirical weekly Charlie Hebdo has sold over 5,000,000 copies, amid great controversy, yet, as far as I know, an image of the cover has NOT yet been published by many major US TV news organizations! The cover image has been shown on TV by Fox News and CBS, but not yet by CNN, MSNBC, NBC, or ABC as far as I have been able to confirm.

The graphic shows the original French edition (left) and my English translation (right), with Voltaire's famous quotation superimposed.


By its own admission, Charlie Hebdo (Charlie Weekly) is a "Journal Irresponsable" ("Irresponsible Journal") and its stock in trade is satire of various religions and other deeply held beliefs. I certainly do not wish to encourage publication of such divisive material, yet, along with Voltaire, I have to defend the right of publication of such material in a free society.


What do you think?

Ira Glickstein

BROOKINGS: FOX NEWS MOST TRUSTED NEWS SOURCE OF ALL AMERICANS

According to a report issued this month by the BROOKINGS INSTITUTION, which is generally thought of as a rather liberal academic outfit, the single MOST TRUSTED TELEVISION NEWS SOURCE of ALL AMERICANS this year is FOX NEWS!

THIS GRAPHIC TELLS THE STORY

These statistics are an inadvertent result of a survey that centered on Immigration Reform titled "WHAT AMERICANS WANT FROM IMMIGRATION REFORM IN 2014, Findings from the PRRI/Brookings Religion, Values, and Immigration Reform Survey, Panel Call Back". You can download the whole document at http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/reports/2014/06/10%20immigration%20reform%20survey/finalimmigrationsurvey%20(2).pdf.

Figure 13 from that report, reproduced above with annotations by me, shows the results.
FOX NEWS is MOST TRUSTED by ALL AMERICANS “to provide accurate information about politics and current events”!

Among ALL AMERICANS:

• 25% TRUST FOX NEWS THE MOST
• 23% TRUST ABC/CBS/NBC MOST (which is about 7.7% each)
• 17% TRUST CNN MOST
• 12% TRUST PUBLIC TV MOST
• 8% TRUST JON STEWART MOST
• Only 5% TRUST MSNBC MOST !!!

BUT THE BROOKINGS AUTHORS DO NOT SEEM TO GET IT

Although the above conclusions are clearly shown in the very first column of the graphic as it appears as Figure 13 in their report, the authors do not seem to recognize or understand their own results! Clearly, they intended to focus on divisions of opinion regarding "immigration reform" and were therefore blind or perhaps embarrassed by the inadvertent result of their careful survey.

Here is EXACTLY what they wrote about Figure 13:

As Figure 13 illustrates, while more than half of Republicans list Fox as a trusted news source, no other source comes close. The traditional broadcast networks (ABC, CBS and NBC) are listed by 22% of Republicans, and all other television sources are in single digits. Similarly, 48% of self-described conservatives list Fox News as a trusted source, with the broadcast networks a distant second at 19%.

By contrast, there is no dominant trusted news source among Democrats or liberals. Four different sources are in double digits among Democrats -- the traditional networks at 31%, CNN at 26%, public television at 14% and MSNBC at 10%. Jon Stewart’s Daily Show is listed by 9% of Democrats. Among liberals, five sources are in double digits -- the broadcast networks (24%), Jon Stewart and public television (both at 17%), CNN at 16%, and MSNBC at 10%. These figures may partly reflect the ideological diversity of the Democratic Party. Whereas Republicans overwhelmingly identify as conservative (74%), the Democratic Party is more ideologically diverse, with 46% calling themselves liberal, 31% moderate, and 20% conservative.

Among independents, Fox is the plurality leader (as we have seen, at 26%) followed by the broadcast networks at 17%, CNN at 16%, public television at 14% and Jon Stewart at 11%. Among political moderates, broadcast news and CNN are the preferred choices (at 25% and 23% respectively), followed by public television at 17%, Fox at 15% and Stewart at 8%.

It is not possible from this data to offer a precise solution to the chicken-and-egg question -- whether the more important fact is that those with very conservative views are already attracted to Fox, or whether Fox turns its viewers into conservatives. What is clear is that conservatives are drawn to Fox, and that Fox may, in turn, reinforce and perhaps harden conservative views. The survey also suggests that our discussions of political polarization need to take account of the unusually large role Fox News plays among conservatives and Republicans. At the moment, liberals are subject to a wider range of influences than conservatives are. Put another way, conservatives show a greater degree of solidarity, at least where their media habits are concerned. At the same time, divisions within the Republican Party can be defined at least in part by attitudes and habits related to Fox News. This could have important implications for future battles over Republican nominations and arguments over the party’s philosophical identity.

That is ALL they wrote about Figure 13.  Please notice that in the above four paragraphs, they NEVER mention that among ALL AMERICANS FOX NEWS garners 25% in the MOST TRUST category, while MSNBC garners only 5% in that category. Nor do they bother to divide "Broadcast News" into separate results for ABC, CBS, and NBC, which would result in each gaining 5% to 10% (averaging 7.7%) in the MOST TRUST category. OY!


Back in 2009, I showed that More DEMOCRATS watch Fox News than CNN or MSNBC

See here.
FROM MY 2009 POSTING

Could it be? YES IT BE!

Analysis of ratings data from respected Pew Research and Neilson
shows that more Democrats watch Fox News than either CNN or MSNBC.

Fox News has come up on this Blog several times. The data in this posting sheds more light on the situation.

THE PIE CHARTS ARE NOT TOO SURPRISING

The first pie chart shows the distribution of the MSNBC audience. As one would expect, 45% are self-declared Democrats and only 18% are Republicans. The remainder are Independents (27%) and "Don't know" (10%).

The second pie does the same for CNN, with the only surprise being that a higher proportion of Democrats (51%) watch CNN than MSNBC. 18% of Republicans watch CNN.

The third pie does the same for Fox News. 39% of their viewers claim to be Republicans and 33% Democrats.

It might be surprising to see the Fox News "balance" between Republicans and Democrats. 39/33 = 1.18. MSNBC has a balance between Democrats and Republicans of 45/18 = 2.5. The balance at CNN is 51/18 = 2.83.

THE REAL SURPRISE

Fox News has a considerably higher viewership than either CNN or MSNBC. I combined that (from the 2009 Neilson data) with the data from the most recent (2008) Pew Research report, to generate the graphic.

The bars show the number of viewers using Total Audience (all ages) and averaging over the Entire Day. The Blue bars are MSNBC, the Red Fox News, and the Yellow CNN. The surprise is that more Democrats choose Fox News than either MSNBC or CNN. Indeed, if you combine the Democrats who watch MSNBC and CNN, they total only a bit more than Democrats who watch Fox News. If you consider Independents, more of them watch Fox News than CNN and MSNBC combined!

BUT, WHO IS "FAIR AND BALANCED"

Of course, what appears "fair" or "balanced" to one person on MSNBC may appear biased to another person, and vice-versa on Fox News. This is a subjective issue that each person needs to resolve for him or herself. My personal opinion is that MSNBC leans way to the left and Fox News a bit to the right. CNN appears to me to go right down the middle, or a bit to the left of middle.

The above data indicates that, given a free choice, people who seek out cable TV news and talk tend to choose Fox News over the competition. If you add the presumably "fair and balanced"-minded Independents to the presumably left-leaning Democrats, you find that more of that cohort watch Fox News than CNN and MSNBC combined. And that is true despite the fact that Fox News is available to fewer households.

BUT READ THE "FINE PRINT" BELOW

In the above analysis, I used Total Audience averaged over the Entire Day. I did that because the Pew Research data was for all ages and did not ask people when they watched cable TV. Fox News tends to have a slightly older audience, so had I used the 25-54 year old demographic, the results would have been a bit less surprising. However, they would still have shown that more Democrats and Independents watch Fox News than CNN or MSNBC.

The statistics for Prime Time are also a bit different from averages over the whole day. However, Fox News is also ahead on that measure. For example, for the 25-54 demographic, Fox News leads with 446,000 to MSNBCs 250,000 and CNNs 143,000. For the Total Audience including us old folks, Fox News leads with 2,036,000 to MSNBCs 753,000 and CNNs 621,000.

Ira Glickstein

Racism - Real and Imagined - Sherrod Timeline

The incomplete and misleading Media Matters timeline for USDA official Shirley Sherrod's recent travail starts on Monday, 19 July, the day she was forced to resign by Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack.

Here is my timeline that starts three days prior. It is based on Sherrod's own accounting in an interview with MSNBC [click for video].

THURSDAY, 15 July 2010:

Shirley Sherrod says she was first alerted the previous Thursday, 15 July, when someone sent her a nasty email about the deceptively edited Internet video of her talk to a March 2010 NAACP event. She says she replied with her side of the story and then forwarded it all to the USDA that very day. Thus, three days before she was forced to resign, the USDA knew her NAACP talk was about a redemptive event in her life where she overcame race-based emotions and helped a white farmer and his wife save their land.

MONDAY, 19 July 2010:

Again according to Sherrod herself, around 2:30PM on Monday, while at an official USDA meeting, she received a call and was told she was being put on administrative leave. During her drive home from the meeting, she received multiple calls from the USDA, culminating in one where she was told the White House wanted her out immediately and demanding that she pull over and send her resignation using her Blackberry, which she did. It is clear their urgency was prompted by a rumor the incendiary video would appear on FoxNews that evening.

Thus, although the USDA had Sherrod's explanation and three days to view the entire video, they forced her to resign prior to the deceptively edited video appearing on FoxNews. The O'Reilly Factor, apparently recorded earlier that evening, was the first FoxNews show to play a 30-second clip, with a subtitle noting she had already resigned.

TUESDAY, 20 July 2010

Ag Secretary Vilsack stood by his decision to terminate Sherrod even after the full context of her NAACP talk was known. His statement said:

"Yesterday, I asked for and accepted Ms. Sherrod's resignation for two reasons. First, for the past 18 months, we have been working to turn the page on the sordid civil rights record at USDA and this controversy could make it more difficult to move forward on correcting injustices. Second, state rural development directors make many decisions and are often called to use their discretion. ... The controversy surrounding her comments would create situations where her decisions, rightly or wrongly, would be called into question making it difficult for her to bring jobs to Georgia."

The NAACP, in lockstep with the Administration, initially condemned Sherrod's remarks as "shameful" and stated they were "appalled by her actions". Later that day they said they would review the whole tape, which was in their possession. After doing so, they concluded they had been "snookered" by FoxNews.

WEDNESDAY, 21 July 2010

Hasty backtracking by all! Vilsack, having reviewed the full video, apologized for forcing Sherrod to resign. He announced he had offered her a new position at the USDA. O'Reilly apologized, saying he had not done his homework, should have read the whole transcript before jumping to unjustified conclusions, and should not have called for her to be ousted. The White House press secretary, on behalf of the Administration, joined the chorus. (President Obama called Sherrod the following day to add his apology.)

BOTTOM LINE

We all hoped the election of our first Black President would lead us further down the I have a Dream road where, in the words of Martin Luther King:

"I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slaveowners will be able to sit down together at a table of brotherhood. ... I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."

We have a ways to go but we have made a tremendous amount of progress. As a child I was apalled when "coloreds" were ordered to sit in the back of the Greyhound bus when we crossed into Maryland on our trip to Washington DC from New York.

Thank goodness government-imposed segregation is a thing of the past. Thank goodness the highest USDA official in Georgia was able to sit down "at a table of brotherhood" [and sisterhood] "on the red hills of Georgia [with] the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slaveowners". It was going so well until false accusations of racism by an Internet blogger, and a hair-trigger response by an overly-anxious Administration, forced her out.

IRRESPONSIBLE CHARGES OF RACISM AND THE TEA PARTY MOVEMENT

The "bomb-throwing" rightwing blogger who posted the deceptively edited video of Sherrod excused his actions on the basis that the NAACP and other leftist groups have leveled similar untrue charges of racism at the Tea Party and the Republican Party and FoxNews and others on the right. Yes, extremists on both sides continue to make false charges of racism.

I am not a member of the Tea Party nor have I attended any of their events, but I generally support their views. They are a loosely associated group of local grassroots organizations. A few idiots (mostly provocateurs sent by Lyndon LaRouche as far as I can tell) attend Tea Party rallies with disgusting racist signs and the entire Tea Party is falsely labeled as racist.

I was pleased when the National Tea Party Federation, a coalition of local and regional Tea Party groups, soundly rejected a racist satire posted by a prominent person in the Tea Party Express group. The Federation demanded that the racial satirist be expelled by the Express group. When the Express group failed to do so, they were expelled from the Federation.

In keeping with the key tenets of the Tea Party movement of Constitutionally Limited Government and Free Markets, local and regional groups value their independence and reject any hint of a tightly controlled national body. That makes it more difficult to police their ranks. However, when the Northern Iowa Tea Party recently put up a disgusting billboard grouping President Obama with Hitler and Lenin, there was a clear outcry and the sign was taken down the next day!

The radical left seems to have adopted the tactic of falsely labeling the right in general, and the Tea Party in particular, as racists and worse. The media overplay the few nutcases with disgusting signs and generally ignore the overwhelming majority who are orderly and civil and even pick up the garbage when their rallies are over!

I am encouraged that the National Tea Party Federation (NTPF) has established strong membership rules, including:

• Our organization rejects Birthers.
• Our organization rejects 9/11 Truthers.
• Our organization rejects racial discrimination.
• Our organization rejects hate speech.
• Our organization rejects acts of violence or subversive behavior.

Ira Glickstein