Fact-checking Technology Inches Forward

“But it cannot be the duty, because it is not the right, of the state to protect the public against false doctrine. The very purpose of the First Amendment is to foreclose public authority from assuming a guardianship of the public mind through regulating the press, speech, and religion. In this field, every person must be his own watchman for truth, because the forefathers did not trust any government to separate the true from the false for us.” U.S. Supreme Court in Thomas v. Collins, 323 U.S. 516, 545 (1945)

Researchers at Duke University are developing technology for near real-time TV political fact checking. Phys⚛️org writes:

A Duke University team expects to have a product available for election year that will allow television networks to offer real-time fact checks onscreen when a politician makes a questionable claim during a speech or debate.

The mystery is whether any network will choose to use it.

The response to President Donald Trump's Jan. 8 speech on border security illustrated how fact-checking is likely to be an issue over the next two years. Networks briefly considered not airing Trump live and several analysts contested some of his statements afterward, but nobody questioned him while he was speaking.

Duke already offers an app, developed by professor and Politifact founder Bill Adair, that directs users to online fact checks during political events. A similar product has been tested for television, but is still not complete.

The TV product would call on a database of research from Politifact, Factcheck.org and The Washington Post to point out false or misleading statements onscreen. For instance, Trump's statement that 90 percent of the heroin that kills 300 Americans each week comes through the southern border would likely trigger an onscreen explanation that much of the drugs were smuggled through legal points of entry and wouldn't be affected by a wall.

The Duke Tech & Check Cooperative conducted a focus group test in October, showing viewers portions of State of the Union speeches by Trump and predecessor Barack Obama with fact checks inserted. It was a big hit, Adair said.

"People really want onscreen fact checks," he said. "There is a strong market for this and I think the TV networks will realize there's a brand advantage to it."

If that's the case, the networks aren't letting on. None of the broadcast or cable news divisions would discuss Duke's product when contacted by The Associated Press, or their own philosophies on fact checking.

Network executives are likely to tread very carefully, both because of technical concerns about how it would work, the risk of getting something wrong or the suspicion that some viewers might consider the messages a political attack.

"It's an incredibly difficult challenge," said Mark Lukasiewicz, longtime NBC News executive who recently became dean of Hofstra University's communications school.

This shows the complexity of trying to implement defenses against dark free speech (lies, deceit, deepfakes, unwarranted opacity, unwarranted emotional manipulation, etc.) in America. With a few exceptions such as defamation, false advertising and child porn, American law recognizes lies and deceit as deserving of as much protection as honest speech.

America needs to somehow harden its defenses against dark free speech without enabling authoritarians and liars to use it as a weapon against opposition or the public interest. It is going to be an extremely difficult fight, assuming it is possible to make significant headway. Maybe it is time for professional broadcast news outlets to not do real-time broadcasting of politicians' speeches and rhetoric. After the fact fact-checking is far less effective than real-time fact-checking. And, maybe it is time to begin a long fight to re-establish the old, now illegal, fairness doctrine as a partial antidote to dark free speech.

B&B orig: 1/20/19

When What 'She Said' Counts

A recent NPR broadcast segment produced by the This American Life program focused on an allegation of sexual misconduct by a woman against her anaesthesiologist while she was in labor.

Her allegations were not only not believed by anyone, but she was lied to by the police detective assigned to her case. He never took her allegation seriously and falsely claimed he was doing all sorts of things to advance her case, when in fact he did nothing beyond talking to her from time to time.

The 10 minute broadcast segment: https://www.thisamericanlife.org/669/scrambling-to-get-off-the-ice/act-two-2 The transcript: https://www.thisamericanlife.org/669/transcript (starts at Act Two: Going Under)

The segment is about people in difficult situations who are trying to move and fix things. For a while they are running in place, trying one tactic after another, hoping something will work.

When Jessica Hopper was inappropriately groped by an anesthesiologist, during labor, she tries to out him that same day, to a roomful of hospital staff who don’t believe her. That sets her on a many year mission to get someone to take up her cause. She exhausts herself trying. And then finds out that at least one person had heard her – someone she hadn’t reached out to on her own.

On March 1, 2012, I was in the hospital delivering my son. And an anesthesiologist repeatedly groped me while administering my epidural. I've told the story of what he did to me again and again, dozens of times over the last seven years to the hospital, the police, the detectives, my attorney, the state medical licensing investigator, my victim advocate, a judge, a reporter, another detective, and eventually people close to me.

I pinpoint that moment as when I know something was off, how I read his name tag and took note of his name, where he stood, where the light was in the room, approximately what time of day. I detail how he put his hands on my breasts, cupped and held them. I describe the touch as sexual and not clinical. I describe how he was silent when I asked, what are you doing? And how he did it again. It did not stop until I said, what the [BLEEP] are you doing? I explain how he did not look at me and just left the room, how I told my husband immediately after he came back in the room.

About an hour and a half later, within a minute or two of delivering my son, I told the entire room what the doctor had done to me. But how I told them came out sarcastic and nervous, almost like a joke, saying that I was so happy to have an epidural that I almost didn't mind that the doctor had felt me up. I knew they heard me because the neonatal nurses weighing my son froze, and one locked eyes with me. My midwife told me, don't say that. That didn't happen. Don't say that.

The state's attorney declined to take her case due to lack of evidence. 'He said, she said' cases were impossible to prosecute. One woman's allegations alone are insufficient. Jessica understood there was almost no chance of getting the doctor to face consequences. After the incident, Jessica stopped going to doctors and dentists because she did not want to be touched. Finally she gave up: "On Valentine's Day 2015, feeling deeply discouraged, I told my lawyer to drop my case. I didn't talk about it or tell friends or family because I just wanted this all to go away. I tried to forget, but I couldn't."

The situation changed for Jessica some years later only after another woman came forward and made the same allegations against the same doctor.

He [an investigator] asked me if I would be willing to testify against the doctor. I said yes. Finally, I was being believed because there were two of us. I got off the phone and involuntarily screamed over and over before collapsing on the floor, sobbing. I was furious there were now two of us. I was elated there were now two of us. We were not in this alone.

What I'd learned about the woman who'd come forward was that she was undocumented, a single mom. She did not speak much English, and she was testifying. I felt overcome with love and gratitude for her, this brave woman I didn't know, this woman who is taking a risk coming forward.

Jessica's doctor had his medical license suspended for a minimum of three years, and he was fined $15,000 for what he did to the other woman. He was not disciplined for anything relating to Jessica because there wasn't enough proof for her claims.

Al Franken - Was he treated fairly?

What about Brett Kavanaugh? What about politics?: Remember the sex misconduct allegations against Brett Kavanaugh? At least two credible women alleged sexual misconduct, but of different kinds. The conservative tribe (republicans, populists, Evangelical Christians, etc.) mostly rejected the claims of both women, sometimes as lies, sometimes as confusion, sometimes as insufficient. The FBI did not do a thorough investigation so there was no serious effort to collect available evidence. The liberal tribe mostly accepted the the claims of both women.

What that says about politics, its morals and how it works is simple: Men in the conservative political tribe can get away with stuff, but men in the liberal political tribe could have a harder time pulling it off. In broader society, two allegations are probably more likely to be taken seriously and investigated seriously. In politics they may not be taken or investigated seriously. It depends on the tribe you are in.

Brett Kavanaugh - Were his accusers treated fairly? B&B orig: 3/5/19

Evidence For Global Warming Passes Physics' Gold Standard Threshold

Author: Bridging the Gap

Physicists have a gold standard for the burden of proof known as five sigma. A new analysis shows that even the most conservative climate data have passed this point.

Scientists released the analysis of satellite temperature data in Nature Climate Change to mark 40 years of observations. Until satellites came about in the 1970s, scientists had to rely on weather balloons that provided sparse, imperfect data on what was going on in the atmosphere. The satellites were transformative, allowing scientists to improve models, validate past theories about climate change, and generally showing that human ingenuity is astounding. We can measure temperature from space!

To commemorate this achievement, the new study looked at three major satellite temperature datasets which were created using slightly different methods. They then used an analysis to tease out the signal of global warming from the noise of background variability, and charted its significance. For two of the datasets, they found the global warming signal emerged at the five sigma level in just 27 years. But by 40 years, even the most conservative dataset kept at the University of Alabama, Huntsville cleared the five sigma threshold. What that means in everyday language is that there’s a roughly 1-in-3.5 million chance that the warming we’ve seen is due to random chance.

“Five sigma is a big deal for physicists,” Ben Santer, the lead author of the study and climate scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, told Earther. “It is the gold standard for discovery in physics. When the announcement was made for Higgs boson, that was the big deal and the detection of particle was at a sigma threshold. Crossing a five sigma ain’t no minor warming.”

The new paper puts a nail in the coffin of the tired satellite data argument. Which isn’t to say jabronis like Cruz will stop using it, but now it’s clear to the five sigma value just how bad faith the talking point is.

Complete story:
Evidence For Global Warming Passes Physics' Gold Standard

Second post:

Climate games

Reuters reports that a new analysis of temperature data has increased the level of certainty that humans are the main cause of global warming.

Evidence for man-made global warming has reached a “gold standard” level of certainty, adding pressure for cuts in greenhouse gases to limit rising temperatures, scientists said on Monday.
They said confidence that human activities were raising the heat at the Earth’s surface had reached a “five-sigma” level, a statistical gauge meaning there is only a one-in-a-million chance that the signal would appear if there was no warming.

Such a “gold standard” was applied in 2012, for instance, to confirm the discovery of the Higgs boson subatomic particle, a basic building block of the universe.

Benjamin Santer, lead author of Monday’s study at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California, said he hoped the findings would win over skeptics and spur action.

The confidence one can have that skeptics will be won over by this finding is a ten-sigma thing, about 1 in a gazillion chance. Dr. Santer, good soul that he is, needs to get his brains checked for anomalies, radiation leaks, photon eruptions, and other medical stuff. This will be used by climate change skeptics, a/k/a/ Russian Roulette players, as more evidence of a deep state conspiracy running false flag operations to destroy America and all that is good and decent.

B&B orig: 1st post 2/28/19; 2nd post 2/25/19

Can Democracy Survive With Zero Partisan Cooperation?

Yesterday, NPR broadcast a deeply disturbing segment on how things are going to work or fail to work in congress. The segment is about a recent hearing in the House of Representatives. The hyper-partisanship, rage and mutual hate on display here is no less bitter than what Americans got to see in the Michael Cohen hearing last week. There is no obvious reason to think that this situation will change any time in the foreseeable future. The democratic-republican divide prevents any cooperation whatever, at least on 'political' matters such as investigating Trump. It is fair to see this situation as a test of the robustness of liberal democracy with our republican form of government versus an encroaching authoritarianism that envisions a different form of government.

The segment was produced by the This American Life program that NPR airs. The 34 minute segment, New Sheriffs in Town, described the planning and execution of the House Judiciary Committee's first public hearing on activities related to President Trump. Their first witness was intended to be acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker.

The segment is here: https://www.thisamericanlife.org/669/scrambling-to-get-off-the-ice/act-one-2 The transcript is here: https://www.thisamericanlife.org/669/transcript

The open hearing was planned for weeks. Whitaker was told far in advance of questions the committee wanted to raise with him. The democrats wanted the hearing to show Americans what they think was going on. They believe that Whitaker was a hatchet man to protect Trump from Special Counsel Mueller's investigation, which potentially amounts to obstruction of justice. On the other hand, republicans on the committee claimed the hearing was not warranted and they wanted to hear from people they hate including Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. Republicans believe Rosenstein is pny out to get Trump for no reason other than pure partisanship.

The last two years of republican inquiries been focused mainly on investigating alleged wrongdoing by pro-democratic officials in the FBI and the Department of Justice. Their inquiry into activities by Trump, his campaign and Russia were insincere at best and almost non-existent at worst.

Republicans opposed and delayed the meeting as much as they possibly could. The republican strategy was to discredit the Hearing and witness testimony so that half the country will believe it is a partisan sham and of little or no importance regardless of the evidence. The Department of Justice also acted to neuter or completely derail the hearing as much as possible. Shortly before the hearing, the DoJ told the House committee that Whitaker would not testify unless democrats pledges in writing not to issue a subpoena if they believed that Whitaker was refusing to answer questions during the hearing. That nearly caused the hearing to collapse.

Democrats caved in and made the pledge. They were desperate to get Whitaker's testimony before the American people. Republicans in the House and the DoJ were desperate to block Whitaker's testimony before the American people, and failing that, to limit it as much as possible to irrelevant fluff.

Cooperators in the House over time

Advantage republicans: Judiciary Committee chairman Jerry Nadler's strategy in questioning Whitaker was to raise questions with yes or no answers in an attempt to get at key points and to be clear about it. However, with no threat of a subpoena to force answers out of him, Whitaker's strategy was brilliant and as effective as it possibly could be under the circumstances.

The republicans won.

Here is how Whitaker did it. Instead of giving yes or no answers to questions, Whitaker deflected, obfuscated and spent as much precious time as possible not saying yes or no. Each committee member had only 5 minutes. That is so little time as to be ridiculous for a heraing like this with a hostile witness, but that the stupid rule the House pretends to do its job under.

Here is the relevant transcript:

Narrator Zoe Chace: Everyone's vote on adjournment is painstakingly read out loud. That's four minutes less hearing, classic minority party stalling tactic. Also literally, Collins [republican ranking member] doesn't think we should be having this hearing. Whitaker opening statement, Nadler moves to questions. Right off the bat, Nadler's tactic of yes or no, Mr. Whitaker, gets mixed results.

Jerry Nadler: Well, it's our understanding that at least one briefing occurred in December before your decision not to recuse yourself on December 19 and Christmas Day. Is that correct?

Matthew Whitaker: What's the basis for that question, sir?

Nadler: Yes or no? Is it correct?

Whitaker: I mean, I--

Nadler: It is our understanding that at least one briefing occurred between your decision not to recuse yourself on December 19 and six days later, Christmas Day. Is that correct? Simple enough question, yes or no?

Whitaker: Mr. Chairman, again, what is the basis for your question? You're saying that it is your--

Nadler: Sir, I'm asking the questions. I only have five minutes, so please answer, yes or no.

Whitaker: No, Mr. Chairman. I'm going to-- you were asking me a question, it is your understanding-- can you tell me where you get the basis?

Nadler: No, I'm not going to tell you that. I'm don't have time to get into that. I'm just asking you if that's correct or not. Is it correct? Were you briefed in that time period between December 19 and Christmas Day? Simple question, yes or no?

Whitaker: Congressman, if every member here today asked questions based on their mere speculation--

Nadler: All right, never mind. At any point--

Whitaker: You don't have an an actual basis for your questions.

Nadler: Yes or no.

Narrator Chace: Whitaker plods slowly through every answer, taking time to pull his tiny glasses on and off his face and regularly declining to answer. Congressman, thank you for that question. Congressman, I know this is an important issue to you. And then even when he does answer, the answers are swaddled in weird, half non-answers.

Whitaker: Mr. Chairman, as I said earlier today in my opening remarks, I do not intend today to talk about my private conversations with the President of the United States. But to answer your question, I have not talked to the President of the United States about the special counsel's investigation.

Nadler: So the answer is no, thank you. To any other White House official?

Chace: The effect of this is that it's really hard to tell what really went on while Whitaker was AG, which part matters, and importantly, who's being unreasonable-- Democrats for yelling yes or no at him, or Whittaker for being obstinate? Does he know stuff and he's hiding it? Does he not know stuff, and they're berating him? I truly cannot tell.

In that exchange and the entire hearing, Nadler, the democrats and democracy clearly lost. It wasn't mixed results as Chace called it. It was a total win for Trump, Whitaker the republican party and populist authoritarianism. The American people and democracy got nothing much out of Whitaker or the hearing except a major self-inflicted wound (assuming the American people are at least partly responsible for this mess, and maybe they are).

Chase goes on to point out that the only way democrats could even make their points so that the American people could understand why there was any hearing at all was to use their precious time to describe what it was that Whitaker did and thus why they wanted him to answer their questions.

Democracy vs authoritarian kleptocracy: This is how federal governance is going to play out for the foreseeable future. The hyper-partisanship raises the question of whether democracy can survive or whether some form of corrupt Trump-populist authoritarianism will slowly engulf and destroy democracy. Given how this hearing played out, one can see the advantage that relentless authoritarianism, aided by tactics such as obstructionism, plausible deniability, doubt and dark free speech, including lies of omission (deflecting questions), has in view of weak, seemingly ineffective defenses of democracy. Time will tell how this war plays out. With any luck, the defenses will turn out to be stronger than they appear from this debacle.

B&B orig: 3/4/19