Monday, October 5: News sources and bias: where do they fall on the spectrum?

News of the day: 

Irish court rules Subway loaves are too sugary to be called bread

Bread in Subway's hot sandwiches contains too much sugar to meet Ireland's legal definition for bread, the country's Supreme Court has ruled.

The judgment was handed down on Tuesday in response to a Subway franchisee who had appealed for a tax refund, arguing that its bread is a "staple" food and therefore subject to a 0% tax rate.

Five judges considered the case, determining that Subway bread has too much sugar in it to be part of this category, and is therefore subject to a higher tax.

"The bread supplied by Subway in its heated sandwiches has a sugar content of 10% of the weight of the flour included in the dough," Justice Donal O'Donnell said when delivering the judgment.

And moving on~~~~

*****************************************************************************************

We have been exploring our personal biases, the objective being that when we recognize our own, we may more accurately write as responsible journalists. To that end, we are going to spend some time exploring various news sources, where they fall on the political / social spectrum and how this impacts their coverage of a story.

1) Let's take a look at the inforgraphic above.

      a. Note how NPR and The Wall Street Journal are placed in the center. What does that mean exactly?  How should we perceive the news from these souces?

     b. Now look at the two left leaning news sources. Why are some of the sources in both columns?  What differences to you see?

     c. Continue to look at the infographic. What other observations can you make?

Let's take a look at the following chart. What differences do you note in terms of where and what is placed on the political spectrum?

Most importantly, how should you ingest the news as a responsible consurmer?

Here are a few examples of major news sources and their so-called "bias" 

The following is from the Pew Report, which comes from The Pew Research Center, a nonpartisan American think tank (referring to itself as a "fact tank") based in Washington, D.C. It provides information on social issues, public opinion, and demographic trends shaping the United States and the world.

To get the full spectrum on current news there is ALLSides, which uses media bias rating to provide balanced news perspectives and issues across the political 

spectrum.

In the Middle

Common Ground: Centrist News Sources

• Wall Street Journal

  Daily business-focused newspaper based out of New York City.

The Wall Street Journal has a bias rating of "Center" according to AllSides. The Pew Research Center found that the Wall Street Journal is read by people of all political leanings and is the only news source that is more trusted than distrusted by people all across the political spectrum. There is, however, some debate but it has been accused of being biased to both the left and the right.

• BBC News

  The British Broadcasting Corporation News division produces television, radio, and internet news. The BBC is a public service broadcaster established by a Royal Charter of the United Kingdom.

The BBC News has a bias rating of "Center" from AllSides. According to Pew, BBC is more trusted than distrusted among the different ideological groups except for consistently conservative individuals who view BBC as about equally trusted as distrusted.

• USA Today

  American daily newspaper that provides both news and entertainment coverage.

USA Today has a bias rating of "Center" from AllSides. According to the Pew survey, USA Today is more trusted than distrusted among the different ideological groups except for consistently conservatives who view USA Today as more distrusted than trusted.

Almost Center News Sources

The following news sources are rated as "Center" by AllSides and are noted for stating an independent and unbiased agenda, as well as consistently providing balanced coverage (giving time to both sides of an issue). However, they are listed here as almost center because of audience distrust from conservatives.

Respondents to the Pew survey who are consistently liberal, mostly liberal, and mixed views, rated these sources as more trusted than distrusted. Mostly conservatives rated them as about equally trusted as distrusted; Consistently conservatives rated them as more distrusted than trusted.

• NPR

  National Public Radio is a U.S. private and publicly funded non-profit organization that syndicates to a network of local stations.
• PBS NewsHour

  The Public Broadcasting Service is a non-commercial U.S. television broadcaster and distributor.

Sources on the Left and Right

A key finding from the Pew survey is that conservatives have a higher level of distrust overall of news sources and consume a much narrower range of news sources. Liberal audiences trust and consume a broader range of news sources.

Therefore, there are more news sources that are rated or perceived as center-left/slight left leaning (especially mainstream sources); there are fewer news sources that are center-right. This represents the popular conservative discourse that the mainstream media has a liberal bias (and potential hostile media effect).

Towards the Left

These news sources are rated as "Lean Left" by Allsides. According to the Pew survey, they are more distrusted than trusted by people who are mostly conservative and consistently conservative; and are more trusted than distrusted by people who are mixed, mostly liberal, and consistently liberal.

• New York Times

  American daily newspaper published since 1851.
• Washington Post

  American daily newspaper published out of Washington D.C. since 1877.

Far Left

These news sources are rated as "Left" by Allsides. According to the Pew survey, they are more trusted than distrusted by people who are mostly liberal, consistently liberal; and are more distrusted than trusted by people who are mostly conservative, and consistently conservative.

• Huffington Post

  American news aggregator and blog founded by Arianna Huffington in 2005.
• Mother Jones

  American news and culture magazine first published in 1976.

Towards the Right

These news sources are rated as "Right" by Allsides. According to the Pew survey, they are more distrusted than trusted by people who are mostly liberal and consistently liberal; and are more trusted than distrusted by people who are mixed, mostly conservative, and consistently conservative. Note that this represents a further bias leaning than the "towards the left" sources. There are no direct parallels on the right.

• Fox News

  American news television channel headquartered in New York City and created by Rupert Murdoch in 1996.

Far Right

These news sources are rated as "Right" by Allsides. According to the Pew survey, they are more distrusted than trusted by people who are mostly liberal, consistently liberal; and are more trusted than distrusted by people who are mostly conservative, and consistently conservative.

• The Blaze / Glenn Beck Program

  News platform founded by Glenn Beck in 2010
• Drudge Report

  News aggregation site founded by Matt Drudge in 1996.

**********************************************************************************************************

Friday, October 2. Self-bias reflection

News of the Day: 

"Tonight, @FLOTUS and I tested positive for COVID-19. We will begin our quarantine and recovery process immediately. We will get through this TOGETHER!" Trump, 74, tweeted.

Trump's doctor, Sean Conley, said, "The President and First Lady are both well at this time, and they plan to remain at home within the White House during their convalescence."

The announcement immediately throws into question the nature of the remaining 32 days of the campaign, including the remaining two presidential debates. The next one is scheduled for Oct. 15 in Miami.

******************************************************************************************

Assignment: reflecting upon the bias self-assessment should have given you pause to perhaps some biases you have.

1. Let's take a few minutes to look at ways we can squelch our biases.

2. Written reflection. In approximately 150 words, discuss one or more of the observations you took away from your self-assessment. Perhaps its origination? How it impacts your life? Your comfort level with what you understand now?  You might finish it in class; if not, send it to me by noon Sunday, so I have time to read / grade them.

Thank you.

Eight tactics to identify and reduce your implicit biases

Unconscious prejudices and negative attitudes toward certain groups of people can compromise good health care when those prejudices involve patients or make the clinical workplace more difficult. Research shows that these unspoken biases can be changed, but individuals must recognize that they have them in the first place.

These eight tactics, which spell out “IMPLICIT,” can help you mitigate your own implicit biases:

1. Introspection: Explore and identify your own prejudices by taking implicit association tests or through other means of self-analysis.

2. Mindfulness: Since you’re more likely to give in to your biases when you’re under pressure, practice ways to reduce stress and increase mindfulness, such as focused breathing.

3. Perspective-taking: Consider experiences from the point of view of the person being stereotyped. You can do this by reading or watching content that discusses those experiences or directly interacting with people from those groups.

4. Learn to slow down: Before interacting with people from certain groups, pause and reflect to reduce reflexive actions. Consider positive examples of people from that stereotyped group, such as public figures or personal friends.

5.Individuation: Evaluate people based on their personal characteristics rather than those affiliated with their group. This could include connecting over shared interests.

6. Check your messaging: As opposed to saying things like “we don’t see color,” use statements that welcome and embrace multiculturalism or other differences.

7. Institutionalize fairness: Support a culture of diversity and inclusion at the organizational level. This could include using an “equity lens” tool* to identify your group’s blind spots or reviewing the images in your office to see if they further or undercut stereotypes.

8. Take two: Resisting implicit bias is lifelong work. You have to constantly restart the process and look for new ways to improve.

*equity lens: 

The Equity and Empowerment Lens (with a racial justice focus) is a transformative quality improvement tool used to improve planning, decision-making, and resource allocation leading to more racially equitable policies and programs. At its core, it is a set of principles, reflective questions, and processes that focuses at the individual, institutional, and systemic levels by:

• deconstructing what is not working around racial equity;
• reconstructing and supporting what is working;
• shifting the way we make decisions and think about this work; and
• healing and transforming our structures, our environments, and ourselves.

Thursday, October 1 Psychology Today Article self-bias assessment

 SOME LIGHT-HEARTED NEWS

MEET ELSIE POTTY-MOUTHED PARROT

Five parrots have been removed from public view at a British wildlife park after they started swearing at customers.

The foul-mouthed birds were split up after they launched a number of different expletives at visitors and staff just days after being donated to Lincolnshire Wildlife Park in eastern England.

"It just went ballistic, they were all swearing," the venue's chief executive Steve Nichols told CNN Travel on Tuesday. "We were a little concerned about the children."

"They literally, within a very short period of time, starting swearing at each other," Nichols said. "'F**k off' is the most common one," he explained -- "it's a very easy one for them to learn" -- but the birds would utter "anything you can think of."

Most customers enjoyed the talent once the parrots were displayed. "The visitors were giving them as much back as what they were giving to them," Nichols said.

But concern for younger customers forced staff to split up the birds and temporarily remove them from the park's public areas. Staff now hope the birds' language will become more family-friendly now that they have been separated.

***********************************************************************************************************

In class today: 1) article on bias from Psychology Today 2) self-bias assessment. Take your time with this. Copy onto a doc to take. Make sure to hold on to this for tomorrow.  REFLECT  and consider what you read in the article. You will used this for a short reflective piece tomorrow   I Bias A bias is a tendency, inclination, or prejudice toward or against something or someone. Some biases are positive and helpful—like choosing to only eat foods that are considered healthy or staying away from someone who has knowingly caused harm. But biases are often based on stereotypes, rather than actual knowledge of an individual or circumstance. Whether positive or negative, such cognitive shortcuts can result in prejudgments that lead to rash decisions or discriminatory practices. What is bias? Bias is a natural inclination for or against an idea, object, group, or individual. It is often learned and is highly dependent on variables like a person’s socioeconomic status, race, ethnicity, educational background, etc. At the individual level, bias can negatively impact someone’s personal and professional relationships; at a societal level, it can lead to unfair persecution of a group, such as the Holocaust and slavery. What causes people to be biased? Starting at a young age, people will discriminate between those who are like them, their “ingroup,” and those who are not like them, “their outgroup.” On the plus side, they can gain a sense of identity and safety. However, taken to the extreme, this categorization can foster an “us-versus-them” mentality and lead to harmful prejudice. What is an unconscious or implicit bias? People are naturally biased—they like certain things and dislike others, often without being fully conscious of their prejudice. Bias is acquired at a young age, often as a result of one’s upbringing. This unconscious bias becomes problematic when it causes an individual or a group to treat others poorly as a result of their gender, ethnicity, race, or other factors.  Can a person be unbiased? Generally, no. Everyone has some degree of bias. It’s human nature to assign judgment based on first impressions. Also, most people have a lifetime of conditioning by schools, religious institutions, their families of origin, and the media. However, by reflecting critically on judgments and being aware of blind spots, individuals can avoid stereotyping and acting on harmful prejudice. How can you reduce bias? Telling people to “suppress prejudice” or racism often has the opposite effect. When people are trained to notice prejudiced or racist thoughts without trying to push them away, they are able to make a deliberate choice about how they behave towards others as a result. This can lead to less discrimination and reduced bias over time.

Biases and Cognitive Errors

A category of biases, known as cognitive biases, are 

repeated patterns of thinking that can lead to inaccurate 

or unreasonable conclusions. Cognitive biases may help

 people make quicker decisions, but those decisions aren’t always accurate.

 Some common reasons why include flawed memory, scarce attention, 

natural limits on the brain’s ability to process information, emotional input,

social pressures, and even aging. When assessing research—or even one's

 own thoughts and behaviors—it’s important to be aware of cognitive biases 

and attempt to counter their effects whenever possible.

What is confirmation bias?

Confirmation bias, also known as “motivated reasoning,” refers to the

 brain’s tendency to search for and focus on information that supports 

what someone already believes, while ignoring facts that go against 

beliefs, despite their relevance.

Bias audit                                                                               Name___________________
Mark your response to the following:

	Positive	Negative	Undecided	Don't care
Administrators
Arabs
Black Muslims
Born-again Christians
Buddhists
Californians
Catholics
Chinese
Communists
Conservatives
Democrats
Doctors
Egyptians
Elderly
Football
French
Gays/lesbians
Honor Society
Iraqis
Jews
Jocks
Ku Klux Klan
Lawyers
Liberals
Muslims
Nerds
New Yorkers
Protestants
Republicans
Russians
Secretaries
Socialists
Sororities
Southerners
Teachers
Texans
Wealth
Welfare
Working class

Tuesday, September 29: readings on stereoptype, prejudice, bias and 4 discrimination.

 

News of the day: 

The strange case of the man who died after eating too much licorice

By Francesca Giuliani-Hoffman, CNN

It's hard to exercise restraint when eating candy. For licorice lovers, indulging sparingly could actually be lifesaving.

A study published Wednesday in The New England Journal of Medicine says a 54-year-old man died as a result of eating too much licorice.

The man, a construction worker from Massachusetts, lost consciousness inside a fast-food restaurant and was taken to a hospital, where he died the next day.

Doctors wrote that he had "a poor diet, consisting primarily of several packages of candy daily," and that three weeks before, he switched from eating fruit-flavored soft candy to licorice candy, which contained glycyrrhizic acid.

Glycyrrhizic acid, or glycyrrhizin, a sweetening compound derived from licorice root, can cause a drop in potassium levels in the body, which in turn may cause high blood pressure, swelling, abnormal heart rhythms and even heart failure, according to the FDA.

"While black licorice is safe in small quantities, it can be dangerous when consumed in large amounts or even in more moderate amounts on a regular basis," Dr. Jacqueline Boykin Henson told CNN. 

The patient was not suffering from underlying conditions that would have had an impact on what happened to him, Dr. Boykin Henson noted.

"While his diet consisted largely of black licorice, he was active and otherwise generally healthy," she said.

The negative effects of eating too much licorice are reversible, and wane when consumption is interrupted. A return to normal potassium levels may take one to two weeks.

"Individuals who enjoy black licorice should be cognizant of these potential health effects and should be conscious of the amount they are eating and how often," Dr. Boykin Henson said.

*****************************************************Of note, tonight is the first of three debates between Biden and Trump. According to the news this morning, "it’s shaping up to be a historic political donnybrook," (donnybrook- political uproar). What will they talk about? The candidates' records, the Supreme Court, Covid-19, the economy, race and violence, and election integrity.

What makes a good journalist?

Curiosity, critical thinking, a hunger for news, a burning desire to tell a good story, regardless of the medium or platform, and a dedication to accuracy, fairness, balance and media ethics...” (Brewer).

confirmation bias

Please read the following 5 pages carefully, noting the terms

terms 1. stereoptype, 2. prejudice, 3. bias and 4. 

discrimination.  I scanned the reading in; hence it is smaller than I 

would like. You should be able to enlarge your screens for easier 

viewing.  On Thursday, you will be taking your own self-bias 

assessment.

Once you have finished reading, please define each of the above in your own words and share. This is due by noon tomorrow. 

Monday, September 28: you are the judge and jury

Housekeeping: I am missing lots of the rethink responses from last week, when you first gave your opinion prior to reading in more in detail about the First Amendment.

Below you will find five cases involving the First Amendment. Your job is to be the judge and jury and decide who wins and why.

Choose one case and in a paragraph of no fewer than 150 words, write your ruling and argument. Make sure that you weave in text when needed. Make sure to support your argument based upon the First Amendment.  I have included the previous amendment reading from last week as a reference.

This is due to me by midnight tonight, unless you receive extended time. The zoom is open, but it is the expectation that you will use class time to organize your thoughts and write. Ask one us, if you have questions. 

1.A well-known and controversial big-city lawyer was successful in having sexual assault charges dropped against two school basketball players. The lawyer had argued that the victim had consented to the sexual encounter with the players. The newspaper wants to run an editorial condemning the court’s decision, saying that the players’ acts should not have been so easily excused. The editorial details some of the lawyer’s courtroom argument casting responsibility on the woman, a position that the editors find deplorable. They plan to call the lawyer “a scumbag” in the editorial. If this editorial is printed, who would win the ensuing court case – the newspaper or the lawyer?

2.Students plan to wear special placards in protest of a recent controversial school policy that outlaws any religious ornament within the school. The school suspends the students who wear the placards. The students sue in response. Who wins?

3.A paper for a public high school wants to run a feature story on the average salaries of public officials in the area. The reporter asks the treasurer of the school district for information regarding the salaries of the teachers in the district. The treasurer refuses, saying that it is not appropriate for high school students to know the salaries of their teachers. The students sue for the records. Who wins?

4.A student newspaper wants to run an article on drug use in the athletes in the school. To gather details, the journalist hides a tape recorder in her pocket and goes into the female locker room to gather information without the athletes knowing she is there to gather information. She uses quotes and information in the article that she gathered from the locker room. An investigation follows and the student athletes are suspended for drug use. The athletes sue the paper. Who wins?

5.A student magazine regularly published the satirical work of a popular student cartoonist. In one issue, the cartoonist took on the topic of youth pregnancy. To do so, he used characters from a popular national comic strip involving a group of children, duplicating them detail by detail but with one notable difference. In his cartoon, a girl character was pregnant, one of the boys was the father and their pet was the local abortionist. The author of the cartoon strip sued. Who wins?

*********************************************************************************

Congress shall make no law . . .  abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” What does this mean today? Generally speaking, it means that the government may not jail, fine, or impose civil liability on people or organizations based on what they say or write, except in exceptional circumstances.

Although the First Amendment says “Congress,” the Supreme Court has held that speakers are protected against all government agencies and officials: federal, state, and local, and legislative, executive, or judicial. The First Amendment does not protect speakers, however, against private individuals or organizations, such as private employers, private colleges, or private landowners. The First Amendment restrains only the government.

The Supreme Court has interpreted “speech” and “press” broadly as covering not only talking, writing, and printing, but also broadcasting, using the Internet, and other forms of expression. The freedom of speech also applies to symbolic expression, such as displaying flags, burning flags, wearing armbands, burning crosses, and the like.

The Supreme Court has held that restrictions on speech because of its content—that is, when the government targets the speaker’s message—generally violate the First Amendment. Laws that prohibit people from criticizing a war, opposing abortion, or advocating high taxes are examples of unconstitutional content-based restrictions. Such laws are thought to be especially problematic because they distort public debate and contradict a basic principle of self-governance: that the government cannot be trusted to decide what ideas or information “the people” should be allowed to hear.

There are generally three situations in which the government can constitutionally restrict speech under a less demanding standard.

1. In some circumstances, the Supreme Court has held that certain types of speech are of only “low” First Amendment value, such as:

a. Defamation: False statements that damage a person’s reputations can lead to civil liability (and even to criminal punishment), especially when the speaker deliberately lied or said things they knew were likely false. New York Times v. Sullivan(1964).

b. True threats: Threats to commit a crime (for example, “I’ll kill you if you don’t give me your money”) can be punished. Watts v. United States(1969).

c. “Fighting words”: Face-to-face personal insults that are likely to lead to an immediate fight are punishable. Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942). But this does not include political statements that offend others and provoke them to violence.  For example, civil rights or anti-abortion protesters cannot be silenced merely because passersby respond violently to their speech. Cox v. Louisiana (1965).

d. Obscenity: Hard-core, highly sexually explicit pornography is not protected by the First Amendment. Miller v. California (1973). In practice, however, the government rarely prosecutes online distributors of such material.

e. Child pornography: Photographs or videos involving actual children engaging in sexual conduct are punishable, because allowing such materials would create an incentive to sexually abuse children in order to produce such material. New York v. Ferber (1982).

f. Commercial advertising: Speech advertising a product or service is constitutionally protected, but not as much as other speech. For instance, the government may ban misleading commercial advertising, but it generally can’t ban misleading political speech. Virginia Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Council(1976).

Outside these narrow categories of “low” value speech, most other content-based restrictions on speech are presumptively unconstitutional. Even entertainment, vulgarity, “hate speech” (bigoted speech about particular races, religions, sexual orientations, and the like), blasphemy (speech that offends people’s religious sensibilities), and violent video games are protected by the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has generally been very reluctant to expand the list of “low” value categories of speech.

2. The government can restrict speech under a less demanding standard when the speaker is in a special relationship to the government. For example, the speech of government employees and of students in public schools can be restricted, even based on content, when their speech is incompatible with their status as public officials or students. A teacher in a public school, for example, can be punished for encouraging students to experiment with illegal drugs, and a government employee who has access to classified information generally can be prohibited from disclosing that information.Pickering v. Board of Education (1968).

3. The government can also restrict speech under a less demanding standard when it does so without regard to the content or message of the speech. Content-neutral restrictions, such as restrictions on noise, blocking traffic, and large signs (which can distract drivers and clutter the landscape), are generally constitutional as long as they are “reasonable.” Because such laws apply neutrally to all speakers without regard to their message, they are less threatening to the core First Amendment concern that government should not be permitted to favor some ideas over others. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC(1994). But not all content-neutral restrictions are viewed as reasonable; for example, a law prohibiting all demonstrations in public parks or all leafleting on public streets would violate the First Amendment. Schneider v. State (1939).

Courts have not always been this protective of free expression. In the nineteenth century, for example, courts allowed punishment of blasphemy, and during and shortly after World War I the Supreme Court held that speech tending to promote crime—such as speech condemning the military draft or praising anarchism—could be punished. Schenck v. United States (1919). Moreover, it was not until 1925 that the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment limited state and local governments, as well as the federal government. Gitlow v. New York (1925).

But starting in the 1920s, the Supreme Court began to read the First Amendment more broadly, and this trend accelerated in the 1960s. Today, the legal protection offered by the First Amendment is stronger than ever before in our history.

Geoffrey R. Stone is Edward H. Levi Distinguished Service Professor of Law, University of Chicago Law School. Eugene Volokh is Gary T. Schwartz Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law.

You can read more from each author on our Interactive Constitution project on this topic, as they offer viewpoints beyond this common interpretation: Fixing Free Speech By Geoffrey R. Stone | Frontiers For Free Speech By Eugene Volokh

Stone, Geoffrey, and Eugene Volkh. “A Common Interpretation: Freedom of Speech and the Press.” National Constitution Center – Constitutioncenter.org, constitutioncenter.org/blog/a-common-interpretation-freedom-of-speech-and-the-press.