Helen H. Moore's Blog, page 130
March 21, 2018
Cambridge Analytica scandal: legitimate researchers using Facebook data could be collateral damage
(Credit: AP/Jeff Chiu)
The scandal that has erupted around Cambridge Analytica’s alleged harvesting of 50m Facebook profiles assembled from data provided by a UK-based academic and his company is a worrying development for legitimate researchers.
Political data analytics company Cambridge Analytica — which is affiliated with Strategic Communication Laboratories (SCL) — reportedly used Facebook data, after it was handed over by Aleksandr Kogan, a lecturer at the University of Cambridge’s department of psychology.
Kogan, through his company Global Science Research (GSR) — separate from his university work — gleaned the data from a personality test app named “thisisyourdigitallife”. Roughly 270,000 US-based Facebook users voluntarily responded to the test in 2014. But the app also collected data on those participants’ Facebook friends without their consent.
This was possible due to Facebook rules at the time that allowed third-party apps to collect data about a Facebook user’s friends. The Mark Zuckerberg-run company has since changed its policy to prevent such access to developers.
Whistleblower Christopher Wylie, who previously worked as a contractor at Cambridge Analytica, told the Guardian that the company used the data to target American voters ahead of President Donald Trump’s victory in 2016. He claimed that Cambridge Analytica was a “full-service propaganda machine”.
Cambridge Analytica has denied any wrongdoing and said that the business tactics it used are widespread among other firms. For his part, Kogan insists that what he did was at all times compliant with the law — and also says, according to CNN, that he would be happy to testify before US Congress and talk to the FBI about the work he did for the company.
Facebook said on March 18 that it had suspended SCL, alleging that Kogan had “lied to us and violated our platform policies by passing data from an app that was using Facebook login to SCL/Cambridge Analytica.” Facebook states under part three of its platform policy that developers do not have permission to “transfer any data that you receive from us (including anonymous, aggregate, or derived data) to any ad network, data broker or other advertising or monetisation-related service.”
In a statement to Cambridge News, the University of Cambridge said:
We are aware that Dr Kogan established his own company, Global Science Research (GSR), of which SCL/Cambridge Analytica was a client. It is not uncommon for Cambridge academics to have business interests, but they must satisfy the university that these are held in a personal capacity and that there are no conflicts of interest.
It is our understanding that the thisisyourdigitallife app was created by GSR. Based on assurances from Dr Kogan as well as the evidence available to us, we have no reason to believe he used university data or facilities for his work with GSR, and therefore that there is no reason to believe the university’s data and facilities were used as the basis for GSR’s subsequent work with any other party.
A day after the Cambridge Analytica scandal hit, Facebook’s shares plummeted on Wall Street amid the privacy backlash. But could the incident affect legitimate academic research?
Implications
Social media data is a rich source of information for many areas of research in psychology, technology, business and humanities. Some recent examples include using Facebook to predict riots, comparing the use of Facebook with body image concern in adolescent girls and investigating whether Facebook can lower levels of stress responses, with research suggesting that it may enhance and undermine psycho-social constructs related to well-being.
It is right to believe that researchers and their employers value research integrity. But instances where trust has been betrayed by an academic — even if it’s the case that data used for university research purposes wasn’t caught in the crossfire — will have a negative impact on whether participants will continue to trust researchers. It also has implications for research governance and for companies to share data with researchers in the first place.
Universities, research organisations and funders govern the integrity of research with clear and strict ethics procedures designed to protect participants in studies, such as where social media data is used. The harvesting of data without permission from users is considered an unethical activity under commonly understood research standards.
The fallout from the Cambridge Analytica controversy is potentially huge for researchers who rely on social networks for their studies, where data is routinely shared with them for research purposes. Tech companies could become more reluctant to share data with researchers. Facebook is already extremely protective of its data — the worry is that it could become doubly difficult for researchers to legitimately access this information in light of what has happened with Cambridge Analytica.
Data analytics
Clearly, it’s not just researchers who use profile data to better understand people’s behavioural patterns. Marketing organisations have been profiling consumers for decades — if they know their customers, they will understand the triggers that prompt a purchase of their product, enabling them to adjust marketing messages to improve sales. It has become easier with digital marketing — people are constantly tracked online, their activities are analysed using data analytics tools and personal recommendations are made. Such methods are core to the business strategies of tech giants’ such as Amazon and Netflix.
Information from online behaviour can be used to predict people’s mood, emotions and personality. My own research into Intelligent Tutoring Systems uses learner interactions with software to profile personality type so it can automatically adapt tutoring to someone’s preferred style. Machine learning techniques can combine theories from psychology with new patterns found — such as Facebook “likes” — to profile users.
Eli Pariser, who is the CEO of viral content website Upworthy, has been arguing against personalisation tools since 2011. He has warned against the dangers of information filtering, and believes that the use of algorithms — to profile people to show them information tailored to personal tastes — is bad for democracy.
While these fears appear to be borne out by some allegations levelled against Cambridge Analytica, it’s worth noting that there has been no evidence to show that US votes were swung in favour of Trump due to Cambridge Analytica’s psychometric tool.
However, given his academic status, Kogan’s apparent decision to transfer Facebook data for commercial ends in violation of the social network’s policies could yet have explosive consequences, not least because researchers might find it more difficult to get Facebook — and its users — to agree to hand over the data for research alone.
Annabel Latham, Senior lecturer, Manchester Metropolitan University
March 20, 2018
After Stormy Daniels, two more women engaged in legal battle to speak out against Trump
(Credit: Getty/Alex Wong)
Stormy Daniel’s ongoing legal battle to be able to publicly discuss her alleged affair with the president appears to be inspiring more women to reclaim their voices after being silenced by affiliates of President Donald Trump.
On Tuesday, the New York Times reported that Karen McDougal, a former Playboy model, filed a lawsuit against American Media Inc. seeking to be released from a 2016 agreement which keeps her from speaking about her alleged affair with Trump. American Media Inc. owns the The National Enquirer, and its president, David Pecker, is friends with Trump, as the New York Times and others have noted.
Back in November 2016, the Wall Street Journal published a story claiming that American Media Inc. neglected to publish McDougal’s story about her alleged affair from 2006 to 2007 with Trump in a manipulative move known as “catch and kill,” in which rights to a story are bought and then never published in an attempt to silence. McDougal’s contract with American Media Inc. essentially mandates McDougal’s silence, but promised her two years’ worth of fitness columns and magazine covers.
“The lawsuit filed today aims to restore her right to her own voice,” Peter Stris, McDougal’s new lawyer, told the New York Times. “We intend to invalidate the so-called contract that American Media Inc. imposed on Karen so she can move forward with the private life she deserves.”
The lawsuit claims that Michael Cohen — who reportedly paid Stephanie Clifford (whose stage name is Stormy Daniels) $130,000 — orchestrated McDougal’s talks with American Media Inc., and also claims that the company and McDougal’s lawyer misinformed her about the deal.
According to the complaint, McDougal and Trump allegedly had a 10-month “romantic relationship.” The complaint explains:
“Ms. McDougal’s agreement has been amended to permit her to respond to ‘legitimate press inquiries’ about her relationship with Mr. Trump. Yet every time prominent reporters contact Ms. McDougal, AMI tells her exactly what she must say—nothing. They threaten her with financial ruin if she does not remain ‘loyal.’ AMI, meanwhile, feeds those same reporters false information about Ms. McDougal, her relationship with Mr. Trump, and its own machinations to bind her to silence. “
American Media Inc. has released a statement (via CNN) saying that McDougal “has been free to respond to press inquiries about her relationship with President Trump since 2016.” The company also said that the contract she signed gave the media company “the editorial discretion to publish her life story, and she promised to write health and fitness columns and appear on the cover of two magazines.”
Yet according to McDougal’s complaint, “AMI has continued to intimidate Ms. McDougal and threaten her with financial ruin if she tells her story to the American public—even as AMI itself has readily shared its own false account of both the relationship and its cover up.”
This complaint is tangential to a separate report related to a sexual harassment allegation from former “Apprentice” contestant, Summer Zervos. On Tuesday, the Washington Post reported that a judge said a defamation lawsuit against Trump may proceed. Zervos reported the lawsuit after Trump publicly said that she made up the claim. New York Supreme Court Judge Jennifer G. Schecter cited the precedent that led to former President Bill Clinton’s impeachment.
When the first wave of #MeToo allegations began, many asked why Trump appeared immune to allegations against him; yet now it seems that those concerns were unwarranted. As Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., once said, “If for some reason [Robert] Mueller does not get him, Stormy will.”
I’m not with her: Cynthia Nixon’s N.Y. governor campaign is a farce
Cynthia Nixon (Credit: AP/Jason DeCrow)
My platonic ideal of a political candidate to serve the people of my state would be a progressive gay feminist mom who runs on issues like prison reform, public education and reproductive justice. It’s just that she’d also have to have experience. Any experience. So hear me out: What if TV stars who’ve never held down a public service job running for office actually isn’t a good idea?
The announcement Monday that Emmy and Tony-winning actress Cynthia Nixon was officially running for governor of New York was immediately met with a barrage of “Sex and the City” jokes and a baffling amount of support. “She’s got my vote,” an educated, successful female friend of mine instantly opined. On Twitter, Charlotte Clymer enthused that “Cynthia Nixon has been a political activist for years. She’s also quite charismatic. You may argue against her positions, but if you’ve voted for Trump, Schwarzenegger, or Reagan, claiming she’s just ‘an entertainer with no political experience’ translates to ‘She’s a woman.'”
OK. But how about if you didn’t vote for any of those people? Is it sexist to point out that Nixon’s political career thus far seems to be limited to playing a character who serves on her building’s co-op board? History can question Reagan’s abilities forever — and for good reason — but he began his political career as president of the Screen Actors Guild nearly a decade before he ran for governor of California.
Nixon’s campaign treasurer Zephyr Teachout calls her “a long time education activist who rides the subway every day, opposes the contingent of conservative Democrats who have stalled the majority party in the state, is fearless and strong, supports single payer, [and] speaks out against big money in politics,” adding, “She will be a great governor of our amazing state.”
You know what? That’s not an impressive endorsement. Literally every woman I know has those exact qualifications, and none of them would automatically get my vote either. Teachout herself ran against Cuomo in 2014 as a political newbie too, mounting a strong but ultimately unsuccessful campaign focused on financial reform. Then she ran for Congress in an upstate purple district, losing narrowly to Republican Rep. John Faso. So in fact, Nixon’s treasurer is a far better-qualified candidate than she herself is.
In her announcement video, Nixon points out several of the pressing issues of deep concern to residents of our state, including our obscene wealth gap. She proudly describes herself as a lifelong New Yorker and public school graduate, a person who loves the place she calls home. She never mentions the Democratic governor she’s challenging, Andrew Cuomo, the underwhelming son of the late governor Mario Cuomo. Cuomo, on the other hand, wasn’t shy about shading his challenger this week, saying, “Normally name recognition is relevant when it has some connection to the endeavor. If it’s just about name recognition, then I’m hoping Brad Pitt, Angelina Jolie and Billy Joel don’t get into the race.”
I too shudder at condescending men who rode their fathers’ coattails to their own career achievements. I too want to scream every time I ride the MTA. (Ask me about the two hours it took to get to Queens on Sunday! No, really: Ask me.) I have nothing but admiration for Nixon’s track record as an outspoken advocate for LGBTQ rights, reproductive health and public education. I believe in her desire to be of service.
But I’m also asking: Ms. Nixon, how, specifically, are you going to fix the trains? Saying it’s “a top priority” isn’t an answer. How are you going to create jobs? How are you going to strengthen the state’s Excelsior scholarship program, launched by Cuomo, to make college affordable for every family? How are you going to protect every person in a state with the second-highest immigrant population in the nation? Show me a compelling reason to cast my vote — and for my teenage daughter to cast her first ever vote — in your direction. Because being female and riding the subway aren’t sufficient grounds. And providing a list of the problems isn’t the same as a concrete action plan of solutions.
Would I hold a different candidate as accountable, right out of the gate, as I expect Nixon to be? If she had no track record whatsoever, hell yes. As a point of comparison, Krishanti Vignarajah, the Democratic woman running for governor in Maryland, has worked for the State Department and is a former policy director for Michelle Obama. Stacey Abrams, a Democratic contender for governor in Georgia, has served in that state’s House of Representatives.
Over the months to come, Nixon will have to unveil detailed descriptions of her proposals for improving the state. Having Teachout as her treasurer suggests she’s surrounding herself with more politically experienced veterans. She’s also reportedly recruited Rebecca Katz and Bill Hyers, who worked on New York Mayor Bill de Blasio’s first campaign. Along the way, she may persuade voters like me that she can then get things done, from the Rockaways to Rochester. That she has an understanding of the process of governing. But right now, I’m stunned that so many of my fellow Democrats, people who have been so appalled at the rise of an inexperienced celebrity to political office, are throwing their support behind a candidate because she’s sincere and appealing and is not the guy currently in office.
This week, a female friend approvingly declared that “we could do worse” than a person of Nixon’s passion and integrity. That’s not enough for me. That’s not enough for my daughters. It sure as hell isn’t enough for the nearly 20 percent of all New Yorkers who live in poverty, or the schools with graduation rates that still lag. The people of New York deserve more than well-intentioned enthusiasm. And that’s why, until I see enough evidence that Cynthia Nixon can be an effective leader to change my mind, I’m not with her.
Rebels of “Krypton”: A Superman prequel for the Resistance
Cameron Cuffe as Superman's grandfather, Seg-El in "Krypton" (Credit: SYFY/Gavin Bond)
There’s a reason that genre entertainment is a popular means of universalizing society’s flaws. We like to think that our conflicts and struggles serve a higher purpose. Witnessing fictional versions of them as fantasy or sci-fi epics, then, can be empowering and validating. This explains why, not long after the 2016 presidential election, the symbol of the Rebellion from “Star Wars” began popping up on protest signs, window decals and bumper stickers.
What was not seen as frequently was Superman’s sigil, and for good reason. Superman is a clean-shaven servant of the establishment. A boy scout. He’s as anti-Resistance as they come. I never embraced Superman for that very reason: he applied Smallville “law and order” values to a world in which justice cloak itself in shades of grey. When Frank Miller drew the character as a government toady in his 1986 comic book series “The Dark Knight Returns,” that made perfect sense to me. There are Batman and Superman households, and ours is loyal to the Bat.
Understand, then, my predisposition to dismiss Syfy’s new series “Krypton,” making its debut Wednesday at 10 p.m. If the Kal-El is a boring goodie two-boots, surely something in the bloodline inspired that.
Shockingly, though, the series depicts the House of El as a family with rebellious roots whose ethos is based in the pursuit of scientific exploration and serves reason. Because of this, the elder El’s attempt to warn Krypton of an imminent peril headed their way from beyond the stars is met by the family’s exile from society’s higher ranks. Stripped of their status, wealth and family name, they’re made to live among the lower class, known as the Rankless, until a human from Earth, Adam Strange (Shaun Sipos), finds the remaining Els to set them back on the path meant to bring Kal-El into existence.
“Krypton” avoids comparisons to titles such as “Smallville” and nitpicking by purist followers of Superman’s universe by setting its action 200 years prior to Superman’s birth. This is the story of Seg-El (Cameron Cuffe), Superman’s roguish scofflaw of a grandfather, and begins before Jor-El is even a thought. Creators David S. Goyer and Damian Kindler remain very much aware of what the DC’s comic faithful demands of a series like this as well as the expectations of viewers who follow the TV version of these characters.
The series’ opening arc is as much concerned with exploring the histories of the names that we know from Superman’s universe as it is with instilling “Krypton” with numerous nods to political and social strife in the real world. What Clark Kent (and audiences, by proxy) know about Krypton is revealed through the generated memories of Jor-El, viewed in Superman’s Fortress of Solitude; the Christopher Reeve “Superman” films, for example, depicted it as a fallen utopia populated by beings with a superior grasp of science and technology.
By spinning a legacy that pre-dates Superman by two centuries, the writers open up the opportunity to explore Krypton as a society controlled by oligarchs bent on remaining atop the social pyramid, who exploit a theocracy, held together by a mysterious godhead. Its corrupt leader, Daron-Vex (Elliot Cowan), maintains power with the help of a militaristic elite helmed in part by the elders of the House of Zod.
The House of El threatens the stability of a society ruled by the illusion of divine right when the family patriarch Val-El (Ian McElhinney) presents a disturbing finding based on science, data and space exploration: He discovers that an all-powerful force is on its way to destroy Krypton. But this casts doubt upon the ruling class’ geocentric model of existence and the purported supremacy of Krypton’s religion. In simple terms, grandpa El warned Krypton’s politicians that they are not the greatest, that there are forces far more powerful and mighty that they. For that heresy he was tossed into an icy oblivion.
The Vex clan is a bunch of handsome devils, but they also seem expendable to the tale. In contrast, the expansion of the Zod family’s history is as vital to the success of “Krypton” as the weaving in of chapters explaining the fall and restoration of El.
That family’s tale allows the narrative to dance with the idea of might versus loyalty, and whether bending to the will of authority has more value to a stable society than independent thought. Every family, every House changes what they stand for over time, and the portrayal of the Zods as mercy-averse but essentially lawful honor-obsessives both explains the ideology of how General Zod came to be and, like the Els, goes against what we know about the name.
Melodrama always plays a part in such examinations, or else where’s the primetime fun in a story like this? Hence, “Krypton” presents a Capulet and Montague-style situation by placing Seg-El in a secretive love affair with Lyta Zod (Georgina Campbell), an officer in Krypton’s draconian military force.
Lyta’s divided feelings place her at odds with her merciless mother Alura (Ann Ogbomo) and her sentiment for Seg, whose experience living among the Rankless expands his empathy for the lower classes.
As Lyta rises in the military she chafes at abuses of power and witnesses dangerous class prejudice exercised by her troops that, in one scene, all but nods at real world examples of excessive use of police force on unarmed civilians. As one of her soldiers presses a forearm against the throat of a detained man he desperately yells, “I can’t breathe!” Chaos ensues. (Notably the actors portraying the Zod family are all black, as if Goyer and Kindler seek to make their point about power abuse while removing race — and #BlackLivesMatter — from the equation.)
In this way “Krypton” stealthily aspires to filter social commentary into its plot, much in the way the 2004 version of “Battlestar Galactica” eventually did. That revival was seen by many as a pop culture allegory for the Iraq War chapters of the Bush era, asking its audience to weigh the subtle differences between what the dominant narrative tells us to believe about, for example, the definitions of what it means to be a freedom fighter versus what it means to be a terrorist.
It’s worth pointing out that the creators of the original “Battlestar” were sued for mimicking “Star Wars” too closely for comfort. So if the early aughts version of the sci-fi TV series sold viewers on an appreciation of resistance, George Lucas’ culture-saturating mythos deserves some of the credit for that.
“Krypton” is nowhere nearly as nuanced — “Battlestar” frequently wasn’t either, for that matter — and in its opening hour trains much of its focus on building a soap opera bridge to the ancestral history of Earth’s greatest champion.
But it is heartening to see a Syfy series take advantage of our ongoing fascination with the DC Universe, and other comic book properties, to attempt to make a statement about where we are and the possible dangers that lie ahead. Krypton will fall; there’s no getting around that. But it could be very educational to see how heavily ignorance and hubris are to blame for its demise, and what role that insight plays in giving birth to a more hopeful tomorrow.
What the home of “an Indian” looks like, from the reservation to the Ganges
Still from "Gathered Places" (Credit: Terry Jones)
Talk about high concept. In “Gathered Places: An Indian Documentary Film,” two filmmakers, Terry Jones and Govind Deecee, visit each others’ homelands to explore where their cultures and identities as Indians — one is Native American, one South Asian — overlap and diverge. Check out the trailer:
You can watch the full documentary “Gathered Places” on Salon Premium, our new ad-free, content-rich app. Here’s how.
Salon talked to Jones about the collaboration behind “Gathered Places,” and where he and Deecee are going next.
How did “Gathered Places” come about?
“Gathered Places: An Indian Documentary Film” was a collaborative effort by fellow film student Govind Deecee and myself. I grew up and reside on the Cattaraugus Indian reservation and I am an enrolled member of the Seneca Nation of Indians. Govind grew up and lives in Kottayam, India, which is located in the southern part of India. Govind and I met during our first semester at Syracuse University. In a classroom filled of American and International students, the most common and uniting denominator was that we all spoke English. The fact that we both introduced ourselves as an “Indian” created an unexpected double meaning of the word for the class and for ourselves. Govind and I both enrolled in the same film production class during our second semester. The first group assignment involved working with the Bolex film camera and when the professor requested students to split into work groups, the American students quickly formed their own groups. When the dust settled, Govind, two Chinese students and I were left to work in the “international group.” The resulting short film, “Make Glove, Not War,” would be one of many film projects between two unlikely film collaborators, Terry Jones and Govind Deecee.
The idea of “Gathered Places: An Indian Documentary Film” was initially manifested visually in a short documentary called “Indian,” which was produced during our sophomore year. This five-minute piece explored, through a split screen, the similarities of experiences between Deecee and myself during our studies at Syracuse University. Topics we discussed were Indian appearances, food and clothing. Initial critical feedback reflected that “Indian” felt more like a trailer to a larger documentary piece.
As potential senior film thesis ideas were being formulated, we decided that an expanded Indian documentary was in the forefront of potential film projects. Thanks to a funding grant through the Renée Crown University Honors Program at Syracuse, my production trip to India was fully-funded.
Where do you stand on calling Native Americans “Indians” or, shall I say, calling Indians “Native Americans”?
In Seneca culture, we have a word that refers to American Indians as ö:gwe’o:weh, which means “original man.” Many of the [ways dominant culture refers to] Indigenous people are being claimed or re-claimed by Native people themselves. For example, instead of being referred to as “Iroquois,” the people of the Six Nations refer to themselves as Haudenosaunee; much like the Navajo refer to themselves as Diné. For me, I think it’s a form of empowerment by taking away the English word and its connotations, and perhaps stereotypical associations, and redefine the meaning with our own words. Personally, I really don’t take offense when people use “American Indian,” “Native American” or “Indian.” [Although] it would offend me if those words were used in a derogatory manner.
What is your relationship with Govind, the other subject of the film? Is he credited as co-director?
During my time at Syracuse University, Govind and I collaborated on many short films. We made a deliberate attempt to take the hierarchy out of our projects as we tried to approach our projects as a collaboration where we all bring our best talents to the table. That’s why all of our completed projects are presented as “a film by” instead of a stream of “directed by,” “produced by,” “written by,” etc. in the closing credits. On a typical film project, we flesh out the initial story concept and character development. We know we are ready to put our ideas to script when we are both able to “see” the film in our own minds. We work together on all forms of production: location scouting, wardrobe, actors’ auditions, set design, fundraising and budgeting. If we had to delineate who does which roles: Govind does the cinematography for our film shoots while I do the editing and sound design. During filming, we are both co-directors. Prior to filming, we have already decided where the cameras will be while pre-determining how we edit the film together, as well as what we need from our actors.
What were the perceptions of Native Americans like over there in India?
I think people in India more perceived me as a foreigner than an American Indian. When we were filming in Varanasi, being perceived as a foreigner meant that I probably had money. In the film, you see an older gentleman messaging my face and arms. I look at Govind behind the camera and ask how much I should pay him. By that time, we were already creating a small scene as other people who had things to sell, were starting to surround us in the hopes of attaining some money.
How would you characterize the current status of Native American documentary filmmaking?
It’s challenging to be a Native filmmaker. Producing a Native film, whether a narrative or documentary, is like pitching a foreign film within the U.S. For example, when I watch a foreign film, besides trying to understand the narrative and characters while reading subtitles, there are also distractions in the form of the visuals. I am also trying to observe new (to me) surroundings like where do they live, where do they go to school, what is their way of life. Native films have that same problem: We live in a culture where the dominant culture does not fully understand us. Our films need to not only entertain our audiences but they must also educate them. I feel that audiences who watch Native documentary are fascinated to see a world they’ve never seen before, especially from the perspective of a Native filmmaker.
Of course, Native filmmakers want their films to be experienced by the widest audience possible. So, we have to ride the line between giving mainstream festivals more of what they are looking for while trying to insert your own perspective and style of the film form. It’s striving to make films that are engaging and conventional.
I can only speak for myself but when I approach documentary filmmaking, I try to stay away from the style of the moving image interspersed with talking head interviews. Mind you, the three short documentary films I produced were made while I was learning about the process of making documentary films. I didn’t go in with a deliberate “style.” I didn’t know if it would resonate with the outside world beyond academia. In the two years since graduating from Syracuse, my short docs have screened in over 16 film festivals. I have slowly learned to grow into the idea that I have a documentary style that people want to see. I know going forward, I will approach future documentary projects with a confidence I didn’t have previously. Also, it’s worth noting that two of my short docs were offered by the Canadian Filmmakers Distribution Centre in Toronto to be the films’ official distributor and sales agent.
What are you (and Govind) working on now?
I plan on visiting Govind in India at the end of this March to begin work on our next short film projects. One of our projects is call “Sewn,” a 20-minute narrative drama based on real life events. “Sewn” is about Lucy and Gertie, two elderly women longing to be reunited after being orphans in an Indian residential boarding school in the 1950s. Can these two childhood friends heal the painful memories of their past before it’s too late? “Sewn” is about longing, loss and closure. We are hoping to release “Sewn” by the end of 2018.
Of course, making a period drama will be financially challenging for us. We will be experimenting with different forms of crowd-sourcing to see if we can get it fully financed. This includes Kickstarter, Patreon, Seed & Spark or Go Fund Me. Shameless plug: if anyone is interested in helping us: information about all our films and future projects can be found on our website at www.tornjerseymedia.com.
And here are a few links on recent projects: the official “Gathered Places” webpage; the trailer for “Unearthed,” which is making the festival rounds at the moment; and a trailer for “Soup For My Brother.”
Take a trip into the hearts and homes of Jones and Deecee. Watch “Gathered Places” on Salon Premium, our new ad-free, content-rich app.
Reading this in the app already? Go back to the main menu and select “SalonTV” to find Salon Films and Salon original shows.
This week on SalonTV: New Orleans mayor, “Full Frontal with Samantha Bee,” Roxanne Shanté and more
The mayor of New Orleans, Mitch Landrieu, will appear on SalonTV this week to talk about his approach for bringing the people of New Orleans together, and what led to his decision to remove Confederate monuments from the city of New Orleans, which is the subject of his new book “In the Shadow of Statues: A White Southerner Confronts History.”
Two new Netflix projects centered around hip-hop will stop by, including Sacha Jenkins of “Rapture,” an eight-episode documentary series spotlighting the lives of Nas, Dave East, T.I., Rapsody, Logic and more, and legendary MC Roxanne Shanté and the actor who plays her in a new biopic “Roxanne, Roxanne,” Chanté Adams. The film is co-produced by Forest Whitaker and Pharrell Williams and centers on Shanté’s life in the Queensbridge Projects in NYC and her rise to rap star.
Get ready to laugh with Ashley Nicole Black and Amy Hoggart, correspondents from “Full Frontal with Samantha Bee.” They’ll discuss their one-hour Puerto Rico travel special airing on TBS on March 28. Plus, what does everyone in the modern world need to know? Renowned psychologist Jordan B. Peterson presents his latest book, “12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos,” which attempts to answer it through scientific research.
Tune in live on Salon’s Facebook page. Click on any segment for the option to add it to your calendar and receive reminders.
Tune into SalonTV’s live shows, “Salon Talks” and “Salon Stage” daily at 12 p.m. ET / 9 a.m. PT and 4 p.m. ET / 1 p.m. PT, which stream live on Salon, Facebook and Periscope. For a weekly roundup of our best videos, sign-up for our video newsletter.
About SalonTV
SalonTV is the online destination for in-depth, informative and revealing conversations with leading newsmakers, cultural icons, musicians and more. From celebrity interviews and roundtable discussions on current events to live music performances, SalonTV lets you watch the content you already love to read. Just hit play.
Facebook CIO rumored to be leaving as FTC scrutinizes company
Alex Stamos (Credit: Getty/Win McNamee)
Facebook is facing up to another day of bad news. On the heels of reports that Cambridge Analytica — a voter-profiling company — reportedly harvested Facebook users’ information, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission is reportedly preparing to launch a probe. Meanwhile, Facebook’s chief information security officer, Alex Stamos, may soon be out at the company.
From their role in alleged Russian disinformation campaigns to their role in proliferating fake news to reported privacy breaches, the accumulation of Facebook’s running list of problems has created the perfect storm to put the social media conglomerate in an unmanageable position. According to the New York Times, the company’s recent issues have caused tensions to boil over at the executive level, which point to why Stamos is allegedly leaving the company by August. The Times report claims that Stamos had advocated for more disclosure around Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election, but was met with opposition, thus leading to his day-to-day responsibilities being dispersed in December, sources told the New York Times. Stamos reportedly would have left Facebook, but there was a debate over how that would look to the public, which is why he reportedly was “persuaded” to stay until August, per the Times.
In a statement to the New York Times, Stamos said, “these are really challenging issues, and I’ve had some disagreements with all of my colleagues, including other executives.” On Twitter he said his role has “changed,” but he’s still “fully engaged” with his work at the company. He didn’t disclose future plans with the company, and referred to the reports around his alleged departure as “rumors.”
Despite the rumors, I'm still fully engaged with my work at Facebook. It's true that my role did change. I'm currently spending more time exploring emerging security risks and working on election security.
— Alex Stamos (@alexstamos) March 19, 2018
Stamos also said via Twitter that Facebook’s security team had “never been […] discouraged” from investigating the Russian meddling.
To be clear, the security team has never been prevented or discouraged from investigating any Russian activity by any executives. https://t.co/At2KSn8oXE
— Alex Stamos (@alexstamos) March 20, 2018
Meanwhile, the Cambridge Analytica scandal continued to unfold. This past weekend, news broke that Cambridge Analytica had illicitly acquired personal information from over 50 million Facebook users, which it used to aid in manipulating public opinion, according to The New York Times. That means that Cambridge Analytica, in working for the Trump campaign, violated the privacy of millions of unsuspecting people to help Trump win.
Facebook reportedly broke American and British laws by failing to disclose to users that their data had been used by the firm.
According to a Bloomberg report, the FTC is investigating whether or not the company’s behavior violated the terms of a 2011 consent decree. The FTC hasn’t released an official statement about the matter, but according to Bloomberg, Facebook will reportedly receive a letter regarding the probe.
Reuters recently reported that Facebook has been told it will receive a letter from the FTC, too, with questions about the data given to Cambridge Analytica. “We remain strongly committed to protecting people’s information. We appreciate the opportunity to answer questions the FTC may have,” Facebook Deputy Chief Privacy Officer Rob Sherman said in a statement issued to Reuters.
These are indeed dire times for Facebook, and for social media in general. Questions about penalties, disclosures, privacy, and the place social media holds in our society remain less clear than they did a few years ago. Given that post-Millennials are increasingly unenthused about Facebook, the company’s future looks dimmer. Indeed, Facebook’s stock has been rattled as of late, a situation that has taken a toll on Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s net worth. In the last 48 hours, Zuckerberg reportedly lost $9 billion in stock wealth.
Battle of the bunnies: John Oliver spoof outsells Pence family’s book
John Oliver; Mike Pence (Credit: Getty/Bryan Bedder/AP/Mandel Ngan)
There are currently two children’s books on store shelves about the family pet of Vice President Mike Pence, a bunny named Marlon Bundo, and they are not the same. There is the Pence family’s original version, “Marlon Bundo’s Day in the Life of the Vice President,” and John Oliver’s spoof, in which Marlon Bundo is gay.
“Last Week Tonight with John Oliver Presents a Day in the Life of Marlon Bundo” is far outpacing its Pence counterpart in terms of sales. Written by Jill Twiss and illustrated by EG Keller, it ranked as the No. 1 best-seller on Amazon, where its hardcover version was temporarily out of stock, as of Monday afternoon. Meanwhile, the Pence version, written by the vice president’s daughter Charlotte and illustrated by his wife Karen, sat squarely behind in fourth place.
“Oliver unveiled the book on Sunday night after a segment detailing Pence’s longtime hostility to the LGBTQ community,” HuffPost reported. “Not only does the show’s book feature a gay rabbit ― and a stink bug villain that looks suspiciously like Pence ― but proceeds from its sales will be donated to the Trevor Project, which supports LGBTQ youth, as well as the AIDS United charity.” The proceeds from Pence’s book, in turn, go to both Tracy’s Kids, a program that brings arts to kids with cancer, and A21, an organization that fights human trafficking.
In general, the Pence family is taking the competition in humor and stride. On Marlon Bundo’s official Instagram profile (because of course it has its own account), Oliver is tagged in a photo that is captioned: “Not gonna lie, I do look pretty fly in a bow tie. The only thing better than one bunny book for charity is…TWO bunny books for charity.”
A post shared by Marlon Bundo (Pence) (@marlonbundo) on Mar 19, 2018 at 10:40am PDT
During an appearance on Fox Business Network to promote the children’s business, Charlotte Pence kept things diplomatic when asked about the competition. “I mean, I think you know, imitation is the most sincere form of flattery in a way,” she said. “But also, in all seriousness, his book is contributing to charities that I think we can all get behind. We have two books giving to charities that are about bunnies, so I’m all for it really.” Karen Pence, who sat next to her daughter, remained mum on the matter.
.@charlipence on @iamjohnoliver's parody book on the second family's pet bunny: "His book is contributing to charities that I think we can all get behind… I'm all for it." pic.twitter.com/hEWn4sX95H
— FOX Business (@FoxBusiness) March 20, 2018
A Republican lawmaker from Pence’s hometown offered a far firmer take. “Sad to see John Oliver belittle Mike Pence’s faith and mock a children’s book the Pence family wrote together,” Indiana Rep. Luke Messer wrote on his Facebook page. “More proof of how out of step media elites are with most Americans.”
Michael Moore blasts “corporate media” for only talking about “Russia, Russia, Russia”
Michael Moore (Credit: Getty/Theo Wargo)
Filmmaker and adamant progressive Michael Moore is blasting the “corporate media” for focusing on scandalous and sensational stories such as the Russia investigation and President Donald Trump’s legal battle with adult film actress Stormy Daniels.
The remarks came during a live town hall event about economic inequality that was organized by 2016 presidential candidate Bernie Sanders. The event, which was live-streamed on Monday night, was viewed by more than 1.7 million viewers, according to the Huffington Post.
“You turn on the TV, and it’s ‘Russia, Russia, Russia!'” Moore said. Sanders chimed in, “And don’t forget Stormy Daniels!”
“These are all shiny keys to distract us,” Moore continued. “We should know about the West Virginia strike. What an inspiration that would be. But they don’t show this, Bernie, because, what would happen if they did?”
This sentiment from progressives has often been interpreted as a lack of care or concern for all things Russia-related. But they made it clear on Monday that wasn’t the case, and perhaps, offered a more sober perspective that looks further than just Trump.
“What I would say to our friends in the corporate media: Start paying attention to the reality of how many people in our country are struggling economically every single day, and talk about it,” Sanders advised. “In recent years, we have seen incredible growth in the number of billionaires, while 40 million Americans continue to live in poverty and we have the highest rate of childhood poverty of almost any major country on earth.”
Sanders continued: “We have to fight Trump every day. But we have to not lose our vision as to where we want to go as a country. We can talk about the disastrous role Russia has played in trying to undermine American democracy. That is enormously important. But we also have to talk about the fact that we have the highest rate of child poverty in any major economy of the world.”
The two also made it clear whom the culprit for such a vast wealth gap may be. The nation’s three wealthiest men, Jeff Bezos Bill Gates and Warren Buffet were “singled out as contributing to the widening wealth gap,” The Guardian noted. Also named was the influential lobbyist group the American Legislative Exchange Council, and longtime major GOP donors Charles and David Koch, known as the Koch brothers.
Moore also warned of merely focusing on issues related to Trump, and not on factors that contributed to his electoral victory that look further than just the 2016 election.
“With that in mind, I want to make this clear,” Moore explained. “If we just get rid of Trump, and return to what it was like the day before Trump, how were things then? With healthcare? With poverty? We have to move forward. And we have to provide the leadership and vision to make that happen.”
Moore expressed the need to reach out to non-voters, and those who have chosen apathy in the past. “The biggest party is the non-voters’ party,” he said. “They aren’t going to vote, unless you give them a reason to vote.”
He continued, “It’s so important that we hold the people who say they’re for the people ― hold their feet to the fire! And if they’re not going to do the job they say they’re going to do, let’s get somebody else.”
The event was made available online via media outlets such as NowThis, The Young Turks and Act.tv., The Guardian noted. The British daily newspaper also acted as “media partner” for the event. Moore and Sanders were joined by other prominent progressives Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., as well as economist Darrick Hamilton.
DeVos and the limits of the education reform movement
Education Secretary Betsy DeVos speaks at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Oxon Hill, Md., Thursday, Feb. 23, 2017. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh) (Credit: AP)
Betsy DeVos exposed the education reform movement’s pitfalls in her highest-profile media appearance to date.
President Donald Trump’s education secretary got the job based on her years of advocacy for expanding “school choice,” especially in Michigan, her home state. Yet she stumbled when Lesley Stahl asked her in a widely watched CBS “60 Minutes” interview to assess the track record for those efforts.
“I don’t know. Overall, I — I can’t say overall that they have all gotten better,” DeVos stammered.
It’s not just Michigan or Midwestern conservatives. Policymakers and philanthropists across the ideological spectrum and the nation have teamed up to reform public education for decades, only to find that their bold projects have fallen short. Regardless of the evidence, however, top-down reform remains the standard among politicians and big donors.
As an educational policy scholar, I have identified a few reasons why school reform efforts so persistently get lackluster results, as well as why enthusiasm for reform hasn’t waned. Despite its long-term failure, large-scale education reform maintains consistent bipartisan support and is backed by roughly US$4 billion a year in philanthropic funding derived from some of the nation’s biggest fortunes.
Shiny objectives
DeVos may be a uniquely polarizing figure, but she is hardly the first federal leader to champion school reform.
Ever since 1983, when the Reagan administration published its “A Nation at Risk” report bemoaning the quality of American public education, politicians have rallied public support for plans to overhaul the nation’s education system. Over the past quarter century, leaders from both parties have backed the creation of curricular standards and high-stakes standardized tests. And they have pushed privately operated charter schools as a replacement for traditional public schools, along with vouchers and other subsidies to defray the cost of private school tuition.
All of these large-scale school reform efforts, whether pushed by the federal government or backed by billionaire philanthropists including the families of Facebook co-founder Mark Zuckerberg, Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates, homebuilder and insurance mogul Eli Broad, late Walmart founder Sam Walton and DeVos herself have encountered setbacks.
Still, the larger ethos of reform hasn’t changed. And none of the leaders of this effort, including DeVos, appear to be wavering in their efforts, even when challenged with evidence, as happened during her cringe-inducing “60 Minutes” interview.
A cycle of failure
From George W. Bush’s No Child Left Behind to Barack Obama’s Race to the Top and the Every Student Succeeds Act that was signed into law in 2015, the federal government has taken a highly interventionist approach to education policy.
But it has routinely failed to produce promised results. Today, educators, scholars and policymakers now almost universally regard No Child Left Behind as a washout. And many critiques of Obama-era reform efforts have been equally blistering.
Nevertheless, the core approach to federal education policy has not markedly changed.
The chief reason that all this activity has produced so little change, in my view, is that the movement’s populist politics encourage reformers to make promises beyond what they can reasonably expect to deliver. The result, then, is a cycle of searing critique, sweeping proposal, disappointment and new proposal. The particulars of each recipe may differ, but the overall approach is always the same.
Cookie cutters
Beyond this dysfunctional cycle, the other big reason the school reform movement has consistently come up short has to do with an approach that is both too narrow and too generic.
Ever since 1966, when Johns Hopkins University sociologist James S. Coleman determined in his government-commissioned report that low-income children of color benefit from learning in integrated settings, most education researchers have agreed that economic inequality and social injustice are among the most powerful drivers of educational achievement gaps. What students achieve in a school, in other words, reflects their living conditions outside its walls.
Yet rather than addressing the daunting issues like persistent poverty that shape children’s lives and interfere with their learning, education reformers have largely embraced a management consultant approach. That is, they seek systems-oriented solutions that can be assessed through bottom-line indicators. This has been particularly true in the case of conservatives like DeVos, who even in her stand against the public education “system,” has proposed a new kind of system — school choice — as a solution.
This approach fails to address the core problems shaping student achievement at a time when researchers like Sean Reardon at Stanford University find that income levels are more correlated with academic achievement than ever and the gap between rich students and less affluent kids is growing.
At the same time, reformers of all stripes have tried to enact change at the largest possible scale. To work everywhere, however, education reforms must be suitable for all schools, regardless of their particular circumstances.
This cookie-cutter approach ignores educational research. Scholars consistently find that schools don’t work that way. I believe, as others do, that successful schools are thriving ecosystems adapted to local circumstances. One-size-fits-all reform programs simply can’t have a deep impact in all schools and in every community.
Entrepreneurial outsiders
Perhaps this flawed approach to education reform has survived year after year of disappointing results because policy leaders, donors and politicians tend not to challenge each other on the premise that the ideal of school reform requires a sweeping overhaul — even though they may disagree about the best route. DeVos may be criticized for her dogmatic demeanor, but her approach is fairly mainstream in most regards.
Additionally, many leading reformers generally subscribe to the ethos of educational entrepreneurism. They consider visionary leadership as essential, even when leaders have scant relevant professional experience. That was the case with DeVos before she became education secretary. As outsiders operating within a complex system, however, reformers often fail take the messy real-world experiences of U.S. schools into account.
Finally, the reformers see failure as an acceptable part of the entrepreneurial process. Rather than second-guess their approach when their plans come up short, they may just believe that they placed the wrong bet. As a result, the constant blare of pitches and promises continues. And it’s possible that none of them will ever measure up, no matter the evidence.
Editor’s note: This article incorporates elements of a story published on March 8, 2018, and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is a strategic partner of The Conversation US and provides funding for The Conversation internationally.
Jack Schneider, Assistant Professor of Education, College of the Holy Cross
