readingthearticle

[readingthearticle]

think i'm gonna resurrect this here sideblog in light of Current Events. stay tuned for me reading articles and telling you what they actually say

[readingthearticle]

Trump did not publish this list. According to the linked article, the website publishing these "targets" claims to be a project of conservative watchdog group the American Accountability Foundation. While this list's publication aligns with many of Trump and Musk's actions, it is not one of them.

Trump publishes DEI watch list, it’s mostly black people

Welp we are officially on some KKK shit, folks.

[readingthearticle]

I think there are fair and necessary criticisms to make of Atlantic coverage and this article in particular. I do not think this is one of them.

This is an article in which the writer argues that there are currently no reliable figures for the Gaza death toll. The article argues that Hamas figures are unreliable, that Israel has done nothing to show that its figures can be trusted, and that the UN has not done its due diligence in verifying the numbers it presents as fact. The second paragraph ends with the following lines: "The apparent downward revision was made without any accompanying statement to explain the change or sudden precision. Israel’s military did not make a big deal about it either, probably because there is no way to sound good when celebrating a reduction in the number of children you have killed." This article starts off by acknowledging that Israel has killed thousands of children and has not been honest about it.

The article alleges that Hamas's numbers are unreliable, both because Hamas is a "terrorist" group and because medical care has taken priority over cataloging the dead.

The article is extremely critical of Hamas. However, it also casts blame on Israel for not abiding by the accepted standard of modern armies purporting to adhere to international law — transparency to the press.

The paragraph in question is part of an analysis of the tactical considerations Israel is weighing when deciding not to let press on the battlefield, a decision the article deems a "calculated risk." I'm not saying I agree with the very clinical, both-sides way the article presents the issue of unreliable casualty numbers on the Gaza Strip. But I don't think this paragraph is intended to justify the deaths of children. The Atlantic is not responsible for the aspects of national and international law that allow the legal killing of children in war under certain circumstances. "It is possible to kill children legally" is a true statement, just like "It is possible to marry a 14-year-old in Mississippi" is a true statement — it's not necessarily an endorsement on the part of whoever's saying it, though it can be. Context is required to know whether the speaker is justifying something, presenting neutral information, or stating an obviously unjust law as an indictment of that legal system. The point of the paragraph is that, even if Israel kills children "legally," that makes no difference when it comes to how that death is regarded by the press and the public. As the next sentence says, the sight of a legally killed child is no less disturbing than the sight of an illegally killed one. The writer draws the conclusion that this may be a consideration for Israel keeping out press — that even legal wartime actions may be regarded negatively. The paragraph then goes on to explain that this practice has backfired, because most people don't have a favorable view of armies who carry out their operations out of view of the press.

So, no, I don't believe this article is justifying the genocide of Palestinians or the murder of children, legal or not. It's a condemnation of the UN for not using reliable numbers, an argument that Hamas is unreliable for casualty numbers, a statement that Israel hasn't done its due diligence in providing or verifying its data, an analysis of the PR reasons Israel might keep press out and the risks of that policy, and an expression of a desire for more reliable numbers for the sake of the dignity of the dead and evidence in genocide or war crime hearings.

Everything contained within this article is, of course, something one could absolutely disagree with or condemn The Atlantic for. These analyses are not meant to be an argument in favor of the author's position. But I think clarity and context is important when dissecting how media discusses and frames the genocide in Gaza.

Please feel free to add your personal thoughts and analysis.

If you, for some reason, still have a subscription to the Atlantic, cancel it

[readingthearticle]

Rating: Misleading, but a kernel of truth. Several local news organizations have been granted permission to televise legal proceedings in Scott McAfee's courtroom through September 8. This covers the timeline during which the ARRAIGNMENTS are expected to take place. If they're delayed, this permission will no longer apply. McCafee and his office have not yet indicated whether they intend to allow the trial to be televised. This news article is at the tail end of a game of telephone. The arraignments are different from the trial. Here's a more reliable source: https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4165402-trumps-georgia-arraignment-expected-to-be-televised-fulton-county-judge-says/

Fulton County judge orders Trump's trial to be televised

Fulton County Judge Scott McAfee on Tuesday issued an order allowing media organizations to televise the trial of former President Donald Trump and 18 others for alleged election interference.

McAfee's order allows recording video images and sound "during all or portions of the proceedings."

[readingthearticle]

Fun fact: this is actually worse than it looks!

The cutoff age is 18 despite the age of majority being 16 in Mississippi. Basically, it's not an outright ban, but it's a ban if these platforms can't ensure they don't remove all obscenity from their platforms. So a functional ban. And, you guessed it, that definition of obscenity explicitly singles out queerness!

I never want to hear conservatives go on about repressive censorship in China, North Korea, and Iran ever again

[readingthearticle]

Worth noting they actually talked to the originator of the idea! Not much reporting beyond that and what's already been done online, it's an article really centered around that one interview.

I can't believe CNN just ran a story about DashCon in the year 2023

[readingthearticle]

So, I can't really blame people for not actually reading this article as it's paywalled, but...the headline is misleading here. Protip: you can often get past an article paywall by putting "cache:[article URL here" in your google search bar

And I know we're just goofing here. We're just clowning. And, yeah, making fun of journalists for looking like they stepped out of the 1920s is pretty funny, I say as someone who wears a tan trenchcoat to work half the time. However...maybe it's just me being oversensitive, but after the demonization of journalists in recent years, I kind of get my hackles up every time I see people online see an article they haven't actually read but think they don't like and immediately jump to going after the writer.

The headline was no doubt written to be deliberately contrarian to drive clicks by capitalizing on a hot topic. But what does the article ACTUALLY say?

In short, it's a caution against anthropomorphizing killer whales. The writer argues that there's no actual evidence that the orca who began this trend did so after trauma. Instead, he cites an expert who thinks this phenomenon is more likely a result of curiosity and an instinct to play. A juvenile may have started this behavior, and spread it to other orcas, like that time when they were all putting fish on their heads.

Now, I'm no biologist. But this makes a lot more sense to me than the vengeance narrative — from what I know about apex predators, they don't pick fights they don't know they can win.

As the article writer points out, humans have a very long history of killing and abusing orcas, and yet there has never been a recorded instance of an orca killing a human in the wild. Why would they start their vengeance now?

There's a quote that gets taken out of context from this article a lot where he calls orcas "sadistic jerks" — what people seem to miss is the context, where what he's specifically saying is this is how we WOULD have to see orcas if we judged them by human standards. And he's right! Orcas exhibit behaviors that would be morally repugnant in humans. But it's not intellectually or morally coherent to apply human ethical standards to animals. And that includes their good behaviors as well as their bad ones.

I particularly like the last part:

"In our present era of environmental catastrophe, Shields told me, it’s appealing to think that nature might fight back, that the villains get their just deserts.

But projection and anthropomorphization are only shortcuts to a shallow sympathy. Orcas really are capable of intense grief; they are also capable of tormenting seal pups as a hobby. They are intelligent, emotionally complex creatures. But they are not us."

So, in conclusion, this is an inflammatory headline, not a bad article. I would recommend reading it.

And, to editorialize a little...

It is a nice thought, isn't it? That the orcas are fighting back. That nature will rise up just like in a movie, that there's only so far that humanity can push before we get pushback from the "rightful" inhabitants of the ocean.

I think it's an attractive narrative because it absolves humanity of some responsibility. There is an entity other than us that will recognize wrongdoing, that will push back against it in a manner and intensity commensurate with what our own moral standards might approve of. It's not a fight we have to start if the orcas attack first.

But that's not true. Animals don't know what climate change is. They cannot recognize and contextualize the broader causes of their suffering. Animals are intelligent, they have emotions, they have complex inner lives...but they will never be able to meaningfully conceptualize and enact revolutionary praxis, and I think that any narrative that frames them as doing so, even jokingly, runs the risk of irresponsibly projecting our own moral frameworks onto entities that simply cannot operate under them. And that just sets us up for disappointment and science denial when we're reminded that these apex predators are also capable of great cruelty.

In conclusion: if you see an inflammatory headline, consider reading the article before posting about it. It might give you more insight into how headline writers seek attention and engagement, and how legitimately good points are often used to capitalize off of hot topics.

[readingthearticle]

Article here: https://www.vice.com/en/article/jge377/stanford-smart-toilet-uses-butthole-for-identification

This is a case of a headline using the most out there and interesting aspect of a story as a hook — there's more to it than the analprint analysis.

The idea for the smart toilet is that it uses video footage and neural networks to analyze one's, ahem, excrement of both the liquid and solid variety in order to monitor people's health. The purpose of the analprint camera is to distinguish between different people in a household to associate the proper health data with the right person. Now, I don't know why they didn't just have an option to log who's shitting, but hey, I'm not a scientist.

I glanced through the affiliations of the authors — there's one or two marketing people, but it's by and large professors and researchers from various health-related fields. I can't speak to the actual viability of this idea or exactly to what extent this is Silicon valley brainworm poisoning, but this smart toilet does have a health-related purpose.

So...there's that. I guess.

WHY

[readingthearticle]

Took me a few links to track down the source, since the PW tweet is referencing a Business Insider article that in turn pulls from an article the author, Tim Boucher, wrote for Newsweek.

First off: calling these "books" is misleading. Each one is 2,000 to 5,000 words, with 40-140 Midjourney-generated images. Not only does this guy use ChatGPT for text generation, but also uses a different generative program for generating ideas. He says it takes him 6-8 hours for each book, sometimes as little as 3 hours, including publishing. (That's pretty funny, considering it takes me about 3 hours to churn out 2k of fanfiction that I Actually Wrote, but I digress.) His only refutation to the idea that these aren't actually books but short stories is that they're making a good return on investment. This should give you some insight on what, exactly, he views as the most important function of art.

Boucher says that the reason he leans toward flash-fiction slice of life interspersed with in-universe encyclopedia entries is because AI can't really produce coherent narratives or character arcs.

Also...look, I don't mean to disparage self-published authors or authors who are just starting out. But. This guy doesn't seem to really have anything published. He sells the AI books themselves through Gumroad under the account Lost Books (AI Publisher). This is not representative of something happening in the larger publishing industry, because this really is just some guy churning out generated crap. He isn't actually an author, because he doesn't write anything, at least not currently. There are two books listed under his name on Goodreads, but considering that one of these is also posted on the Lost Books page without his name attached, I think it's fair to say he didn't write it. Here's the summary for one:

"Inspired by classics like Gulliver’s Travels and Utopia, the book traces the voyage of a really smart (and really high) conspiracy dude as he discovers this strange new reality where sentient AIs manipulate humanity using synthetic social media, cryptocurrency, and virtual reality. Meanwhile, government is outlawed, and conspiracy theories are traded on the stock market, and become the only thing taught in schools."

Riveting.

All the testimonials/positive reviews on the page are from Reddit. Reviewers on Goodreads were...shall we say, less kind to his work.

He appears to have actually written "The Lost Direction," given that it came out in 2021 before Chat GPT could be used to write books afaik. Apparently this experience of actually writing a book was not one he wanted to repeat.

He claims to be making thousands from these books, and that people often buy multiple at once. I have no way of fact-checking this. But on Gumroad, literally none of his "books" have any reviews.

Boucher claims that ChatGPT has allowed him to bring stories and universes to life that have been brewing in his mind for years. Just from glancing at some of the summaries of these "books," I think it's fair to say he should have let them brew a little longer.

And now for the part of the post where I provide insight into journalism as an industry.

This guy has received a disproportionate amount of press for what is, essentially, conducting a grift worthy of a Dan Olsen video. This is something we talked about in our journalism marketing class, actually. Media outlets want stories about the Big Hot Thing, and right now, that Thing is AI. Whether you're a freelancer or a staff member scrambling for pitches, AI is a safe bet. People want to read about it, which means editors want stories about it. The thing about editors is...they're not typically tech-savvy people. Journalists are, essentially, laymen pressured by our profession to give a Take on every new hot thing that hits the market. By the time we've had time to properly research something really in-depth, it's often out of the news cycle, left to outlets that do longer investigative work. I have no doubt that we're not far from seeing a huge wave of longer stories from the likes of Politico, WaPo, and Mother Jones about AI that are far more well-researched and nuanced than what's been said so far — that wave has already started. Fortunately, that's the kind of journalism I hope to do in the future. I just wish that my cohorts in the more day-to-day sections of the press would stop hyping up this one guy running a grift.

[readingthearticle]

I’m really enjoying the fact that there is an article and people are trying to figure out how it happened in the first place lol

[readingthearticle]

Verdict: Misleading Headline

Link: https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/cpi-report-today-january-2023-inflation/card/to-save-money-maybe-you-should-skip-breakfast-fSd6mz0miaAPhUFb2jgy

The actual content of the article contains zero editorial or suggestions that people should skip breakfast. It's three paragraphs cataloging recent price increases in breakfast staples. This is certainly a case of some editor trying to make an article more clickable by slapping a headline like this on something quite dry and informational. So yeah, keep in mind that this happens a lot in journalism — especially at larger publications, the person writing headlines is almost always not the reporter who wrote the article, and as such often won't be thinking as much about the implications and optics of what they're writing beyond garnering reader interest.

“Poor? Have you tried starving? “

[readingthearticle]

They also aimed to further silence her by transferring all the bills slated for committees she sits on into other committees.

In montana US today, I was present for the censuring of trans rep Zooey Zephyr. She has been forbidden from speaking and from entering the chamber for the rest of the year. Please help raise awareness of them silencing our voices in this small state.

I've been sort of keeping tabs on her, it's genuinely fucked up and horrifying. While it's not surprising, it's still horrifying to know that democracy isn't necessarily what is important to America. She was voted in, and she is representing her constituents. Or she should be, rather. If you are out protesting in Montana, please be safe. Keep each other safe. You have people who want your voices heard.

Let Zooey Zephyr speak. Montanans deserve a voice.

[readingthearticle]

The Montana House Legislature voted today to ban Rep. Zooey Zephyr from the house floor, depriving 11,000 constituents of a voice in debate as the Legislature moves into an extremely busy eight days of bills that should have been passed already. Zephyr will still be allowed to vote remotely, but will not be allowed to speak on any bills or even be present on the House floor. The gallery was closed as the vote took place, and will likely remain closed for the rest of the session.

[readingthearticle]

Slight correction: Only 7 of the protestors were arrested. One of them has been tweeting about it here:

https://twitter.com/paulsgkim

It looks like they've all been released without bond, but I believe they're still being charged. Matt Regier has cancelled today's house floor session.

Also, fun fact: those of you who keep up with anti-trans legislation this session have probably come across Erin Reed's info on the subject. That's Zephyr's partner!

Rep. Zooey Zephyr, the first transgender woman elected to Montana’s legislature, attended a Montana House of Representatives session to oppose an anti-transgender bill that would remove references to transgender individuals from more than 40 sections of state code. The bill, which would define sex in a way that excludes trans people, was one of over a dozen heard this year. The previous day, her strong speech against the gender affirming care ban the state had passed led to the Montana Freedom Caucus calling for her censure while intentionally and repeatedly misgendering her. When she punched in, they refused to recognize her to speak, and instead moved forward to pass the bill.

Tensions flared on the House Floor when the entire Democratic Caucus rose to demand that she be permitted to speak. In a strikingly undemocratic move, Republican House Speaker Regier declined to allow it, asserting that he could refuse to allow anyone to speak at his discretion. When Minority Leader Abbott objected, they moved to a packed rules committee meeting, which upheld the ruling. Following that, the Speaker stated it was his intent to no longer allow Representative Zephyr to speak moving forward.

[readingthearticle]

Article here: https://theintercept.com/2023/04/16/georgia-army-national-guard-location-tracking-high-school/

One note: the way this tweet is worded could be potentially misleading. When he says "follow them back home," that doesn't mean the National Guard will literally go to students' houses. It means that the geolocation will be used to direct targeted advertisements at students while they are at home by tracking their IPs from school. So uh. Still bad.

normal country doing normal stuff like normal

[readingthearticle]

I've seen Maia Crimew's publication of these emails floating around. For those of you that don't want to parse through 2,600 pages of emails yourselves, here's the Mother Jones story that comes with them.

[readingthearticle]

VERDICT: Yup, this one sucks.

Looks like this guy is a regular contributor, too.

As always, I gotta give my standard disclaimer that the opinion and news sections of a paper are generally pretty separate and almost never have the same writers, especially not at the scale of publications like the Post. But what a paper chooses to publish opinion pieces about is still a reflection of their editorial policies and direction as an organization.

However, I don't think the picture was chosen to condemn the person in it. The article specifically mentions Sorry To Bother You as the kind of media it wants the CIA to fund Chinese distribution of.

Overall, the article is bad, and I don't think it's worth reading.

“Democracy dies in darkness”