"Beware partisan ‘pink slime’ sites that pose as local news"

Jon Keller, writes at CBS Boston on June 1 about sites touting fake news.

"The headline was shocking - a public school in Illinois implementing race-based grading.

It went viral - fast. Perhaps you saw it being denounced on YouTube or read about it on popular right-wing websites like Red State, Breitbart or The National Review.

One problem: The story is a fake."

Continue reading online -> https://www.cbsnews.com/boston/news/keller-large-beware-of-pink-slime-masquerading-as-news/ 

Margaret Sullivan writes at the Washington Post on June 5

"It’s always tempting to share news that comes across our social media feeds when it not only seems outrageous but also confirms our biases, fears or suspicions. 

“See?!” we seem to say, as we retweet or post, this latest exciting development is just what we knew could happen all along! 

But there’s a question we need to ask these days before sharing one of these scintillating stories with friends and followers: Is it true? 

Increasingly, “articles” that look like news may be something entirely different — false or misleading information grounded not in evidence but in partisan politics, produced not by reporters for a local newspaper but by inexperienced writers who are paid, in essence, to spread propaganda."

Continue reading the Washington Post article online

https://www.washingtonpost.com/media/2022/06/05/pink-slime-west-cook-news-school-race-grading/

With stories, as with hot dogs, you may want to ask what’s inside and where it comes from. The beef product often criticized as “pink slime” as seen in a Nebraska factory in 2012. (Nati Harnik/AP)

Misinformation and democracy: How can we find truth in the age of misinformation?

"The past several years have seen a massive, sometimes malicious, assault on our sense of shared reality. The combination of social media and conspiracy theories has increased the reach and velocity of destructive lies. As a result, both the physical and political health of our country have been placed at risk.

On public health, the dissemination of misinformation about COVID-19 and the safety of vaccines has been responsible for thousands of avoidable deaths. Public benefit from the miraculous development of vaccines was partially squandered. Some politicians even echoed fraudulent information for political benefit – riding a wave of falsehoods with casualties when it crashes to the shore.

On America’s civic health, the tribalization of information is a serious threat to democracy. Many Americans live in ideological bubbles where their main sources of information gain profit by feeding fear and anger. In some cases, it has encouraged the self-radicalization that led to the Jan. 6 insurrection and other violence. "

Continue reading the article online 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2021/12/09/threat-democracy-misinformation-covid-age/6430888001/?s=03

The research report that drove the article can be found here ->

https://www.publicagenda.org/reports/partisan-animosity/

Direct link to report ->  https://www.publicagenda.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Putting-Partisan-Animosity-in-Perspective-REPORT-Final-2.pdf

hidden common ground

Voices of Franklin: Colin Cass on what "partisan" means and doesn't mean

In his indignant article titled “Politics Sizzles” in The Franklin Observer (10/14/21) Alan Earls complains of—among other things--“one more departure from the traditional ‘non-partisan’ orientation of town elections” in Jennifer Williams’s use of “Act Blue, the national Democratic fundraising system, to gather funds for her candidacy.”

The nonpartisan description of Franklin elections has always puzzled me.  Section 5-1-1 of the Town Charter says 

"All elections of town officers and Town Council members shall be nonpartisan, and all election ballots shall be printed without any party mark or other political emblem."

What does that mean?  The term “nonpartisan” as applied to elections simply means that candidates do not run with partisan labels.  It means only that.  The candidate will not be identified with a party on the ballot.  Nothing more, nothing less. 

The more interesting question is what it does NOT mean.

It does NOT mean that candidates cannot belong to a political party.

It does NOT mean that candidates cannot be supported by a political party.

It does NOT mean that candidates cannot use a party’s national fundraising system.

It does NOT mean that candidates cannot be supported by a PAC.

It does NOT mean that candidates cannot espouse the values or policy positions of their party.

Apart from the restriction about party affiliations appearing on the ballot, the nonpartisan clause is merely aspirational.  It proscribes no actions beyond the ballot format.

Why does this discussion matter?  For two reasons:

First, it makes clear that Williams has done absolutely nothing to violate the Charter’s nonpartisan clause.

Second, it exposes the hypocrisy of “editor” Alan Earls in bemoaning the partisanship in this election when he is himself a candidate and when he is the chairman of the Franklin Republican Town Committee.

 

Colin Cass
Franklin Resident

Franklin Observer article link for reference ->  https://franklinobserver.town.news/g/franklin-town-ma/n/45691/politics-sizzles

To add your voice to the discussion, please follow the guidelines

https://www.franklinmatters.org/2011/03/introducing-voices-of-franklin.html

Voices of Franklin: Colin Cass on what "partisan" means and doesn't mean