Author: Reid

A Possible Blind spot for the Press

The following tweet resonated with me, and I wanted to comment on it:

Also: the most pervasive bias in political coverage is not left vs. right it’s “follows politics” vs. “doesn’t follow politics” By default, nearly everyone who covers politics falls into the “follows politics” category, which makes it really hard to understand people who don’t
What are possible ways the “follows politics” people (or news junkies, as I call them) have trouble understanding the “doesn’t follow politics” folks? Here are some thoughts off the top of my head Continue reading “A Possible Blind spot for the Press”

Changing Journalism Requires Systemic Changes; Or, the Challenge of Covering Trump, Part 3

I previously wrote about some of the unique challenges the press faces in covering Trump. But I never really touched on the larger structural features in the press that prevent coverage that best serves the public. I want to write about that in this post. Specifically, I want to address criticism of press coverage that I see regularly. What’s interesting, in my view, is that I agree with their criticisms, but my sense is that they don’t seem to understand the obstacles that prevent the coverage they seek. For example, the solution isn’t simply editors and journalists simply choosing a different approach. In my opinion, the problem is systemic and structural; individual journalists are more like cogs in a machine than masters operating the machine. To put it more simply, Continue reading “Changing Journalism Requires Systemic Changes; Or, the Challenge of Covering Trump, Part 3”

Do Whites Not Want to Know About Racism?

That’s what one African-Amerian Seattle sportswriter suggested in the two tweets below, which comment on recent statements made by Pete Carroll. I’m less certain about that claim, and I’ll share my thoughts after the two tweets:

Can the City Speed Up the Building Permitting Process?

One of Keith Amemiya’s stated goals is to speed up the building permitting process. Like others, Amemiya seems to believe that this is a crucial part of addressing the homeless and affordable housing issue. I’ve never heard him really delve deeper into the reasons for this, but the cost of housing and homelessness seems to stem largely from a supply problem. Currently, I believe we’re far from reaching the projected housing needs as well, and the slow permitting process for building is often cited as a big reason for this.

But the city make the permitting process more efficient, or has it reached a ceiling on efficiency? Based on your experience in government, do you think this is feasible? Consider processes in your own work place, particularly the processes that seem slow. Do you think there are viable solutions to make it faster?

Earlier in my career, I felt there were many services or processes that could have been made more efficient. For example, with regard to repairs, a process that would often be inefficient, I felt like if you could get each person in the chain to complete a repair to sit down in a room, you could identify where the process bogged down, and probably find ways to remove or reduce the problem. While I think this is still true, to some extent, I now wonder if the main issue is motivation, or lack thereof. That is. the main problem might be the desire make the process run efficiency. If one person in the process is not motivated to do this, that can slow the entire process down. For example, generally, I would say a request for a repair ends up the desk (or inbox) of someone in that chain. The person may not be motivated to act on the request and push it to the next step. (The person also might be extremely busy as well.)

If motivation is the issue, can the Mayor find a way to address this? I think it might be possible, but I’m less optimistic. I’ll try to share some possible ways of motivating workers, but I’d like to hear from you guys about this topic

Commercialization is a Bigger Problem in Journalism Than Political Bias; Or, a Letter Jane Craig Could Have Written

This is a not a new idea. The problem has existed probably since at least the 1980s. It’s also not an opinion I’ve just arrived at. I thought of this because of a recent post I read, about a journalist (who reminded me of Holly Hunter’s character in Broadcast News) quitting MSNBC.

It’s possible that I’m more sensitive to the editorial process due to my background in public radio, where no decision I ever witnessed was predicated on how a topic or guest would “rate.” The longer I was at MSNBC, the more I saw such choices — it’s practically baked in to the editorial process – and those decisions affect news content every day. Likewise, it’s taboo to discuss how the ratings scheme distorts content, or it’s simply taken for granted, because everyone in the commercial broadcast news industry is doing the exact same thing.
and later,
“We are a cancer and there is no cure,” a successful and insightful TV veteran said to me. “But if you could find a cure, it would change the world.” As it is, this cancer stokes national division, even in the middle of a civil rights crisis. The model blocks diversity of thought and content because the networks have incentive to amplify fringe voices and events, at the expense of others… all because it pumps up the ratings.
I want to be clear that while I agree that ratings driven approach hurts the quality of news, this is not the same thing as saying “fake news”–that is, broadcast journalism is completely unreliable; that they’re making things up, particularly to hurt political opponents. I don’t think the public should completely give up on TV news, although they should be cautious and not blindly trust what they watch. The journalist calls for some way to change things. I’ll address some ideas in the first comments post.

Examples of the Confusion and Difficulty with Navigating the Current Information Environment

There are two main positions regarding the lack of an informed citizenry in a democratic society. One emphasizes the failure of individual citizens–that is, they are apathetic or lazy, failing to think critically and put in the time to inform one’s self. The other emphasizes the effects of new technologies and media–specifically, the deluge of information and the eroding authority and influence of traditional curators of information. I use the word “emphasizes” intentionally, signifying that both aspects are important, but the difference in position is a matter of emphasizing one aspect over the other.

I fall into the latter group. Specifically, I believe that not only an informed citizenry, but a functioning public square, which is critical for a democratic society, depends on addressing some of the negative effects of new technology. My sense is that new technologies that change nature and flow of information requires societies to adjust, creating tools and processes to help individuals and institutions manage and make information meaningful and useful, versus the opposite. Knowledgeable, critical thinkers are important component of this process, but even if every citizen had these attributes, the problem would still be significant. In this thread, I hope to give some specific examples, primarily from social media, that illustrate this.