August 2017

In one corner of the Internet, the 2016 Democratic primary never ended

On Aug 25, a judge in south Florida dismissed a lawsuit against the Democratic National Committee, brought by people who accused it of committing fraud during the 2016 primary to the detriment of Sen Bernie Sanders (I-VT). Neither the DNC nor ousted chair Rep Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) responded to the dismissal when asked to comment. Within hours, the attorneys who bought the suit, Jared and Elizabeth Beck, were providing updates on the case to the blogger and fantasy author H.A. Goodman. Calling out the people and outlets who they believe had covered them unfairly, the Becks described a legal system so corrupt that there could be no fair accounting for what the DNC did. It would be up to alternative media to get the truth out.

YouTube, with its easy use, free storage, and possibility of global reach, has become an agora of 2016 primary bitter-enders. YouTube previously played the same role for far right; in reporter John Herrman’s read, it made mini-celebrities out of “monologuists, essayists, performers and vloggers who publish frequent dispatches from their living rooms, their studios or the field, inveighing vigorously against the political left and mocking the ‘mainstream media,’ against which they are defined and empowered.” Something similar, but smaller, has grown up around the people who want to prove that the 2016 primary was stolen from Sanders. Over the weekend, there was no TV coverage of the case; it was easy to spend hours, instead, absorbing punditry on YouTube. The case against the “mainstream media” was easy to make, anyway as the Becks’ lawsuit drew little national attention.

Free speech in the fog of scientific uncertainty

[Commentary] President Donald Trump’s assault on journalistic integrity and shared verifiable facts has ignited a reaction among public intellectuals to demand fealty to scientific truth. Unfortunately, the reaction, like so many produced in the haste of political controversy, has oversimplified and overcorrected for the problem.

One common assumption within the resistance is that existing systems for regulating scientific claims are self-evidently wise. My new article, “Snake Oil“ (forthcoming in the Washington Law Review), is therefore coming out at a rather inconvenient time. I loathe the Trump administration’s disregard for and delegitimization of scientific institutions, including expert federal agencies. Nevertheless, the methods that some expert agencies use to constrain the information flow to consumers are highly flawed.

Sinclair/Tribune Critics Tell FCC: No Deal

With reply comments due Aug 29 on Sinclair's $3.9 billion proposal to buy Tribune's TV stations, opponents of the deal do not appear to have been persuaded by Sinclair's lengthy defense of the deal's public interest benefits, which was filed at the Federal Communications Commission Aug. 22. Those critics had already signaled unofficially that Sinclair's case was unpersuasive, but they were lining up to make if official in their reply comments. That included the Computer & Communications Industry Association, which said the FCC should reject the deal and Congress should call hearings on how important independent local TV is. “Sinclair has failed to explain how this multi-billion dollar merger could possibly be in the public interest," said Computer & Communications Industry Association President Ed Black. "Even more, allowing this centrally controlled broadcast behemoth that has a history of cutting local news staff and adversely affect independent, local TV stations, would be detrimental. Anyone who values decentralized government control, states’ rights and independent voices should oppose this merger that would harm citizens and weaken our democracy.