Lauren Frayer

[Commentary] As if powered by a celestial mainspring, the press publishes the same three basic stories about every new presidential administration. Usually up first in their rotation is a breathless beat-sweetener about the incoming vice president. The second inevitable wave of stories claims that the administration is “rebooting.” March 27’s Washington Post brings us, on Page 1 above the fold, the third classic of the first 100 days of reporting: A story about the coming “reorganization“ of government—this time by Prince Jared, the president’s son-in-law.

[Commentary] Previous research in this field suggests that attempts to counter political rumors often fail. Ironically, just repeating rumors that you’re trying to debunk may in fact reinforce those rumors. Those individuals who accept a rumor as true may in fact become more certain of their false beliefs the more it’s repeated, doubling down if there’s new sources of information that either supports or denies it. The lessons of my study are clear. Just as important as how a rumor is debunked is who does the debunking. Politicians who support good public policy by speaking against their partisan interests — in this case, Republicans speaking out against the death panel rumors — are considered credible sources by citizens from across the ideological spectrum. When fighting “fake news,” politicians and the media should present the right authority. In our politically polarized time, we may be able to harness the power of partisanship to stop the spread of misinformation.

[Adam J. Berinsky is a professor of political science at MIT and serves as the director of the MIT Political Experiments Research Lab (PERL). ]

[Commentary] The 2016 election was unimaginable, and the particulars of Russian meddling deserve further scrutiny. But we seem to have fallen into a trap: The unimaginable, happening out in the open day after day, not only continues to dull our defenses but also creates a need to see a conspiracy big enough, a secret terrible enough to explain how this can be happening to our country. Fraudulent news stories, which used to be largely a right-wing phenomenon, are becoming increasingly popular among those who oppose the president. Each story dangles the promise of a secret that can explain the unimaginable. Each story comes with the ready justification that desperate times call for outrageous claims. But each story deals yet another blow to our fact-based reality, destroying the very fabric of politics that President Donald Trump so clearly disdains.

[Masha Gessen is the author of "The Man Without a Face: The Unlikely Rise of Vladimir Putin"]

[Commentary] Everyday we turn to the Internet for the seemingly endless amount of information and entertainment it provides. But most people don’t realize that we can only do these things because of a law passed in 1998—the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). The DMCA ensures that anyone can use Internet platforms to create content, post comments, and share ideas online as long as the platforms they use act responsibly. Despite the creative and economic value the DMCA has helped create, the copyright industry is currently seeking to radically change the law to force online platforms to police for copyright infringements on their behalf by using content filtering technology.
[Evan Engstrom is the executive director of Engine, a policy, advocacy, and research organization that works to support tech startups.]

[Commentary] So when President Donald Trump raised the white flag on Obamacare March 24, did he pick up the phone and gave the exclusive to Breitbart, The Daily Caller or LifeZette? Nope. He called reporters at The Washington Post and The New York Times. But you'd have thought that reaching out to ideological sympathizers was inevitable, given the journalistic sturm und drang about the incursions of right-leaning media in these early days of a new Washington era. Well, any chronicle of access will need to include the capital's longtime home teams, with March 24's carefully served bulletins from the Trump News Service suggesting how a mix of old media clout, old-fashioned journalistic quality and Trump's own Queens-bred craving to be accepted by various establishments may be more enduring than many assume. As Bill Kristol, founder of The Weekly Standard, put it about Trump: "He's always understood the power of and craved acceptance by the mainstream media." Adds Rich Lowry, editor of National Review: "He hates the mainstream media — and loves the mainstream media. No president has ever followed his news coverage so closely or cared about it so much."

Much of conservative media rallied behind Donald Trump in 2016. Now that he's struggling to live up to some of his promises as president, the relationship is fast becoming more complicated. President Trump's failure to bring Obamacare repeal legislation to a vote, the sense that his credibility -- including on promises he made to conservatives -- has been diminished, and his waning approval numbers are exposing fissures between and within conservative media outlets that had effectively served as a united front during his bid for the presidency.

The fissures reflect divisions among factions in Trump's own White House, as well as the various factions among Republicans on Capitol Hill. They are exacerbated by the fact that, for the first time in a decade, Republicans control both the White House and the Congress -- leaving conservative critics without a favorite scapegoat: Democrats. Broadly speaking, there are three groups within conservative media: Populists who were enthusiastic passengers on the Trump train but now appear to be prioritizing their principles over strict allegiance to the president; moderate Republicans and Never-Trumpers who do the same, albeit with a different set of principles; and unabashedly pro-Trump conservatives who for now appear set to defend and promote the president no matter what.

A new survey finds that 61 percent of people trust the advertising they see, an 11 percent jump from March 2014, according to eMarketer. In addition, 72 percent of respondents also said the ads are "honest," a 16 percent increase over the past two years.

Other studies have indicated that ad trustworthiness depends on the medium. Some studies show people are less likely to trust digital ads vs. traditional print or television ads. Why it matters: The most recent Gallup poll on trust in media shows that 68 percent of Americans don't trust the news - the lowest rate ever measured. The shift shows that as people trust established media brands less, they are turning towards unconventional sources of information, like social platforms. It also makes sense that digital ads are less likely to be trusted, because most are sold in an automated way that over 1/3 of consumers find invasive.

The digital systems that control critical infrastructure in the US and most other countries are easily penetrated and architecturally weak, and we have known it for a long time. This report proposes a policy and research agenda that has the potential to achieve significantly higher levels of security in critical networks over a five-to ten-year period. But the nation must begin now. our goal is action, both immediate and long-term.

Cyber-based intrusions and attacks on federal systems are evolving and becoming more sophisticated. The Government Accountability Office first designated information security as a government-wide high-risk area in 1997. This was expanded to include the protection of cyber critical infrastructure in 2003 and protecting the privacy of personally identifiable information in 2015. The Department of Homeland Security plays a key role in strengthening the cybersecurity posture of the federal government. Among other things, DHS has initiatives for (1) detecting and preventing malicious cyber intrusions into agencies' networks and (2) deploying technology to assist agencies to continuously diagnose and mitigate cyber threats and vulnerabilities.

This statement provides an overview of GAO's work related to DHS's efforts to improve the cybersecurity posture of the federal government. In preparing this statement, GAO relied on previously published work, as well as information provided by DHS on its actions in response to GAO's previous recommendations. In a January 2016 report, GAO made nine recommendations related to expanding NCPS's capability to detect cyber intrusions; notifying customers of potential incidents; providing analytic services; and sharing cyber-related information, among other things. DHS concurred with the recommendations and is taking actions to implement them.

While public radio stations across the country fret over the threat of federal-level funding cuts, West Virginia Public Broadcasting has its mind on other matters. A state-level proposal to zero out half of its $10 million budget had the network on the defensive this month. In West Virginia, which national media often portray as Trump Country Ground Zero due to its high proportion of Trump voters, you might expect that the rift is ideological. But the $4.6 million cut was proposed by Gov Jim Justice (D-WV) —a billionaire coal operator who coincidentally owes $4.4 million in back taxes to the state—and some Republicans in the legislature have been quick to come to the network’s defense. Instead of partisan rancor, the debate over public broadcasting here comes back to the state’s underlying financial crisis.