Patterico's Pontifications

5/17/2019

USA Today: Georgetown to expel student after he sues over its handling of college admissions probe

Filed under: Crime,Education — DRJ @ 7:00 pm



[Headline from DRJ]

Georgetown to expel student after he sues over its handling of college admissions probe:

A Georgetown University undergraduate student whose dad has already pleaded guilty to paying $400,000 to the ringleader of a nationwide college admissions bribery scheme is now suing the school to try to stop disciplinary action from the university.

He is a junior and says he “had no knowledge” of his father’s payment.

Read more @ USA Today.

–DRJ

9/29/2016

USA Today Issues Very Rare Presidential Anti-Endorsement: Trump Is Unfit to Be President

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:38 pm



It’s remarkable because they never endorse:

In the 34-year history of USA TODAY, the Editorial Board has never taken sides in the presidential race. Instead, we’ve expressed opinions about the major issues and haven’t presumed to tell our readers, who have a variety of priorities and values, which choice is best for them. Because every presidential race is different, we revisit our no-endorsement policy every four years. We’ve never seen reason to alter our approach. Until now.

This year, the choice isn’t between two capable major party nominees who happen to have significant ideological differences. This year, one of the candidates — Republican nominee Donald Trump — is, by unanimous consensus of the Editorial Board, unfit for the presidency.

From the day he declared his candidacy 15 months ago through this week’s first presidential debate, Trump has demonstrated repeatedly that he lacks the temperament, knowledge, steadiness and honesty that America needs from its presidents.

Whether through indifference or ignorance, Trump has betrayed fundamental commitments made by all presidents since the end of World War II. These commitments include unwavering support for NATO allies, steadfast opposition to Russian aggression, and the absolute certainty that the United States will make good on its debts. He has expressed troubling admiration for authoritarian leaders and scant regard for constitutional protections.

I have no quarrel at all with their conclusion, but I don’t support all of their reasoning. For example: why do we need to bother with NATO? There is no more Soviet Union. Why do we need foreign entanglements, when no less a personage than George Washington warned us against that very danger? And as for “the absolute certainty that the United States will make good on its debts” — wake up and smell the deficit, USA Today Editorial Board! It’s virtually a certainty that the United States won’t make good on its debts. We’re over $19.5 trillion in the hole with absolutely no plan to do anything other than run up huge deficits as far as the eye can see. This is a central reason someone is unfit?

No. There is a host of reasons that actually do make Trump unfit, and the piece touches on some of them. Trump’s penchant for dishonesty is so over-the-top and insane that he makes Hillary Clinton look like a fibbing nine-year-old rather than the habitual lying cretin we all know her to be. He once pretended to be a pro-Trump publicist named John Miller, and every person with ears and a brain knows it was him — yet he denied, in 2016, that it was him. I can’t get over that to this day. (And no debate moderator has ever called him on it!) He is carelessly cruel to people on a consistent basis. He is a whiner and a coward. He is a man who avoided military service based on a made up, bullshit medical excuse, and then mocked the service of a man, John McCain, whose story of courage would make anyone who heard it want to punch a lifesized cutout of Donald Trump in the mouth. Trump is everything that is wrong with this country. Indeed, on any objective basis, Donald Trump is a worse human being than Hillary Clinton, and that’s saying something. It is only the fact that her policies are nominally far worse for the country (although who knows what the lying Trump’s real polices really are) that prevents a vote for her from being the obvious choice. If my vote came down to nothing more than which person is a more moral human being, I would easily cast my vote for the lying, power-hungry, wretched old harpy.

And yet our tendency for our partisan reflexes to kick in has blinded Republicans to these problems of Trump’s. Trump’s comment about shooting someone on Fifth Avenue was supposed to be a kind of joke, but I believe it’s no longer a joke. Politics is the best profession for a con man — just ask Brett Kimberlin, who has clothed his cons in the garb of partisan politics for years — because no other area turns off the rational part of the brain like politics. I truly believe, with all my heart and soul, that Donald Trump could literally murder someone tomorrow, and if it were not captured on video, no matter the evidence, millions would still support him. “Well, the Clintons have murdered people, probably a lot more people!” the Trumpers would say. You know they would. They really, actually would.

I recently ran a poll, which was somewhat tongue in cheek to be sure, asking people whether they would vote for the worst mass murderer in history (Chairman Mao) or Hillary Clinton, given that binary choice. The small sample reflected the poll’s lack of seriousness, but it still is remarkable that Chairman Mao won a solid majority of votes, 61% to 39%.

mao-hillary-poll

If murdering people, or lying on an insane and pathological scale, aren’t going to change people’s minds about Trump, the opinion of a few editorial writers at a national newspaper sure won’t. It’s still a noteworthy piece and deserves your time.

UPDATE: These South Park clips sum it all up.

9/22/2016

“Run Them Down”: Instapundit Suspended from Twitter; UPDATE: Suspended from USA Today for One Month

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:16 am



Knoxville News Sentinel:

Twitter has suspended the account of Glenn Reynolds, a University of Tennessee law professor and a contributing columnist for USA TODAY and the News Sentinel, after a tweet that urged motorists to run over demonstrators blocking traffic in Charlotte, N.C.

In response to a tweet from a TV news station in Charlotte that showed protesters on Interstate 277, the @Instapundit account wrote, “Run them down.”

Reynolds, the creator of the Instapundit blog, tweets from the handle @Instapundit.

“Ah. I saw it was suspended and didn’t know why,” Reynolds said in an email Thursday morning to the News Sentinel.

He acknowledged tweeting the comment.

“Yes, that was my post,” he wrote in the email. “It was brief, since it was Twitter, but blocking highways is dangerous and I don’t think people should stop for a mob, especially when it’s been violent.”

You don’t say. Glenn Reynolds is old enough to remember Reginald Denny. (Look it up, kids.) If you don’t remember him, here’s a reminder:

And if that’s too long ago, how about this:

Glenn elaborates on his blog:

Sorry, blocking the interstate is dangerous, and trapping people in their cars and surrounding them is a threat. Driving on is self-preservation, especially when we’ve had mobs destroying property and injuring and killing people. But if Twitter doesn’t like me, I’m happy to stop providing them with free content.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Was just on Hugh Hewitt talking about this. Since Twitter won’t let me respond to — or even see — my critics, let me expand here.

I’ve always been a supporter of free speech and peaceful protest. I fully support people protesting police actions, and I’ve been writing in support of greater accountability for police for years.

But riots aren’t peaceful protest. And blocking interstates and trapping people in their cars is not peaceful protest — it’s threatening and dangerous, especially against the background of people rioting, cops being injured, civilian-on-civilian shootings, and so on. I wouldn’t actually aim for people blocking the road, but I wouldn’t stop because I’d fear for my safety, as I think any reasonable person would.

He acknowledges Erik Wemple’s suggestion that “Keep driving” would have expressed the idea better, and more succinctly. But “I’ve had over 580,000 tweets, and they can’t all be perfect.”

Meanwhile, here are some Twitter users who aren’t suspended:

Those took me about three minutes to find. If Twitter Support cared about finding and suspending accounts like that, they could easily do so.

UPDATE: And now that I have pressed the Publish button, I see he’s back:

He says on his blog: “Still planning on quitting Twitter, though, after making a few points.”

I’m not sure how I feel about conservatives abandoning a popular platform when they are discriminated against. I understand the arguments for quitting — and I can’t say they’re wrong, but my gut tells me not to. It feels too much like letting them win.

Since he was forced to take down the tweet, by the way, it’s only right that we spread it as far and wide as possible — and so, I reproduce it below.

screen-shot-2016-09-22-at-7-28-44-am

Seeing what he was responding to makes it even clearer that his comment was talking about self-defense.

UPDATE x2: Reynolds has been suspended for one month from his USA Today column and has apologized. As often happens when the SJWs come after you, his speech was not perfect. I don’t subscribe to the whole “never ever apologize for anything” ethic of the Vox Days of the world. If Prof. Reynolds thinks his words ought to be the subject of an apology, more power to him. But really, I thought his sentiment, while perhaps imperfectly expressed, was perfectly reasonable when read charitably. But of course, in today’s world, we cannot read anything charitably any more. Every head must go on a chopping block.

8/14/2014

Michael Hiltzik Fails to Fact-Check His Column Accusing USA Today of Failing to Fact-Check a Column

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:32 am



I believe this is properly called “ironic” — no?

On August 7, Michael Hiltzik published a piece titled A Koch op-ed that USA Today should have fact-checked — but didn’t. The headline remains, but there is now a correction that tends to undercut the headline a bit:

FOR THE RECORD

Aug. 11, 2:22 p.m.: The headline on this post incorrectly states that USA Today did not fact-check its op-ed piece by Charles Koch. Michael Hiltzik did not contact USA Today to ask whether the piece was fact-checked. USA Today Forum Editor David Mastio said that the piece was fact-checked before publication in accordance with the newspaper’s practices.

I’ll note that I called this one:

Always trust content from Patterico.

I’ll have more to say about this piece in the next few days, but Hiltzik’s “fact-checking” of Koch’s op-ed seemed less like a fact-check and more like a tendentious argument that data should have been interpreted differently. Moreover, in setting forth his own data, Hiltzik screwed up. When I first stumbled across the column, it already sported this correction:

FOR THE RECORD

Aug. 7, 2:36 p.m.: An earlier version of this post stated that the BLS figure of people working part-time for economic reasons as of July was 7.4 million. The correct figure is 7.5 million.

My reaction at the time:

Time did tell — and now, Michael Hiltzik’s column about Charles Koch’s and USA Today’s lack of fact-checking now sports two corrections. Heckuva job.

As noted, I plan to have more to say about this column in coming days, so stay tuned.

4/26/2014

Illiterate USA Today Writer Expounds on Possible Racism by Clippers Owner Donald Sterling

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 3:16 pm



TMZ has a clip of possibly racist comments by a person who most people appear to assume is Clippers owner Donald Sterling. I’ll leave it to the rest of the world to furiously debate whether the comments are actually racist, or taken out of context, or worse than things said by Spike Lee or Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson, or whatever. Sorry, I have just gotten bored by that kind of thing. This post is only tangentially about that (although I expect the discussion in the comments will be all about that, which is fine). What I want to know is this: if you’re hired as a sports writer for USA Today, do they not require that you be fluent in the English language? Here is their story about the incident:

In an audio obtained by TMZ and posted on its web site, the person said it bothers him that she posted photos of herself with black people on her Instagram account. After a recent Clippers game, the woman took a picture with Johnson.

“Don’t put him on an Instagram for the world to have to see so they have to call me. … And don’t bring him to my games, OK?” the person said on the audio recording.

“Yeah, it bothers me a lot that you want to promo, broadcast that you’re associating with black people. Do you have to?” person also said.

Here’s more about whether “person” made these remarks “in an audio” obtained by TMZ:

Johnson responded on twitter Saturday: “LA Clippers owner Donald Sterling’s comments about African Americans are a black eye for the NBA.”

If I logged onto Twitter (yes, it’s capitalized, USA Today editors), I might ask Magic Johnson why it has to be a black eye. Seems kind of racist to me. But there I go, getting distracted from my main point: the illiteracy of the writer and his editors. Let’s get back to that, shall we?

Civil Rights Leader Jesse Jackson has called for the Clippers to boycott, while other prominent African Americans have taken strong stances against Sterling’s comments as well. Well-known rap artist Snoop Dogg posted a profanity-laced video on his Instagram account condemning Sterling.

In March, Sterling’s wife, Rochelle, filed a lawsuit alleging the woman, identified as V. Stiviano, had an affair with her husband, according to Los Angeles’ CBS affiliate reported in March.

I think it’s wonderful that Jesse Jackson now has a capitalized title: Civil Rights Leader. Is this perhaps some new “race czar” position that was announced by Obama while I was hibernating? Anyway, editors, could y’all re-read that last paragraph, slowly and out loud? And after you do that, read this one:

The league might have to consider that Sterling was speaking privately and quite likely did not know was being recorded.

Well, if you insert an unnecessary word or two in one sentence, you just have to take out a necessary word in another, and that way it all balances out.

Sorry, I know this post is silly and trivial, but as I read this article I just noticed one goof-up after another, and I couldn’t help myself. Anyway, y’all need a post to discuss the all-important Latest Racial Outrage (capital letters intentional!). So here you go!

P.S. It probably is worth pointing out, in light of pieces like this one that suggest that all public racists are Republicans, that Sterling has a record of monetarily supporting Democrat candidates like Gray Davis and Bill Bradley.

4/27/2010

USA Today: We Have Found an Anti-Arizona Backlash, As Evidenced by This Twitter Message

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 6:44 pm



Could Arizona’s passage of a new immigration law spark a travel bonanza that could result in more travel-related business? It’s a question that a growing number of people are asking since Arizona’s passage last week of a law that promises real enforcement of existing immigration laws.

When it takes effect, Arizona’s immigration law will allow local law enforcement to question people’s immigration status, untying the hands of law enforcement from so-called “sanctuary city” policies that protect illegal immigrants. Interest is running high on both sides of the issue. One small example of how heated the debate is: In the roughly day and a half since USA TODAY posted a recent blog post on the issue, fully 4481 readers have submitted comments.

As for how or if the law will affect people’s travel habits, let’s look at some of the comments in question. Of the first 10 comments I read, the only ones that expressed an opinion about their travel plans were supportive of the law — and indicated the commenter’s desire to spend more travel dollars in Arizona. From this clear pattern, I sense a growing and significant approval of the new law — one that may well result in significant increased revenue for tourism-related businesses in the state.

For example, in the first 10 comments I read, golfballtx wrote: “Arizona here we come! Golf and good times!” clroger wrote: “I am visiting Arizona this summer. Thx Arizona!!” retatee wrote: “Three cheers for Arizona! I’ll try to visit as soon as possible.” NC Gentleman wrote: “After this law passes I am changing my vacation plans and I am going to the great state of Arizona. I refuse to go to California to get robbed by illegals.”

From this, I conclude that a growing an unstoppable wave of increased tourism dollars to Arizona is a very distinct possibility.

If this method of analysis sounds questionable or unscientific to you, take it up with Barbara De Lollis, the author of the USA Today blog post whose comments section I am quoting from. De Lollis’s profile says: “Barbara De Lollis has covered business travel for USA TODAY since 2002. She speaks directly to the hotel industry’s biggest names and taps the insider knowledge of the country’s savvy road warriors.” Her blog post is titled Arizona immigration law backlash? Traveler says state “is off my travel list for sure” and begins with this passage:

Could Arizona’s passage of a harsh immigration law spark a travel backlash that could result in less travel-related business? It’s a question that a growing number of people are asking since Arizona’s passage last week of the USA’s toughest immigration law.

If you’re paying attention, you will recognize this “a growing number of people are suggesting it may very well be so” sort of tone in the beginning of my blog post, which was a parody of De Lollis’s post.

What is Ms. De Lollis’s evidence of a possible travel backlash? Well, I have to admit it’s pretty overwhelming. To wit:

A single Twitter message.

As for how or if the law will affect peoples’ travel habits, Houston-based Twitter follower @Renard98 said in a reply tweet that “AZ is off my travel list for sure” for both business travel and leisure travel.

A frequent traveler, @Renard98 said he doesn’t have anything planned at the moment but “loves” to visit Tuscon and Scottsdale.

Well! If @Renard98 says he’s changing his plans, you can take that to the bank, baby! He’ll be changing his plans, or his name’s not @Renard98!

(Which, by the way, it pretty much certainly isn’t.)

Warner Todd Huston, who flagged this at Big Journalism, says: ‘This is the way the Old Media fans the flames of a story to spin it to their agenda.”

That’s exactly right. And a growing number of people agree with me — as the comments below will no doubt prove.

UPDATE: Another reason to go to Arizona: you won’t see Linda Greenhouse.

7/28/2008

Now Isn’t This Interesting: USA Today/Gallup — McCain +4 over Obama

Filed under: General — WLS @ 1:07 pm



Posted by WLS:

Fresh off his whirlwind tour of European Capitols, Obama returns home to find himself suddenly behind in the newest USA Today/Gallup poll out — 49-45. 

I wonder if the Obama camp’s internal polling had some indications that the grand Euro tour might not sit well with certain segment of the electorate, hence their putting out some suggestions over the weekend that they expected their polls to bump-down a little (thank you DRJ).  Some commentators suggested it was simply an effort to lower the bar on expectations with respect to the “bounce” expected by the press’ conventional wisdom, but maybe the campaign saw it coming a day or two ago. 

This poll is 791 likely voters, and is separate from Gallups daily tracking poll.  The article mentions that the number of GOP respondents in the poll is up, and attributes that to the press coverage of Obama’s trip, and the likelihood that the trip energized GOP opposition to Obama. 

I’m not completely sure why this would be the case — that there would be more GOP respondents to the poll — and the fact that the poll was taken Fri-Sun generally works against the GOP.  But I suspect that the press coverage of Obama’s trip had the effect of driving some “independents” who have previously voted Rep. off the fence and back into the GOP.  So, the increase in GOP numbers probably comes from the ranks of people who had previously described themselves as independents.   

I also suspect that the story about his failure to visit the wounded troops in Germany, which really only broke out into the open on Sat. and Sun., hurt Obama.  Both tracking polls — Gallup and Rasmussen — show his support dropping some on Sunday in the rolling 3 day averages. 

I don’t recall looking at a story about the USA Today poll in the past, so maybe someone else can enlighted me — has USA Today always included the large red, white, and blue disclaimer off  the right hand margin of the story which states:

*WARNING*

Polls are snapshots of public opinion, not forecasts of far-off election days.”

Did they just break that out for today’s poll showing McCain in the lead?

UPDATED:  Over at Time’s Swampland, Ana Marie Cox throws a little cold water on this new poll — and I don’t necessarily disagree — saying in effect that all these mid-summer polls need to be taken with a grain of salt. 

But she does print one interesting comment from an unnamed GOP’er with ties to the campaign — “I always have to remind myself that national reporters don’t really see things like voters do.”

11/28/2023

Sports Illustrated Caught Using Artificial Intelligence Bots to Generate Content

Filed under: General — JVW @ 7:16 am



[guest post by JVW]

An amazing story published Monday morning on the website Futurism calls to account the historically-venerable but increasingly-tiresome magazine Sports Illustrated for deceiving the public:

There was nothing in Drew Ortiz’s author biography at Sports Illustrated to suggest that he was anything other than human.

“Drew has spent much of his life outdoors, and is excited to guide you through his never-ending list of the best products to keep you from falling to the perils of nature,” it read. “Nowadays, there is rarely a weekend that goes by where Drew isn’t out camping, hiking, or just back on his parents’ farm.”

The only problem? Outside of Sports Illustrated, Drew Ortiz doesn’t seem to exist. He has no social media presence and no publishing history. And even more strangely, his profile photo on Sports Illustrated is for sale on a website that sells AI-generated headshots, where he’s described as “neutral white young-adult male with short brown hair and blue eyes.”

“Drew Ortiz” is allegedly not the only fake author on the SI website, according to an unnamed source who helped the magazine in its deceptions:

“There’s a lot,” they told us of the fake authors. “I was like, what are they? This is ridiculous. This person does not exist.”

“At the bottom [of the page] there would be a photo of a person and some fake description of them like, ‘oh, John lives in Houston, Texas. He loves yard games and hanging out with his dog, Sam.’ Stuff like that,” they continued. “It’s just crazy.”

Why would SI go to such links to invent ersatz content providers? Apparently because some of the content itself is generated by artificial intelligence:

According to a second person involved in the creation of the Sports Illustrated content who also asked to be kept anonymous, that’s because it’s not just the authors’ headshots that are AI-generated. At least some of the articles themselves, they said, were churned out using AI as well.

“The content is absolutely AI-generated,” the second source said, “no matter how much they say that it’s not.”

After we reached out with questions to the magazine’s publisher, The Arena Group, all the AI-generated authors disappeared from Sports Illustrated’s site without explanation. Our questions received no response.

Sports Illustrated was once the gold standard not only of sports journalism, but of magazine journalism in general. Some of the most celebrated sports writers of the second-half of the Twentieth Century — Dan Jenkins, Jim Murray, Frank Deford, Rick Reilly, Franz Lidz, Gary Smith — were on the SI masthead, and notable literary figures such as William Faulkner, George Plimpton, John Updike, and Kurt Vonnegut, to name but a few, contributed guest pieces. These days, in a world full of sports blogs, 24-hour sports media on television and the Internet, sports podcasts, and numerous other outlets, SI finds itself with a declining circulation and has responded by branching out into new realms including even opening up sports-themed resort hotels in college towns and the Caribbean.

So it shouldn’t come as a surprise that while SI is looking to maintain their brand by diversifying their focus, traditional journalism is being neglected. Thus far, the magazine has not been accused of using AI bots to help create sports reportage or write long-form stories, but it would appear that it has been used to generate product guides and reviews on items for which the magazine receives financial compensation for clicks. And to keep it on the QT, it seems that old fake authors would disappear after a while and new fake authors would come along:

Sometime this summer, for example, Ortiz disappeared from Sports Illustrated’s site entirely, his profile page instead redirecting to that of a “Sora Tanaka.” Again, there’s no online record of a writer by that name — but Tanaka’s profile picture is for sale on the same AI headshot marketplace as Ortiz, where she’s listed as “joyful asian young-adult female with long brown hair and brown eyes.”

“Sora has always been a fitness guru, and loves to try different foods and drinks,” read Tanaka’s bio. “Ms. Tanaka is thrilled to bring her fitness and nutritional expertise to the Product Reviews Team, and promises to bring you nothing but the best of the best.”

[. . .]

It wasn’t just author profiles that the magazine repeatedly replaced. Each time an author was switched out, the posts they supposedly penned would be reattributed to the new persona, with no editor’s note explaining the change in byline.

In the least surprising development of all, when Futurism asked Sports Illustrated about this curious behavior, all of the fake authors and their past articles suddenly disappeared from the SI website, with no explanation as to why nor any reply by SI to Futurism. As the article pointed out, at no point did SI ever appear to append any kind of disclaimer that these product guides and reviews had been generated by third-party providers, let alone by a bot.

And, in the second least-surprising development of all, it turns out that SI is not the only Arena Group holding to use AI bot-generated content. Futurism reports that this phenomenon of never heard of before writers suddenly appearing, writing for a short period of time, then being scrubbed from the site is common at TheStreet, a financial publication founded by CNBC’s Jim Cramer which the Arena Group purchased four years ago. And the editorial directors there are even sloppier than those at Sports Illustrated:

Sometimes TheStreet’s efforts to remove the fake writers can be sloppy. On its review section’s title page, for instance, the site still proudly flaunts the expertise of AI-generated contributors who have since been deleted, linking to writer profiles it describes as ranging “from stay-at-home dads to computer and information analysts.” This team, the site continues, “is comprised of a well-rounded group of people who bring varying backgrounds and experiences to the table.”

People? We’re not so sure.

The “stay-at-home dad” linked in that sentence above, for instance, is a so-called Domino Abrams — “a pro at home cleaning and maintenance,” at least until he was expunged from the site — whose profile picture can again be found on that same site that sells AI-generated headshots.

Or look at “Denise McNamara,” the “information analyst” that TheStreet boasted about — “her extensive personal experience with electronics allows her to share her findings with others online” — whose profile picture is once again listed on the same AI headshot marketplace. Or “Nicole Merrifield,” an alleged “first grade teacher” who “loves helping people,” but whose profile is again from that AI headshot site. (At some point this year, Abrams, McNamara, and Merrifield were replaced by bylines whose profile pictures aren’t for sale on the AI headshot site.)

As with Sports Illustrated, it’s not only the fake biographies that are galling; it’s also the utterly insipid and haphazard bot prose:

This article about personal finance by the AI-generated Merrifield, for example, starts off with the sweeping libertarian claim that “your financial status translates to your value in society.”

After that bold premise, the article explains that “people with strong financial status are revered and given special advantages everywhere around the world,” and launches into a numbered list of how you can “improve your finance status” for yourself. Each number on what should be a five-point list, though, is just number one. Mistakes happen, but we can’t imagine that anyone who can’t count to five would give stellar financial advice.

In fairness, the Arena Group has in other circumstances been open about their use of artificial intelligence. Back in February, when the company first announced that they would be using AI as a way to pitch story ideas to journalists and to create a small amounts of content, CEO Ross Levinsohn insisted that there would be ethical limits on how the emerging technology would be used, which would fall well short of using AI bots to generate entire stories. Clearly the Arena Group has failed in that endeavor, as have other web-heavy outlets such as CNET and Bankrate, both owned by Red Ventures; Gizmodo and The A.V. Club both owned by G/O Media; and the infamously horrid BuzzFeed, all of whom have failed to keep their pompous promises to use AI to sharpen content, not to generate it. Even more traditional publishing outfits like Gannett Company, publishers of USA Today and hundreds of local newspapers have been caught publishing AI-written garbage content instead of giving the job to real reporters who are trained by our nation’s finest journalism schools to produce human-generated garbage content.

Futurism sums up the problem with news outlets trying to pass off this sort of nonsense without at least disclosing the source to the readers:

Needless to say, neither fake authors who are suddenly replaced with different names nor deplorable-quality AI-generated content with no disclosure amount to anything resembling good journalism, and to see it published by a once-iconic magazine like Sports Illustrated is disheartening. Bylines exist for a reason: they give credit where it’s due, and just as importantly, they let readers hold writers accountable.

The undisclosed AI content is a direct affront to the fabric of media ethics, in other words, not to mention a perfect recipe for eroding reader trust. And at the end of the day, it’s just remarkably irresponsible behavior that we shouldn’t see anywhere — let alone normalized by a high-visibility publisher.

This sort of mess is another thing to remember next time some blowhard journalist tries to lecture the public about how his industry is the gatekeeper of democracy or is run by the highest ethical standards imaginable. At least a whorehouse can usually be counted upon for quality piano playing.

[UPDATE]
The Arena Group, via SI’s Twitter account, assures us that this is an issue with a third-party supplier who will no longer be retained. Again SI, as noted above, according to Futurism, never disclosed on their site that these product reviews and other licensed content came from a third party.

– JVW

10/23/2023

White House Spokesperson Ignores Rise in Anti-Semitism (Update Added)

Filed under: General — Dana @ 10:37 pm



[guest post by Dana]

It’s interesting telling that White House spokesperson Karine Jean-Pierre seemingly ignored a reporter’s question regarding President Biden’s concern about rising anti-Semitism, and focused instead on “hate-fueled” attacks on Muslims:

[Ed. I don’t know about you, but a surprise attack by a vicious terrorist group that left 1,400 Israelis dead seems in itself to be a hate-filed attack of any proportion…]

If I’m being charitable, perhaps Jean-Pierre didn’t hear the reporter’s specific mention of anti-Semitism. But that would be a b-i-g stretch, given her nodding acknowledgment of the question. Or perhaps she simply isn’t up on recent information, which points to an uptick in anti-Semitism since the Hamas terror attack on Israel:

A shocking new report suggests the number of antisemitic posts online increased 1,200% since Hamas began its terror attack in Israel on October 7 — with New York City emerging as an epicenter for this hate.

The Antisemitism Cyber Security Monitoring System found that between October 7 and October 10, at least 157,000 posts calling for violence against Israel, Zionists and Jews were made online, according to a survey obtained by the Jerusalem Post.

That represents a 450% increase from the four days before. It also represents a 360% increase when compared to the same period last month.

Separately, a report from the Anti-Defamation League found 347 messages on Telegram from extremists calling for violence against Jews, Israelis and Zionists in just the first 18 hours after Hamas’ surprise attack — up approximately 488% from the day before, according to USA Today.

FBI Director Christopher Wray said this about the rise of anti-Semitism:

“The threat is very much ongoing and in fact, the threat picture continues to evolve.”

Anyway, I scrolled through social media and easily found this post from today among others depicting ugly anti-Semitic rants and protests:

P.S. After Yashar Ali pointed out that Jean-Pierre gave an “odd” response, she jumped into action:

You go girl! With a little more practice, you’ll get there. In the meantime, Jews will just have to patiently suffer while you – and thousands of others – get up to speed.

UPDATE: after receiving backlash, including from Democrats, Jean-Pierre claimed today that she misheard the question:

“I did mishear the question,” Jean-Pierre said in a statement. “As I have footstomped many times from the podium and on the air, antisemitism is an abomination that this President has fought against his entire life; and I feel strongly about that work. That’s why, in the briefing room, I have blasted the repulsive increase in antisemitic rhetoric, conspiracy theories, and hate crimes in our nation, calling out that, tragically, this is a rising threat.”

—Dana

3/27/2023

Dog Trainer Columnist Wakes Up to Reality

Filed under: General — JVW @ 6:20 am



[guest post by JVW]

Los Angeles Times (known ’round these parts for some time as the Dog Trainer; just check out the banner at the top of the page) columnist George Skelton acknowledges what observant people have long understood:

It turns out high-income people are also fleeing the state — a new twist in the California exit.

That should worry ruling liberal Democrats who love to tax wealthy people and spend their money, especially on social programs.

Some golden geese are taking flight.

I’m going to overlook the insipid modern journalistic practice of writing a column in which each sentence is its own separate paragraph.

It seems to have been all the rage ever since USA Today started covering complex topics with a grade-school reader narrative.

And end it with a short sentence.

For effect.

Anyway, it’s long been understood by people who know how macroeconomics works that the more dependent a state becomes upon lots of tax revenue each year coming in from high-income earners, the more likely that state is to see massive fluctuations in revenue from year to year. If you lived here in 2001 and 2009 you certainly recall how stock market woes cut tens of billions of dollars from state coffers. Yet the trend ever since the second — make that fourth, counting his first go-around — term of Jerry Brown, when he abandoned his third-term fiscal restraint and unleashed his inner tax-and-spender, has been to call upon the wealthiest citizens of this fair state to take on more and more of the financial burden for government largesse. As everyone who has read The Giving Tree by Shel Silverstein knows, eventually you are down to a stump, or in this case the tree uproots and moves to Texas.

To his credit, after acknowledging this problem Mr. Skelton makes a mea culpa:

Entering the 21st century, when California’s population was about 34 million, we were predicted to reach 45 million by 2020 and 59 million by 2040. So much for that. We hit a peak of 39.6 million in 2019 and have been losing population ever since.

Until now, we’ve been in denial, telling ourselves that college-educated, upper-income people weren’t leaving. Our progressive tax base and growing economy were secure. The departees were lower-to-middle-income people who weren’t the heavy taxpayers or big job producers.

Everyone seemed to buy into that, although many could cite anecdotal evidence to the contrary.

I plead guilty. This is what I wrote two years ago:

“More affluent people have been moving here than departing. They can afford our escalating costs of living. Political spin about wealthy people abandoning California is fake news.”

In Mr. Skelton’s defense, he was just repeating the assurances from smug left-leaning academics and think tank trolls. This blog busted the eternally annoying Tom Elias nearly seven years ago pooh-poohing the idea that people with high incomes might leave the Golden State for less chaotic destinations. He based this assessment on the work of a think tank which insisted that for every middle-class family leaving California for a more hospitable social environment there would be some techie singles making well into the mid six figures to replace them. Anyone noticed what’s going on at Meta and Amazon recently? Way back in 2016 Mr. Elias cautioned us, “[D]on’t expect the state to lose congressional or Electoral College clout after the next Census in 2020.” We know how that worked out.

For his part, Mr. Skelton really wants to believe that things would be so much better if we only would build more houses to help break the pricing logjam, but he’s honest enough to see that is only a part of the problem. He quotes a researcher from the Public Policy Institute of California who bluntly asserts that taxes play a key role here:

The net loss of high-income people is relatively small, [Eric] McGhee says. But the number leaving California “increased dramatically” to 220,000 in 2021, he reports.

It wouldn’t take many fleeing rich people to hurt the state treasury. The top 1% of earners pay nearly 50% of the state income taxes. The top 10% kick in roughly 80%.

“Taxes definitely are part of the story” why high-income people are leaving, McGhee says. “Taxes is the last straw that pushes them over the edge.”

Delusional Democrats in Sacramento seem to think they can extort another $20 billion out of state residents who have at least $50 million in total wealth, while the governor can only come up with small-bore “soak the rich” proposals consisting of closing an out-of-state trust loophole which would likely at most net the state about $20 million towards the $267 billion budget. Given the huge financial hole the state finds itself in, Sacramento is going to find itself desperate to snatch any revenue they possibly can, especially since the California Legislative Analyst has already declared that Greasy Gavin’s proposed 2024 budget is “likely unaffordable in future years,” and “there is a two-in-three chance that state revenues will be lower than the governor’s budget estimates for 2022-23 and 2023-24.” Lots of luck to the supermajority in trying to reconcile all that. It’s highly unlikely that the Democrats are going to con the super-rich into picking up the entire tab.

And I haven’t even gotten around to kvetching about the High-Speed Rail Authority.

– JVW

Next Page »

Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0681 secs.