Culture

WP_Post Object
(
    [ID] => 751
    [post_author] => 10
    [post_date] => 2019-03-22 17:24:56
    [post_date_gmt] => 2019-03-22 17:24:56
    [post_content] => While westerners argue about whether or not disinformation really exists, eastern European states have figured out how to combat it. 

On a recent Friday night in Kyiv, the capital of Ukraine, about one hundred people gathered in an open concrete atrium. At first glance, it appeared to be a normal birthday celebration — there was ample champagne and a DJ spun records in the corner — until the guests started reading excerpts from George Orwell’s 1984. The guest of honor was not a person, but an organization: StopFake, one of the first organizations to draw attention to and fight the now familiar phenomenon of Russian disinformation, was marking its fifth birthday.

While the term “fake news” gained prominence in the West only after the 2016 U.S. presidential election, organizations across central and eastern Europe like StopFake have been battling disinformation for years. What they possess that Westerners lack is a clear-eyed recognition of Russian intentions and tactics. For the citizens of countries in the post-communist space, Russian disinformation isn’t foreign, ancient, or theoretical; it is a lived experience, and one that moves their societies past debate about its existence and toward practicable solutions.

Meanwhile, the western world is still debating whether disinformation exists, and if it does, whether or not it is effective. But it has not yet begun to fight it. For lessons, the West would be well advised to look eastward.

Back in the USSR 

It wasn’t long ago that the former communist bloc was subject to a constant barrage of disinformation and propaganda from the Soviet authorities and their allies. The government-controlled press was the ultimate vehicle for “fake news,” and its influence permeated every aspect of life — including education, the arts, and science. The Soviet authorities set out to control the narrative about their rule. Three of their most egregious lies include: blaming the 1940 Katyn massacre of thousands of Polish military officers on Nazi Germany, although it was in fact carried out by the KGB; denying that Stalin had deliberately allowed millions of Ukrainians to starve during the man-made famine of 1932-33 known as Holodomor; and the claim, manufactured and disseminated by the KGB during the 1980s, that the U.S. military had invented AIDS as part of a biological weapons project. 

Lessons learned: how to identify propaganda

The Soviet Union’s lies unraveled with its demise. But it left the former Soviet republics and satellite states deeply mistrustful of the Russian Federation. This historical experience is part of the reason officials across the former communist space now describe their populations as “inoculated” against Soviet propaganda. 

But this mistrust is not enough to protect all people from the internet, which has proven an insidiously effective mechanism for disseminating disinformation. During the Soviet period, official propaganda was relegated to the pages and airwaves of state newspapers and broadcast outlets. Information did not move nearly as quickly as it does today, in the internet age; but even more importantly, it was clearly recognizable as state-sponsored propaganda because it was published by state-owned media outlets. 

But while the purpose of Soviet propaganda was to promote a single political ideology the purpose of contemporary disinformation disseminated by the Russian Federation under Vladimir Putin is only to sow chaos. It has no political ideology; Russia’s strategy today is to promote many points of view, including some that are at polar opposites of the political spectrum. The tools available to anyone on the internet allow disinformation  to travel across the world at the click of a mouse, and to be micro-targeted to reach exactly the audience that will find it most appealing. Russia and other bad actors, both foreign and domestic, use these tools weaponize the fissures in our societies, creating chaos and undermining the Western democratic order.

Contemporary Russian disinformation weaponizes the fractures in target societies and amplifies them via traditional media. They disseminate state propaganda via Russia Today (RT), the state-sponsored TV channel that has a heavily watched YouTube channel, and online outlet Sputnik. Russia launders its propaganda stories via fake NGOs and fake experts who travel to conferences, appear on television, and conduct “research” in support of disinformation goals. Russian narratives are also supported and spread by local organizations, media outlets, and political parties in target countries. 

For example, in an attempt to destabilize Ukraine and neutralize support for the country’s democratic reforms both domestically and internationally, Russia advances the narrative that Ukraine is a “failed state” harboring “fascists” and violating the rights of Russian speakers who live in Ukraine (approximately 30 percent of Ukrainians are native Russian speakers). These narratives begin on Russian state television and travel to local Russian media properties abroad. In some cases, their editorial control is clearly labeled; but in other cases the reporting outlets attempt to disguise themselves as legitimate local media outlets, when in fact they are government owned-and-operated propaganda outlets. Facebook recently removed over 100 pages and accounts that were driving traffic in Ukraine to Sputnik, the Russian state-owned outlet that is one of its propaganda arms.

How to combat Russia’s online troll army

Eastern Europe has been quick to recognize the threat of online propaganda, and to take action. Estonia, a Baltic nation that was occupied by the Soviet Union after World War Two, leads the NATO Cyber Center of Excellence, which researches and builds capacity among NATO members on cyber security. It has invested in Russian language media programs and educational initiatives to bridge the divide between the Russian and Estonian populations; this initiative came about after Estonia discovered in 2007 that Russia had released a massive cyber attack intended to divide Russian and Estonian speakers in that country. But the attack backfired: Today Estonia leads the EU and NATO in its efforts to build both national and global awareness about the Russian threat; just last week, it released an intelligence report about Russia’s intention to meddle in European elections in 2019.

When disinformation weaponizing anti-migrant sentiment cropped up on shadowy outlets in the Czech Republic, the country created a “Center Against Terrorism and Hybrid Threats” within its Ministry of Interior to deal with information warfare. Across the region, including in Ukraine, where StopFake just celebrated its fifth anniversary after being formed during the height of the Euromaidan protests, when Ukraine was the epicenter of Russian disinformation, and in Lithuania, where a group of “elves” counter Russian trolls’ lies, fact-checking has taken on new life. It’s no longer the domain of journalists; it is an act of resistance.

Media literacy: the essential tool

But the Kremlin has financial and human resources that cannot be beaten back by armies of fact-checkers alone, no matter how large or well-funded. This is why the countries bordering Russia have also invested in their citizens as defense against Russian disinformation. 

In Ukraine, media literacy is now integrated into the secondary school curriculum. And a program for adults found that 18 months after attending a media literacy training, participants were 25 per cent more likely to consult multiple sources in their news consumption. Finland, though not part of the former communist space, has dealt with its fair share of Russian disinformation; it begins teaching media literacy in kindergarten. 

These responses show that while there is no silver bullet to fighting disinformation, a clear recognition from the government is critical in order to pursue the many prongs of programs and policies required to begin producing an effective response. The West must recognize the insidiousness of disinformation and implement programs and policies that both discredit the lies and teach people how to be critical media consumers. Since the 2016 election, our political leaders have further complicated the American response to disinformation by politicizing the issue. But until they recognize that Russian disinformation’s ultimate victim is confidence in our democratic system, the government will not be in a position to enter the important battle for truth and accuracy that Eastern Europe has been waging for years.
    [post_title] => If the West wants to combat fake news, it should look to eastern Europe
    [post_excerpt] => While westerners are still arguing about whether or not disinformation really exists, the countries of central and eastern Europe have been fighting it for years with serious policy implementation.		
    [post_status] => publish
    [comment_status] => open
    [ping_status] => open
    [post_password] => 
    [post_name] => if-the-west-wants-to-combat-fake-news-it-should-look-to-eastern-europe
    [to_ping] => 
    [pinged] => 
    [post_modified] => 2024-08-28 21:15:14
    [post_modified_gmt] => 2024-08-28 21:15:14
    [post_content_filtered] => 
    [post_parent] => 0
    [guid] => https://conversationalist.org/?p=751
    [menu_order] => 0
    [post_type] => post
    [post_mime_type] => 
    [comment_count] => 0
    [filter] => raw
)

If the West wants to combat fake news, it should look to eastern Europe

by Nina Jankowicz

WP_Post Object
(
    [ID] => 739
    [post_author] => 5
    [post_date] => 2019-03-21 15:12:23
    [post_date_gmt] => 2019-03-21 15:12:23
    [post_content] => Our collected stories this week look at how ordinary citizens can strengthen the essential pillars of  democracy. One way is to streamline direct communication between constituents and their political leaders, to help guide policy and governance. A strong Fourth Estate keeps politicians accountable. And now we know that we need to rethink the purpose and functioning of technology, so that it works for the people rather than as a means by which the government controls the people.

Civic hackers are remaking Taiwan’s democracy from within. Audrey Tang, Taiwan’s Digital Minister, describes in The Economist the rise of the g0v-zero movement, which encourages the public to participate in writing and rewriting new laws and policies, and to suggest new ideas for consideration. If an e-petition reaches a certain threshold of signatures, the relevant ministry is required to respond. Tang’s message is that technology can enable the promise of democracy in ways that were previously impossible. Read more.

How can we make the media more diverse? Broadcast and print media in the western democracies remain stubbornly dominated by white men, despite rising levels of awareness and some conscious efforts to change hiring practices. Sarah Jones, a staff writer at The New Republic, examines the structural problems that prevent aspiring journalists of non-white and/or working class backgrounds from breaking into journalism. One of the main issues, she writes, is that an entry level job in journalism usually begins with unpaid internships — or at the very least, years of low pay and job insecurity. Read more.

Making social media more civil is the goal of entrepreneur Brian Whitman. The New York-based technologist created an algorithm that is essentially a more ethical recommendation system, so that users won’t be duped by clickbait into spreading the worst racist, sexist, and conspiratorial content. Read more.

Will anti-trust activism be the driving issue for the Democrats in 2020? Barry Lynn, a prolific writer and former New America fellow, has joined presidential hopeful Elizabeth Warren in pushing for a breakup of the big tech monopolies for a more democratic capitalist system. This is the story of a few tough activists pushing hard against a system that has failed to check unrestrained consolidation of money, power, and market dominance. Read more.
    [post_title] => What you can do to strengthen democracy
    [post_excerpt] => 				The theme of this week's curated stories is tangible steps that ordinary citizens can take to strengthen the essential pillars of  democracy.		
    [post_status] => publish
    [comment_status] => open
    [ping_status] => open
    [post_password] => 
    [post_name] => what-can-you-do-for-democracy
    [to_ping] => 
    [pinged] => 
    [post_modified] => 2024-08-28 21:15:14
    [post_modified_gmt] => 2024-08-28 21:15:14
    [post_content_filtered] => 
    [post_parent] => 0
    [guid] => https://conversationalist.org/?p=739
    [menu_order] => 0
    [post_type] => post
    [post_mime_type] => 
    [comment_count] => 0
    [filter] => raw
)

What you can do to strengthen democracy

by Jessica McKenzie

WP_Post Object
(
    [ID] => 663
    [post_author] => 5
    [post_date] => 2019-02-28 18:16:23
    [post_date_gmt] => 2019-02-28 18:16:23
    [post_content] => Small changes can have big impacts: Style guides can help journalists be more accurate and precise about conflicts around the world. Cutting through red tape in bureaucratic processes can expand access to progressive programs without passing new laws. Taking low-level offenders to treatment instead of jail can change the trajectory of a life.

Then again, big changes—like Yazidi women creating a women-only community to rebuild and heal after genocide—can have big impacts, too. This is our roundup of stories about making changes of all sizes for the better.

    
 	
  • The cost of living is skyrocketing around the country, and wages have failed to keep pace. Paltry wage increases won by labor unions across the country mean little when those dollars don’t go as far as they once did. That is why unions should make affordable housing an organizing priority. Read The American Prospect op-ed. 
    • 



    
 	
  • Journalism shapes the way we understand the world, and accuracy and precision matter. Words like "ethnic"—as in "ethnic tension"—can obscure and mystify what's really going on in conflicts around the world, so the Global Press Journal banned the word in its style guide. Learn more at Neiman Reports.
    • 



    
 	
  • NGOs are getting better at admitting to failure—making the industry more transparent and encouraging open and honest conversations. For decades, only successes were rewarded by the funders and supporters of NGOs, and failures have been carefully hidden or disguised—making it difficult to create open channels for discussion about what works and what doesn’t. Bright Magazine has the story.
    • 



    
 	
  • Displaced Yazidi women who escaped ISIS violence are building a women-only commune in north-eastern Syria, free from "patriarchy and capitalism.” Read The Guardian report.
    • 



    
 	
  • Over-policing is a problem in many U.S. cities, but a new program in Albuquerque allows police officers to take low-level offenders to substance abuse treatment, helping individuals avoid arrest and a criminal record, The Albuquerque Journal reports.
    • 



    
 	
  • The Affordable Care Act was supposed to make mental health services available to all, but fell short of the promise. Some cities, including Denver and Seattle, are stepping up and raising taxes to fill that gap. Governing magazine has the details.
    • 



    
 	
  • When conservative American lawmakers are unable to legislate services like Medicaid or SNAP out of existence, they throw up bureaucratic roadblocks in front of people who need to access those services. In addition to proposing new laws, a progressive agenda should push for reversals of those roadblocks, making it easier for people to access the benefits for which they qualify. Read the op-ed in The American Prospect.
    • 


Jessica McKenzie is a freelance journalist in Brooklyn, NY. Previously, she was the managing editor of the civic technology news site Civicist and interned at The Nation magazine. You can follow her on Twitter @jessimckenzi.


    [post_title] => Acknowledging failures and errors is the first step forward
    [post_excerpt] => 						
    [post_status] => publish
    [comment_status] => open
    [ping_status] => open
    [post_password] => 
    [post_name] => acknowledging-failures-and-errors-is-the-first-step-forward
    [to_ping] => 
    [pinged] => 
    [post_modified] => 2024-08-28 21:15:14
    [post_modified_gmt] => 2024-08-28 21:15:14
    [post_content_filtered] => 
    [post_parent] => 0
    [guid] => https://conversationalist.org/?p=663
    [menu_order] => 0
    [post_type] => post
    [post_mime_type] => 
    [comment_count] => 0
    [filter] => raw
)

Acknowledging failures and errors is the first step forward

by Jessica McKenzie

WP_Post Object
(
    [ID] => 646
    [post_author] => 7
    [post_date] => 2019-02-22 14:30:42
    [post_date_gmt] => 2019-02-22 14:30:42
    [post_content] => The MeToo movement inspired a much-needed conversation about the treatment of women at the hands of powerful men. For the past year and half, those with “an upper hand” have learned it’s best to keep both hands to themselves. Society is finally beginning to internalize the understanding that women are not mere sexual objects. 

But while that same society has cautioned men about their behavior, it has done little to widen their perspectives about who women are – and can be: experts. 

We are still far behind in acknowledging and learning from the knowledge and contributions of women who are leading experts in a wide range of professional fields. This is especially true in science, technology, finance, law, and national security. “Expertise” in these fields is still one-dimensional and dominated by men. Given the enormous challenges we face today – from climate change to extremism and pandemics to inequality, it is imperative that we graduate from peering at the world through a peephole and instead look at it through a much wider frame.

In 2018 my organization, Foreign Policy Interrupted (FPI), released a study that looked at foreign policy op-eds across three one-year periods, in four major U.S. newspapers. The op-eds we examined were on a broad variety of topics that included global affairs, national security, war, development, human rights, global trade and commerce, and bilateral and multilateral issues. We found that over a 20-year period, from 1996-2016, women authored only 15 percent of all the op-eds published in those four newspapers. 

Breaking the all-male habit

“Women don’t pitch,” is the response commonly heard from editors. Often they will add that “women lack confidence.” In this way they place the blame on women, rather than acknowledging a fact of which all women are aware: that the majority of institutions, such as government, finance, and media, were and still are man-made and male-dominated. The same is true for the professional and social networks from which those experts are selected.

Women have been struggling for decades just to break into those institutions and networks — never mind actually rise in the ranks and become influencers. It is still the case that most editors, producers, and reporters are men, as a study published this week shows, and men are unlikely to seek out female experts. The result is that the public does not hear from leading experts who could bring real insight to pressing issues.

In an article I co-authored last August for the Columbia Journalism Review, I note that journalists tend to return to the same sources because they are “...driven by the pressure to produce ever more content with ever fewer resources.” When breaking news hits, journalists, editors, and producers are under tremendous deadline pressure, and so they do not have the time or inclination to research and talk to real experts. Instead, they go directly to the people working on and influencing an issue. If it’s North Korea, the media is knocking at the National Security Council and Defense Department. If it’s the Amazon headquarters deal in New York City, the media calls up contacts in the tech industry. If it’s a drop in the NASDAQ, the media rushes to Wall Street bankers and investors. 

In each case, men occupy the top spots – which means, of course, that the reporting on these stories is dominated by opinions expressed by men. These men are presented as the “experts,” but in fact they are the kingmakers. They drive the narrative – not to share understanding, but to justify their own positions and decisions.

The perils of quick 'n easy information

This is a dangerous state of affairs. The public is led to believe that their media platforms present them with the best information, when in fact they are mostly presenting them with information that happens to be the easiest and quickest to obtain. The troubling result is an opinionated public that believes it is well-informed, when it is actually being kept in the dark.

Because female expertise has for so long been ignored or minimized, women who pitch opinion pieces to media outlets are often held to a different, harsher standard than a man. When, for example, Beatrice Fihn, the director of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, pitched a piece about her work on disarmament in the fall of 2017, editors turned it down on the grounds that it was “too idealistic” or not “hard hitting.” Several months later Ms. Fihn accepted the Nobel Peace Prize on behalf of her organization. 

Perhaps it is, indeed, “idealistic” to campaign for the abolishment of nuclear weapons. But that campaign represents an important point of view that adds another dimension to a consequential topic — specifically, the fate of humanity. The only way we are going to hear about these added dimensions is by reaching beyond the status quo and tapping into different experiences and backgrounds. That is true not only for women, but also for people of color. 

The consequences of ignoring women and other diverse voices are far reaching. Not only are we presented with an incomplete picture but, even more gravely, we are overlooking the people who have the knowledge and skills to help us all reach comprehensive solutions to serious problems. When women participate in peace talks, for example, agreements are 64 percent less likely to fail. When women play a role in creating a peace process, the resulting agreement is 35 percent more likely to last at least 15 years. 

How to do better

A number of journalists have made an effort to seek out alternative voices. Ed Young from The Atlantic has talked about the efforts he has put in to diversify his sources, doing extra work to find women in science. A number of other journalists have contacted me about female voices in foreign policy, namely from NPR, and Australia’s ABC. Bloomberg has also reached out. Time, CNN, and The New Republic have been champions — in each case, because female editors have taken the lead. 

Given the enormity of global challenges and the rapid pace at which the world is changing, it is vitally incumbent upon editors to widen their scope. They must consider pitches from voices that diverge from the ones they are accustomed to hearing, and they must be open to different perspectives — even if they sound “idealistic.” When editors make the effort to expand their worldview, they will find numerous resources to support their work.  FPI’s Friday newsletter, SheSource,  Women Also Know Stuff, and Sourcelist, list female experts in all areas, in multitudes. 

The point is not to reach down and pull women up. Rather, it is to throw off the blinders and reach wide to grasp the abundant and multidimensional expertise that will make the world a better place for all of us.

Elmira Bayrasli is the author of  From The Other Side of The World: Extraordinary Entrepreneurs, Unlikely Places. She is the co-founder and CEO of Foreign Policy Interrupted and teaches at Bard College. She lives in Brooklyn, New York.
    [post_title] => Media outlets are still not amplifying female experts, and this means we really don't know what's going on in the world
    [post_excerpt] => 				According to a 2018 study that looked at foreign policy op-eds across three one-year periods in four major U.S. newspapers, women authored only 15 percent of all the op-eds published in those four newspapers over a 20-year period.		
    [post_status] => publish
    [comment_status] => open
    [ping_status] => open
    [post_password] => 
    [post_name] => media-outlets-are-still-not-amplifying-female-experts-and-this-means-we-really-dont-know-whats-going-on-in-the-world
    [to_ping] => 
    [pinged] => 
    [post_modified] => 2024-08-28 21:15:14
    [post_modified_gmt] => 2024-08-28 21:15:14
    [post_content_filtered] => 
    [post_parent] => 0
    [guid] => https://conversationalist.org/?p=646
    [menu_order] => 0
    [post_type] => post
    [post_mime_type] => 
    [comment_count] => 0
    [filter] => raw
)

Media outlets are still not amplifying female experts, and this means we really don’t know what’s going on in the world

by Elmira Bayrasli

WP_Post Object
(
    [ID] => 639
    [post_author] => 5
    [post_date] => 2019-02-21 16:56:49
    [post_date_gmt] => 2019-02-21 16:56:49
    [post_content] => Compassion seems to be the common theme in the articles ANI has curated for this week’s look at journalism that goes beyond reporting the problem by presenting possible solutions. A non-profit initiative in Oklahoma helps chronically homeless children catch up on essential life skills; an editor suggests the means of making a story about a white teenage boy who supports Trump more insightful and thoughtful; a Finnish study on basic income suggests that alleviating poverty is an effective means of combating depression; and perhaps there is a simple solution for the crisis of student debt in the United States.

    
 	
  • When Esquire profiled a 17-year-old, white, male Trump supporter from middle America earlier this month, there was an uproar in liberal circles. Why do we need to hear the thoughts of this ‘privileged’ teenager? Why aren’t we hearing the voices of young men of color? But the real problem with the profile, writes Alexandra Tempus in this thought-provoking op-ed, is not who it’s about; the problem is the magazine’s failure to provide any context or meaningful insight that might help the reader understand the circumstances that created this young man and his worldview. If it had provided that insight, it would have been an example of valuable journalism.
    • 



    
 	
  • A non-profit initiative in Oklahoma City established a school for homeless children. The idea is to help kids who have been living with the chaos of chronic homelessness by providing an environment that allows them to catch up developmentally and re-enter the mainstream school system. The school provides cooking lessons for students and families who might never have lived in a home with their own kitchen; it also provides washers and dryers and a place to socialize outside of school hours, all with the intention of helping kids grow academically and socially, in spite of the uncertainty in their home life. One way the school made sure they were meeting student needs? They asked the kids what they wanted. Read the story at Fast Company. 
    • 



    
 	
  • With student loan debt soaring, one school is operating on a whole new model: tuition is free, until you land a good job. Andrew Ross Sorkin explains the concept and how it works in this intriguing New York Times op-ed.
    • 



    
 	
  • When poverty is alleviated, depression levels decline. This is one of the conclusions presented in the results of a Finnish study on basic income. According to the study, “recipients [of basic income] reported a 37 percent reduction in depression levels, a 22 percent improvement in confidence for their futures, and an 11 percent bump in faith in politicians,” Fast Company reports.
    • 



    
 	
  • The epidemic of loneliness is now widely viewed as a public health threat with consequences as bad or worse than smoking and obesity. But how can one build the communities that are essential for combating loneliness in our increasingly atomized, frenetic society? One answer, according to this Bloomberg report, is to throw a party.
    • 


    [post_title] => How to save the world, one compassionate step at a time
    [post_excerpt] => 				Compassion seems to be the common theme in the articles ANI has curated for this week’s look at journalism that goes beyond reporting the problem by presenting possible solutions. 		
    [post_status] => publish
    [comment_status] => open
    [ping_status] => open
    [post_password] => 
    [post_name] => how-to-save-the-world-one-compassionate-step-at-a-time
    [to_ping] => 
    [pinged] => 
    [post_modified] => 2024-08-28 21:15:14
    [post_modified_gmt] => 2024-08-28 21:15:14
    [post_content_filtered] => 
    [post_parent] => 0
    [guid] => https://conversationalist.org/?p=639
    [menu_order] => 0
    [post_type] => post
    [post_mime_type] => 
    [comment_count] => 0
    [filter] => raw
)

How to save the world, one compassionate step at a time

by Jessica McKenzie

WP_Post Object
(
    [ID] => 602
    [post_author] => 5
    [post_date] => 2019-02-15 16:25:09
    [post_date_gmt] => 2019-02-15 16:25:09
    [post_content] => 



The children of California farmworkers are working with research scientists seeking a way to limit their exposure to toxic pesticides; conflict resolution experts and journalists workshop strategies for bringing more nuance to reporting from war zones and election campaigns; and a heartening story about teenage sisters in Bali who led a successful grassroots campaign to ban single use plastic bags





    

  • The children of migrant farmworkers in California have been invited to join a program led by scientists who want to figure out how to minimize the children's exposure to dangerous pesticides. By including the children, they are setting an example of how to democratize scientific research. Read the story published by Ensia.
    • 






    

  • How can journalists make their reporting on conflict and on elections more nuanced? Apparently, a very successful strategy is to bring together journalists and conflict resolution experts to workshop essential questions that "complicate the narrative." Fascinating report here.
    • 






    

  • There is a dearth of affordable housing in American cities, but Austin, Texas, is considering lifting building restrictions in exchange for developers building more affordable units. Next City has the story.
    • 






    

  • In order to stop global warming at 1.5 degrees, we need to increase radically our use of sustainable energy sources. Solutions like solar and wind energy require the use of "rare earth metals" like cadmium, neodymium and indium — which must be mined from the earth. Now the issue is: How can we do this sustainably? Here's a concrete suggestion.
    • 






    

  • In Bali teenage sisters led a successful grassroots campaign to ban single-use plastic in 2019. NPR has the story.
    • 






    

  • In Europe, teenage girls are calling for strikes to demand action on climate change, and BuzzFeed profiled their heroic efforts.
    • 









 

    [post_title] => Bringing nuance to conflict reporting, successful campaigns to ban plastic, and children who learn scientific research for their own benefit
    [post_excerpt] => 				The children of California farmworkers are working with research scientists seeking a way to limit their exposure to toxic pesticides; conflict resolution experts and journalists workshop strategies for bringing more nuance to reporting from war zones and election campaigns; and a heartening story about teenage sisters in Bali who led a successful grassroots campaign to ban single use plastic bags		
    [post_status] => publish
    [comment_status] => open
    [ping_status] => open
    [post_password] => 
    [post_name] => bringing-nuance-to-conflict-reporting-successful-campaigns-to-ban-plastic-and-children-who-learn-scientific-research-for-their-own-benefit
    [to_ping] => 
    [pinged] => 
    [post_modified] => 2024-08-28 21:15:14
    [post_modified_gmt] => 2024-08-28 21:15:14
    [post_content_filtered] => 
    [post_parent] => 0
    [guid] => https://conversationalist.org/?p=602
    [menu_order] => 0
    [post_type] => post
    [post_mime_type] => 
    [comment_count] => 0
    [filter] => raw
)

Bringing nuance to conflict reporting, successful campaigns to ban plastic, and children who learn scientific research for their own benefit

by Jessica McKenzie

WP_Post Object
(
    [ID] => 555
    [post_author] => 2
    [post_date] => 2019-02-08 18:02:05
    [post_date_gmt] => 2019-02-08 18:02:05
    [post_content] => 
 




Today we’re introducing a weekly feature: a blog post composed of curated links to articles and podcasts from around the web, which elide with our mission — i.e., to present stories that identify a problem that is usually regarded as intractable, and suggest a solution or a way forward.





  • The Guardian reports on a small company in northern England that has resolved the persistent problem of gender pay-gaps. It decided to skip the traditional corporate hierarchy, establishing itself instead as a cooperative that pays all of its employee-members the exact same wage, regardless of race, gender, age, or experience.





  • Genocide is potentially preventable. According to researchers at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C., the conditions that lead up to genocide are consistent. The conclusion: that if genocide can be predicted, it can also be pre-empted. NPR reported the story.





  • In their search for a compassionate solution to the problem of homeless people using libraries to bathe or sleep, libraries in San Francisco and Denver have hired social workers who work at the libraries, where their job is to direct homeless people to the services they need. The municipalities have also hired peer navigators with lived experiences of homelessness to help guide their work. Next City reports the story.




    

  • In order to fight the political polarization that is tearing Poland apart, five news outlets representing editorial positions across the political spectrum came to an agreement to publish one another’s stories, in order to present their readers with diverse opinions. Read the New York Times op-ed.
    • 





  • Helsinki has figured out a remarkable solution to the problem of homelessness. By implementing its Housing First program, which provides a stable and permanent home to indigent people for as long as they might need it, the city reduced the number of people living on the street from a high of 18,000 in 1987, to 6,600 today. The BBC reported the story.





  • How to reduce the social tension in university towns between local residents and the students and staff? The Institute on Inequality and Democracy at the UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs is working with social justice activists and community organizers, and asking how their research can help advance and sustain movements on the ground. Read the Next City story. 





  • Newspapers around the world have for years been shutting down, reducing staff, or operating at a loss as advertising revenue continues to slide downward, but The Seattle Times might have found a solution. The paper is working with reporters to understand which stories and products drive subscriptions, rather than clicks. One Seattle Times reporter noted on Twitter that the result so far has been: No layoffs. Read the story at Digiday.





  • A grassroots movement in Louisville, Kentucky, has tackled the unaffordable housing issue. Black Lives Matter raised the funds to purchase inexpensive houses, which they then gifted to transient families and single mothers with low incomes. Read about it at Yes! Magazine.





  • An insurance company, noting that its employees had an average student loan debt of $32,000, came up with a solution: It would allow its workers to trade up to five of their 28 paid vacation days for assistance with that debt. Read the Bloomberg Business report.




 

    [post_title] => Solutions to intractable problems: homelessness, debt, political polarization, and more
    [post_excerpt] => 				Successful efforts to resolve homelessness, prevent political polarization, and pre-empt genocide are just some of the solutions-oriented stories we curated from around the web.		
    [post_status] => publish
    [comment_status] => open
    [ping_status] => open
    [post_password] => 
    [post_name] => solutions-to-intractable-problems-homelessness-debt-political-polarization-and-more
    [to_ping] => 
    [pinged] => 
    [post_modified] => 2024-08-28 21:15:14
    [post_modified_gmt] => 2024-08-28 21:15:14
    [post_content_filtered] => 
    [post_parent] => 0
    [guid] => https://conversationalist.org/?p=555
    [menu_order] => 0
    [post_type] => post
    [post_mime_type] => 
    [comment_count] => 0
    [filter] => raw
)

Solutions to intractable problems: homelessness, debt, political polarization, and more

by Anna Lind-Guzik

WP_Post Object
(
    [ID] => 512
    [post_author] => 4
    [post_date] => 2019-02-04 18:42:06
    [post_date_gmt] => 2019-02-04 18:42:06
    [post_content] => 
 




When asked to name my favorite news sources, I offer my own portmanteau: The New National Public Yorker Times. I abhor the messaging from Fox News; it is anathema to my world view, so it’s difficult for me to admit this: but the truth is that the presenters on Fox are not completely wrong in claiming that “the liberal media” is united in delivering a single message. The New Yorker, The New York Times, NPR, The Atlantic, and all the other media outlets that college-educated liberals follow, are publishing more or less the same stories, presented through the same lens. This is a problem, and it has serious implications.





The root cause of this liberal echo chamber is in egregious editorial double-dipping. Thus WNYC, New York’s public radio station, broadcasts David Remnick, the editor of The New Yorker, as he interviews Ross Douthat, a columnist who is one of the token conservative opinion writers at The New York Times. The mainstream, moneyed, center-Left is headlined by a small cast of characters repeating the same views via various media outlets, sometimes pulling paychecks from more than one. I don’t see the point in having a subscription to The New Yorker when I can listen to NPR and have it read aloud to me. (And before you say it: the cartoons are on Instagram.)





A loss of nuance





The price we are all paying for this editorial echo chamber is high: we have lost nuance and diversity of opinion. This, in turn, has created a mood of disenfranchised populism on the Left, which feels quite justifiably that it has been marginalized and dismissed by the mainstream liberal media. Their resentment could splinter the Democratic Party — perhaps permanently.





During the Trump administration, The New National Public Yorker Times has published or broadcast all manner of fretful pieces about whether or not it is a good idea to give the radical Right a voice. It has, simultaneously, silenced the Left through a process of homogenization, by presenting viewers and readers with the same two dozen people talking to and writing for one another across fewer than a dozen media outlets, which together form the liberal news consumer’s canon.





The problem with this state of affairs is not the casual venality in one journalist receiving two salaries, while a thousand more are laid off in a single week. Nor is the real problem the self-congratulatory habit the New York Times, the New Yorker, and WNYC have of covering one another, or of substituting one another's news stories and columns for original reporting, or of rewarding contribution to one of these outlets with a subscription to another.  





The real and grave consequence of this liberal echo chamber is the loss of a vibrant, credible, political discourse on the mainstream Left in the United States.





Perils of ignoring local news





The implications have already become apparent. The New York Times, The New Yorker, and WNYC have failed abysmally to provide anywhere near sufficient coverage of the city from which they take their names and claim to represent. As a result, they missed the most important story of the 2018 midterm elections — the rise of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.





The New York Times missed Ocasio-Cortez’s campaign because it did not have a reporter on the ground in the Bronx. The paper had long since closed the Queens bureau (which covered Queens and the Bronx).





We all love to say that political solutions begin on the ground — even the Times espouses this theory — but how can local media engage credibly with local politics when it isn’t in town anymore? A few years ago, when the Times still had a Public Editor, she wrote about how the paper worried it had devoted too much space to a fire in the Bronx:







Should resources have been directed to one small fire by a paper trying to cover a city of eight million? More immediately, why should a newsroom that just announced lofty international ambitions spend resources covering news of no interest to readers in Beijing or London?







So, almost prophetically, management at The New York Times decided to downsize the Metro desk in 2016 — just in time for the presidential election, which pitted Queens-born and Manhattan-dwelling Donald Trump against the former New York State senator Hillary Clinton, whose campaign for the Democratic nomination was challenged by a social democrat from Brooklyn named Bernie Sanders.





During the 2016 presidential primaries, New York Times columnist Charles Blow dubbed the mainstream liberal media’s failure to provide adequate coverage of Bernie Sanders’ campaign, the “Bernie Blackout.” After the election, the paper’s columnists tried vainly in their post-mortem analysis to explain how Trump had won, despite all the polls that had showed Hillary Clinton poised to win. The paper’s failure to cover Ocasio-Cortez two years later is rooted not only in its political bias, which grants axiomatic credibility to white middle class liberal candidates, but in its failure to have beat reporters assigned full-time to the Bronx and Queens.





Margaret Sullivan, who was public editor at The New York Times and is now a columnist for the Washington Post, points out that according to the traditional metric of financial backing from big donors, Joseph Crowley should have won the Democratic primary. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s successful challenge reflected a shift on the ground that media outlets had missed — because they were not paying attention.





Smaller publications to the left of The New York Times did notice Ocasio-Cortez’s campaign, and predicted correctly that she would win her primary challenge against the 10-term incumbent. Both the Intercept and Young Turks, a progressive news commentary program that broadcasts on YouTube, saw it coming. Why? Sullivan quotes Young Turks editor Cenk Uygur:







“There should be other considerations [in predicting the results of an election]: number of volunteers, social-media engagement, small-dollar donations,” he said. In high numbers, these variables indicate voter energy and loyalty. And [Ocasio-Cortez] was through the roof on all of those metrics.”







To know about these things, a reporter must be on the ground, with deep knowledge of her beat.





Editorial blinders





The problem is not that one newspaper missed one important story. The problem is that the media outlet widely known as “the paper of record” sets the narrative, acting as catalyst for a feedback loop whereby publications and platforms that share the same mainstream liberal position cite the paper as though it were a source of incontrovertible fact. The result is sloppy coverage that cuts across at least half a dozen prominent publications, all with similar editorial positions and many of the same contributors who target the same college-educated, liberal audience.





Emily Bell, who heads the Tow Center for Digital Journalism, has written about Ocasio-Cortez’s town hall-style meetings, highlighting that the organizers of one event made it open to the public, but barred the media from attending. According to Bell’s analysis, the working class people of color who are an essential element of Ocasio-Cortez’s base are just as resentful of the mainstream liberal media as Trump’s MAGA supporters. Both groups feel dismissed, marginalized, and ignored. Bell writes:







Even if press-free events are an anomaly, it is worrying for journalism that a politician with the support and profile of Ocasio-Cortez frames the presence of press at her meetings as being a hindrance to productive dialogue. Research suggests that, in the kinds of communities she is addressing — urban, poor, non-white — citizens might feel the same way. In a survey conducted by the Tow Center early this year in Philadelphia, respondents said they felt that they often only saw coverage of themselves as being relentlessly negative, or largely absent.







During the 2018 midterm election campaigns, reporters and editors did not, for the most part, give serious, in-depth coverage to the female candidates of color like Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar, Deb Haaland and Sharice Davids — or to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. These candidates became, respectively, the first Muslim women elected to Congress; the first Native American women; and the youngest woman.





If reporters had given their campaigns as much attention as they did to more conventional candidates, they would not have been surprised by the rise of a whole new class of politicians who are neither male, nor white, nor middle class. More importantly, they would have been able to explain to their readers and viewers that the election of these candidates signified a meaningful and important shift in demographics and in the political discourse.




The real meaning of diversity




I have some questions for The New York Times. What has your readership done to deserve both Ross Douthat and conservative visionary David Brooks? Also, what does Douthat represent? God & Man At Yale for the Coachella generation? Maybe it’s also time to admit that attending an Ivy League school might hinder, rather than help, one’s ability to gain insight into the ways the world works. What the cruel ubiquity of David Brooks (The New York Times, PBS, and NPR) telegraphs is that center-right talking heads matter more than sending any reporters to cover Queens or the Bronx.  





Diversity should be the Left’s strong suit, but that means more than looking like a Benetton ad. Diversity requires listening, and taking into account points of view that make us uncomfortable. The results of those difficult conversations might, at least temporarily, divide us, or indict us. But we can become closer by taking the time to give them a hearing, rather than dismissing them out of hand, and congratulating ourselves on giving a platform to the familiar old foes — who were also our roommates at Harvard or Yale.





We need more diverse hiring practices, editorial independence, and scrutiny among publications. We need a vital Metro desk at the New York Times. We need our local media to function from the ground up as a local media, rather than attempting to retrofit an entire city to the editorial board’s preferred political landscape. Finally, we need our media outlets to develop distinct identities, beats, and strengths, so they complement one another and enrich their readership in various ways. The Left will be much stronger for that diversity.





Besides, The New National Public Yorker Times is far too long to print on one tote bag.





Cara Marsh Sheffler is a New York-based freelance journalist and editor whose work appeared most recently in The Guardian. Follow her on Twitter.




 

    [post_title] => Want to save democracy? Diversify the liberal media
    [post_excerpt] => 				The real and quite grave consequence of this liberal echo chamber is the loss of a vibrant, credible, political discourse on the mainstream Left in the United States.		
    [post_status] => publish
    [comment_status] => open
    [ping_status] => open
    [post_password] => 
    [post_name] => want-to-save-democracy-diversify-the-liberal-media
    [to_ping] => 
    [pinged] => 
    [post_modified] => 2024-08-28 21:15:14
    [post_modified_gmt] => 2024-08-28 21:15:14
    [post_content_filtered] => 
    [post_parent] => 0
    [guid] => https://conversationalist.org/?p=512
    [menu_order] => 0
    [post_type] => post
    [post_mime_type] => 
    [comment_count] => 0
    [filter] => raw
)

Want to save democracy? Diversify the liberal media

by Cara Marsh Sheffler

WP_Post Object
(
    [ID] => 422
    [post_author] => 2
    [post_date] => 2019-01-22 14:56:03
    [post_date_gmt] => 2019-01-22 14:56:03
    [post_content] => 

Journalist and author Peter Pomerantsev is an expert in propaganda and media development. He has testified on the challenges of the information war to the U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee, U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and the U.K. Parliament Defence Select Committee. 





Natalia: People are wondering what to do now that Trump has won. I’ve noticed that for those of us who have covered Russia, the answers come more easily. In light of that, what is your advice? What should people be doing now that Trump is the president-elect?





Peter: Since we’re speaking about Russia — learn from the mistakes of Russian liberals. A lot of liberal America is inspired right now, and I can just see it falling into the same trap that the Russian liberals fell into. Russian liberals are in an echo chamber. They’re not reaching the people they’re supposed to reach. So the Kremlin gets to define them. Remember — your echo chamber is a trap. You need to be going out of your comfort zone to at least reach the people who are sitting on the fence.





Natalia: That’s very hard to do, for journalists especially. We have our target audience, and that’s it.





Peter: This is why it’s time to reinvent the profession. If you’re writing your Atlantic long-read, you’re targeting the Atlantic readership. Now you must do the thing that’s much harder. You must go beyond that. We need to reinvent journalism so that it doesn’t just involve us talking to ourselves. Let’s face it, the bad guys have been more effective.





Natalia: Can we talk about how they are more effective?





Peter: Take a look at [conservative radio and TV host Sean] Hannity. Remember Trump’s “pussy grabbing” fiasco? When that came to light, you couldn’t just lavish Trump with praise. So Hannity discussed Hillary Clinton’s e-mail scandal and WikiLeaks every day, hammering and hammering away on that. Saying that e-mails and WikiLeaks didn’t play a role in the election is wrong. If Hannity thought they were useful — they played a role. Look at how someone like Milo [Yiannopoulos, British journalist and technology editor for the far right Breitbart News] uses humor to legitimize far right ideas. Watch people like Hannity, like Milo, see how they work, study the propaganda, so you can be effective in countering it.





Natalia: Let’s discuss the allegations that state-sponsored Russian hackers interfered in the 2016 presidential election to help Trump win. A lot of people are mad at Obama for not taking a bolder stand against that at his last presser as president. But did he have a choice? On the one hand, a lot of people feel violated, and they want him to do more. On the other hand, he’s being cool and calm and presidential about it, and maybe the point is to play the long game — give Trump enough rope to hang himself with.





Peter: I love Obama, but he was played. Where is the strategy? How long is this long game? Cool and calm is a good approach, especially when everyone else is hysterical, but there is a vast difference between “ignore strategically” and “let the Russians do whatever they want.”





Natalia: How do you handle a guy like Trump, who simply doesn’t care about Russian interference?





Peter: You can’t do what the Democrats have done. They’re pushing Trump and Putin together now. Instead you should be smart and do everything to push Putin and Trump apart. Saying nothing and then going into overdrive once the truth is out is the wrong approach. What is needed now is a thorough investigation, of course. Also, let’s not go overboard with our definitions of Trump. There are similarities between his approach and Putin’s approach, but Trump is more of a [populist former leader of Italy Silvio] Berlusconi figure.





Natalia: What should the American public prepare for now?





Peter: That Trump will be an 8-year president? If some of his populist economic measures succeed, we could be looking at that.





Natalia: Unless he starts a trade war with China and everything goes to hell. Based on his Twitter feed, I feel like this is a likely outcome.





Peter: It all depends on whether or not he’s a complete moron.





Natalia: Not very reassuring.





Peter: Look — Trump has the power of reality TV on his side. What’s more powerful than that? How about President George Clooney? All those women who voted for Trump will forget him in an instant. Maybe I’m joking, or halfway joking, but the truth is, it’s time for the media and for liberals to reinvent themselves. It’s doable and has been done before. Just don’t stay in your bubble. So many Democratic leaders are in a bubble, so they cocked it it up, when they should have been calling on those who would tell them what they needed to hear, as opposed to what they wanted to hear. They didn’t plan for bad outcomes. You can learn a lot from others, but you have to actually be willing.





Peter Pomerantsev is the author of “Nothing is True and Everything is Possible: The Surreal Heart of the New Russia,” winner of the 2016 Ondaatje Prize.





Originally published December 19, 2016.




 

    [post_title] => 'Your echo chamber is a trap': on Trump and the media
    [post_excerpt] => 						
    [post_status] => publish
    [comment_status] => open
    [ping_status] => open
    [post_password] => 
    [post_name] => your-echo-chamber-is-a-trap-peter-pomerantsev-on-trump-and-the-media-2
    [to_ping] => 
    [pinged] => 
    [post_modified] => 2024-08-28 21:15:15
    [post_modified_gmt] => 2024-08-28 21:15:15
    [post_content_filtered] => 
    [post_parent] => 0
    [guid] => https://conversationalist.org/?p=422
    [menu_order] => 0
    [post_type] => post
    [post_mime_type] => 
    [comment_count] => 0
    [filter] => raw
)

‘Your echo chamber is a trap’: on Trump and the media

by Natalia Antonova

WP_Post Object
(
    [ID] => 389
    [post_author] => 2
    [post_date] => 2019-01-22 14:32:41
    [post_date_gmt] => 2019-01-22 14:32:41
    [post_content] => 
This interview was originally published in March 2017.




Dylan Park is a United States Air Force veteran who served for six years in a Pararescue unit in Iraq and Afghanistan among other places. He’s now a writer and music video director living in Santa Monica . A sci-fi nerd who signed up for Mars One, he’s written a graphic novel (Zombiraq) and worked on tv shows including AMC’s The Walking Dead. His Twitter thread about his Iraqi teenage interpreter, Brahim, recently went viral. We discussed issues ranging from North Korea and military rape to cancer and the KKK.





Anna: One theme I’ve seen through all of your work is the issue of violence in society. You draw parallels between being at war and life in America. A lot of Americans haven’t experienced violence at home. You haven’t been so fortunate, your family especially.





Dylan: I think it’s a misconception that a lot of Americans haven’t experienced violence.





I think it’s around 30,000 people a year dying from gun violence. That’s astronomical.





I grew up in an affluent, upper-middle class area. My house literally had a white picket fence. But mom is an orphan from North Korea. My dad was growing up in Texas and Louisiana during the civil rights movement. When he was a kid they were still lynching people. He witnessed that. That’s super traumatic.





His father was murdered by the KKK. I tell people that and they think I’m joking. I have to explain to a lot of my peers that slavery and all that stuff was not that long ago.





So I never met my grandfather because he was murdered by the KKK. I never met my other grandfather because he was a North Korean defector. 


I did six years in the military in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Africa. There was a lot of violence, a lot of trauma there. I got back and a few years later, my brother was murdered in a carjacking. It’s a sad story, but I try not get down on myself. I know a lot of Americans, a lot of people in the world, have had it so much worse.





Anna: While studying to be a historian, I looked at postcards of lynchings people sent to one another. You look at some of the photos and see the sheriff standing there. If the sheriff is supervising, how much of mob justice is separate from state violence? Is this really an extrajudicial killing?





Dylan: A lot of people don’t realize that racism was state-sponsored. It was essentially law. When I talk about my grandfather being murdered in Killeen, Texas in 1972, that’s not that long ago.





The Killeen Police Department listed it as a cold case, an unsolved mystery. My father says, “That’s bullshit. We watched two cops walk into our house and shoot my father.”





So of course it’s not going to be solved. They threatened my father and uncles, saying “If you don’t get out of here, we’re going to kill you too.” This all happened because my grandfather had remarried [to] a woman from an affluent white family. They weren’t happy with a black guy getting in on the wealth.










Anna: I’d like to ask you about the different political administrations. What kind of changes have you seen in the military over time?





Dylan: When I first signed up for the military, George W. Bush was still president. We still had a lot of blind nationalism, a kind of gross patriotism after 9/11. If you weren’t for the red, white, and blue, you were the enemy. As an 18-year old, I got caught up in that.





I wanted to go fight the fucking terrorists. They promised me action, adventure and a little bit of money. There were a lot of teenagers my age that were all about that.





We’re a country that glorifies violence. We romanticize it.





When I had a recruiter telling me that I’d get a $15,000 bonus to go blow shit up, I said awesome, that sounds great.





This was in 2004. A year later, I was in Iraq and wondering, what are we even doing here?





Dylan Park in his “blowing shit up” days





And the Iraqis are normal people, but now all of a sudden they have these Americans occupying their country. Of course they’re going to be hesitant and defensive.





When I admit this a lot of my veteran buddies get pissed, but we had no right to be in Iraq.





It was such a sham. They literally had us fighting over an oil town. They weren’t even trying to hide it. We were occupying an oil town while American contractors did whatever they needed to do to get the oil.





A couple of years later, Obama became president. That was great. My veterans benefits immediately increased.





Anna: I didn’t realize that he passed a law on veteran’s benefits.





Dylan: Oh yeah, Barack passed a lot of laws for veterans.





It’s crazy when you think about how Republicans say that Obama hates vets. The amount of attention I was receiving, the healthcare, everything was exponentially better.





Barack often gets criticized for pulling our troops out of Iraq, and in the long run, that might have been a mistake. I still don’t think that’s his fault, though, because we shouldn’t have been there in the first place.





He also gets criticized for the drone program. I get that too, but essentially he’s using drones instead of having boots on the ground. There’s no real difference, besides fewer Americans dead. Either way, the war machine is not going to stop.





Anna: In that sense, to what extent is U.S. foreign policy this juggernaut with a figurative head to be replaced each time there’s a new president? What influence does the president have over how our military force is used?





Dylan: You can see it right now. Before Trump got in office, he was talking about killing civilians. That’s a war crime.





Anna: Right, already we’re seeing the number of civilian deaths shoot up, like in Mosul and Yemen.





Dylan: He’s basically gotten rid of rules of engagement. He’s usurping the Geneva Conventions.





Trump’s been in office for 65–70 days and he’s already killed 1000 civilians? It’s crazy, but that puts him on a record pace.





You read the articles and the quotes from the commanders or generals that are leading these troops into battle and they say, “It’s disgusting, but these are our orders. If we’re told to level a city, we’re going to do it.”





Anna: Theres a lot of talk about Mattis and his influence over Trump. Their relationship has been framed as Trump needing Mattis in order to keep the military loyal to some extent. If Trump decided he was through with Mattis because he’s said “no” one too many times, what happens? Does it work that way?





Dylan: There’s a large population of liberal veterans and service members, but we’re never going to be larger than the conservative side. You’ll always have this group of service members that would do anything for their commander in chief, including war crimes, which is the problem. I don’t think replacing Mattis would make a difference, and I don’t see a military coup happening. It is what it is.










Anna: You’ve tweeted about civil war. I’m worried about that, too, honestly. I don’t think it’s that far-fetched to think about, especially given Steve Bannon and Trump’s threats to use the National Guard in Chicago. I think that his base will follow him no matter what and also that he won’t go quietly.





Dylan: It’s scary. I joke around about it, but usually when you’re joking it’s because it’s somewhere in the back of your head. I don’t think we’re close to that yet, but who knows?





You know we’re gonna start talking about impeaching Donald Trump, and you know the dude is going to be a psychopath on his way out.





The guy is in bed with the Kremlin, which is crazy in itself. Not to be a conspiracy theorist, but America is more ripe for attack than we’ve ever been. We’re messing up really badly right now.





Anna: Yeah, we’ve also sort of taken apart our entire State Department, which is not helpful. I worry about us getting attacked as well, and what kind of things they could use that as an excuse for.





Dylan: Donald Trump is attacking all these people in the defense services, the NSA. So now all of a sudden, all the guys who are protecting us don’t want to work for him. He’s not going to his security briefings. This is unprecedented.





It’s crazy because we have North Korea firing missiles off while Trump is golfing.





Russia’s saying, we’re going to expand our nuclear program, and Donald Trump is like, no you’re not, we’re going to have a better nuclear program.





[In general], Donald Trump is the type of leader who has a short temper and an ego. That is something that could potentially get a lot of Americans killed.





Anna: I’ve spent a lot of time in Russia. Half my family are Russian Jews who emigrated from the Soviet Union. My dad was alive for World War II. That affected how I was raised, and gave me some perspective. The thing that I’ve seen change the most since he took power is that America became like everyone else.





Dylan: That’s exactly what it is.





Anna: I’m waiting for everyone else to catch up to that fact. It’s hard when people don’t want to deal.





Dylan: [Trump’s] actually making our country a bigger target. ISIS is using this as a recruiting tool to say, “look how America hates Muslims.” And it’s true, America does hate Muslims. It’s not going to get better, it’s only going to get worse… ISIS is ramping up their hate for America, and so more attacks are going to happen. It’s a sick cycle.










Anna: I wanted to talk to you about the VA. You just had a procedure, you’re alright?





Dylan: I have some stomach complications, but I’m okay. When I was in Iraq, I was in Kirkuk, an oil town. Imagine the worst smog you’ve ever seen in your life. The sky was black. [And then there was] the depleted uranium, burning corpses, burning fecal matter, chemicals.





It was a bad environment. A crazy number of people in my detachment were getting sick.





The VA couldn’t figure out what was going on, people were getting cancer. A couple of smart doctors figured out, oh, we had these awful conditions. They set up this thing called a Burn Pit Registry. If you had been on certain bases or at certain locations at certain times you went to the VA.





My best friend went back to Iraq for another tour. He came home and was diagnosed with Stage IV stomach cancer the same day that his daughter was born. He was in the hospital feeling really sick. They pulled him to another room and did tests on him. The day his daughter is born he finds out he has a year to live. It was really fucked up.





Anna: That’s so messed up, how old was he?





Dylan: He was 30 years old. This was 2014. It’s very sad. It happens to a lot of guys. I have a lot of problems too, but I’m one of the lucky ones.





From Dylan Park’s Twitter: “Me and Allen (RIP) walked into the Shannon airport terminal in our uniforms and we got a standing ovation. Free Guinness & Jameson for days.”










Anna: The story of Brahim, your translator, was so touching. I’m wondering if the response to that story gives you hope that people aren’t totally terrible?





Dylan: I had just written a proposal for that book. I was about to start shopping it. I’ve actually told that story before but I decided to retell it because it was so relevant to the Refugee Ban. It just blew up. The amount of attention it received, couldn’t have seen that coming. For a week straight, my phone would not start beeping. I had tens of thousands of strangers telling me that I made them cry.





And there were dozens of deplorables in my mentions, too, calling me a liar. But it was heartwarming to see that not everyone’s a complete piece of shit.










Anna: You’ve tweeted about sexual assault in the military. To what extent is the military just a microcosm of society?





Dylan: The military is worse than society because the military is a fraternity. The U.S. military is basically the biggest gang in the world. It’s a big frat with the good ole boys. They keep everything on the inside, they don’t want any bad publicity.





There were two women in my unit who were raped, and the unit buried it. They actually forced the women to work alongside their rapist for almost two years before he got court-martialled.





If you can imagine that trauma having to work with the guy who assaulted you. When guys like me would go around and cause a fuss, I got blacklisted essentially. Dudes started treating me completely differently. Started calling me a narc, a snitch… It was like high school. I was in a clique and then all of a sudden I was an outcast. Don’t talk to Dylan.





And again not everyone in the military is like that. It’s the same parallel with law enforcement. We know that not all cops are shitty cops. I’d say 90% of cops aren’t shitty cops. But the fact that they protect shitty cops makes them a shitty cop. That’s exactly the situation in the military.





Anna: They become complicit. What do you think about militarized police?





Dylan: Did you just see the video of that machine they’re using? It’s like a protest sweeper. I definitely could have used that in Iraq.





Police departments in the U.S. are armed better than I was in Iraq in a war zone. I grew up in Campbell, CA. It’s the cutest little town. Their police department has a fucking tank. It’s just sitting there in a parking lot. There’s been one homicide in Campbell in five years. What are they going to do with that? You’re giving police departments military equipment so they’re going to start acting like the military.





It’s not about law and order anymore. It’s not about justice. It’s about suppression and intimidation.





You’re seeing peaceful protesters getting tear gassed, beaten and shot. On the flip side, you can have a KKK rally and they’ll get police protection. A neo-Nazi rally, the police will protect them because of their First Amendment rights. I get it, they have freedom of speech, but what happens to freedom of speech when you’re a brown guy and you’re speaking out against the system? Then you’re the enemy.










Anna: Knowing what you know now, would you do it again? Would you have joined?





Dylan: Even though they were some of the worst times of my life, they were also some of the best times too. I got to do things, experience things, meet people and go places that I had never been before and never would have had the chance to go. In the military I went to every continent but Antarctica.





I traveled a lot. A lot of it was — humanitarian missions, peacekeeping missions. My unit was a pararescue unit. We weren’t an offensive force.





We were the 129th rescue wing. Pararescue units are combat rescue units who pick up downed troops, downed civilians behind enemy lines. We’re equipped as military, so if we need to fight we can do that too.





My first mission when I signed up was New Orleans, Hurricane Katrina. We had gotten intel that there were militias running around raping women and shooting people, shooting our helicopters. They armed us up and said get ready for a fight. We’re going to fight gangbangers.





We fly out there and its not that at all. It’s just a bunch of scared black people. On their roofs, trying to survive.





There was no violence whatsoever but we had been conditioned to believe we were going to fight people. Our mission was a rescue mission so we were pulling scared people off roofs. But we were ready for a fight, had our guns loaded up.





Anna: Why would they say that about those people on the roofs?





Dylan: When you have a group of disenfranchised minorities they are the enemy no matter what. That’s how the United States has always been. It took 5 days to send help. And then when we did go, they said the people on the ground were enemies. It was absurd.





Anna: How did you feel as a person of color serving in the military?





Dylan: I had never really experienced real racism until I got into the military. There was a little bit of racism in private Catholic school: as a 5th grader if some kid calls you the n-word , what are you going to do?





But in the military people have real control over you and can send you to your death. That was an issue.





In Iraq, I found myself working the Suicide Gate more often than not. They call it the Suicide Gate because that’s where all the suicide bombers would go blow themselves up.





I always found myself working that station. It was not a coincidence. If everything had been fairly distributed, I would have only been there a few times. I found myself there nightly.





To answer your question, I often say that I’m, I don’t know if ashamed is the right word, but sometimes I’m ashamed to have been a part of the war machine. But if I had not gone through that experience, I wouldn’t have been as “woke” as you would say.





Anna: You saw a lot — and that changes you. When you were talking about the racism, I was thinking about “Get Out.”





Dylan: Oh my god that movie was insane. Not to spoil anything, but I kinda knew from the beginning that there was double-sidedness going on.





Anna: What projects are you working on right now?





Dylan: I’m working on a book based on the Twitter story, and there’s already interest in making it into a movie. Being a veteran that writes is rare thing in Los Angeles, so that’s my niche. Coming up there’s a reboot of “Behind Enemy Lines” with Owen Wilson and a “Call of Duty” TV show. They want people with experience to write for them. I also have a couple of comic books that I’m working on. And I do music videos.





Anna: Oh, right! I saw your pictures with Wyclef Jean.





Dylan: Yeah, I write and direct music videos now. Wyclef is one of my favorite artists ever, and I’ve been working with him.




 

    [post_title] => Woke vets: black skies and the suicide gate
    [post_excerpt] => "There’s a large population of liberal veterans and service members, but we’re never going to be larger than the conservative side. You’ll always have this group of service members that would do anything for their commander in chief, including war crimes, which is the problem. I don’t think replacing Mattis would make a difference, and I don’t see a military coup happening. It is what it is."						
    [post_status] => publish
    [comment_status] => open
    [ping_status] => open
    [post_password] => 
    [post_name] => woke-vets-black-skies-and-the-suicide-gate-2
    [to_ping] => 
    [pinged] => 
    [post_modified] => 2024-08-28 21:15:15
    [post_modified_gmt] => 2024-08-28 21:15:15
    [post_content_filtered] => 
    [post_parent] => 0
    [guid] => https://conversationalist.org/?p=389
    [menu_order] => 0
    [post_type] => post
    [post_mime_type] => 
    [comment_count] => 0
    [filter] => raw
)

Woke vets: black skies and the suicide gate

by

Sign up for our newsletter