Author: Spocko

How and Why to Report Men With Guns at Polling Places


By Spocko

If you spot some of Trump’s “Poll Watchers” with their guns at polling places, text GUNSDOWN to 91990.

You will receive information on a national voter protection hotline (866-OUR-VOTE) operated by the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights. Appropriate reports will be passed on to law enforcement and election officials, and voters will have the opportunity, if they feel safe doing so, to share photos of voter intimidation on social media.

There has already been an incident in Virginia.

 A Guy In A Trump Shirt Carried A Gun Outside Of A Virginia Polling Place. Authorities Say That’s Fine. 

Note this comment, “Voters will have the opportunity, if they feel safe doing so, to share photos of voter intimidation on social media.”

Compare to how the right-wing acted when they had video of a New Black Panthers member with a night stick in 2008.

The right-wing didn’t hesitate to put up the videos, they also sent a reporter to the location to get more video and have a confrontation, because that makes good TV. (Why is it a black man with a night stick is so scary and a white man with a gun is not? I can’t quite put my finger on it. )

Will Fox News do the same kind of story about voter intimidation when it is a white man with a gun?  No.

But the mainstream media will cover it. We will see them go thought all the same steps they did in that Huffington Post article.

COURTESY ERIKA M COTTI  A man carrying a weapon outside of Loudoun County Registrars Office  in Leesburg, Virginia.

• Was it legal? Yes.
• What did the authorities do? Nothing.

They checked with election officials, “They said that there’s nothing they could do, that he was well within his rights to be carrying his weapon,” said Judy Brown, Loudoun County registrar.

The Huffington Post called Republican party officials to see if they had a problem with this. (Would they disavow it and condemn it? Nope.)

Estrada said he doesn’t want to specifically ban his volunteers from carrying weapons.

“It’s a free country,” Estrada said. “I’m a NRA life member myself. So long as no laws are being broken, I’m not going to tell someone they can’t. But I’ve told all of our volunteers that we’re here for our candidates, we don’t want us to become the story.” 

• Was the person who was voting intimidated? Yes, but she is a politically active person (she was quoted in the Washington Post!) so that allows people to dismiss her concerns.  (The Huffington post writer noted that the man who promoted the New Black Panther video is now an operative working for Trump about election issues. )

 
Why did the Republicans push that New Black Panther story so hard?  Because the modus operandi of the right-wing is to find an example of a few people on the left doing things that the RIGHT does all the time.  It’s their “man bites dog” story method and it’s pushed up to the MSM so they can use it as an example for their “both sides do it” stories.

Democrats should push this incident in Virginia hard–with a goal in mind.  We need bills created to make carrying guns around polling places illegal in all states before the next election.  Now is the time to gather evidence to show that gun carrying at polling places is blatant intimidation.  (I’ll expect the right to brag that nobody was shot. Good! That doesn’t mean people weren’t intimidated.)

Trump is going to go on about the rigged election for years and his people will be passing laws behind the scenes to make rigging them EASIER (because that is what they do, just like the NRA gets laws passed to make getting guns easier and carry them in more places behind the scenes.)

The story ends with the line:

Friday’s incident in Loudoun County, involving a white Republican, seems pretty unlikely to attract the same type of attention.

Eight years ago, not everyone had a video camera in their pocket and a way to gather and then distribute the footage to millions. Now we all do. If we want something to “get attention” we need to realize that the so-called liberal media is not going to do it for us. We need to. Social media is one way.

We also need to understand the continuing amplifying affect the right-wing media has within its own world. They will keep pushing their stories into the MSM.  But what works for the right, when it comes to pushing stories, doesn’t work the same for the left.

The “so-called liberal media” isn’t going to give us the same kind of treatment they give to the right. Partly because when the right is busted lying, THEY DON’T CARE. If news broken by the left is on a real issue you can expect the MSM will apply rules on how they cover our stories that they don’t apply to the right.  We need to be prepared.

This election there might be photos, videos and footage of men with guns at polling places. The stories will be accompanied by quotes about how it’s “perfectly legal.” But that doesn’t mean it has to stay that way.

UPDATED: What’s Obama’s Response to Pre-Election Cyber Attacks?

by Spocko

UPDATED: I wrote this yesterday with the title What’s Obama’s Response to Pre-Election Cyber Attacks?

This evening MSNBC’s exclusive came out:

U.S. Govt. Hackers Ready to Hit Back If Russia Tries to Disrupt Election

It’s a nice saber rattling piece by the Obama administration, short on details or analysis, but I’m glad it came out. But there are still a lot of questions to be asked about what has happened already and future responses– which I detail below. Also, I want a cookie for predicting the future – Spocko]

Let’s say the Obama administration has read and believed the intelligence agencies briefs about cyber attacks from state actors.  We know Hillary has.

“We have 17 intelligence agencies, civilian and military, who have all concluded that these espionage attacks, these cyber attacks, come from the highest levels of the Kremlin, and they are designed to influence our election.”  — Hillary Clinton on 10/19/16 the third presidential debate

What is the Obama administration doing about this now? Hopefully something good. It’s probably classified.

Visualization of Mairi Attack Source Hackread

But I have another question. Were these cyber attacks, identified as coming from Russia, part of Donald Trump’s national security briefs? At the time of the debate Trump was getting national security briefings. Here is what he had to say about Clinton’s comment.

Did his briefings include what the US will do in the event of attacks before the election? Or that are happening now.  Trump is not supposed to talk about what he learns from those briefings. Can he be trusted to keep that classified information to himself? Did he have to sign anything to hear it? Wouldn’t Trump’s connections with Russia be relevant to the people briefing him? Wouldn’t they need to know just how in hock to Russia he is?

We know how the right loves to project what they do onto the left. What are the odds Trump will remember what he learned that was classified vs unclassified? So what happens if he mentions something to oligarchs about what US intelligence agencies know about who is behind them?

I’m not bringing this up as yet another reason Trump should not be elected. I’m bringing it up because this is something the Obama administration should be on top of.

It would also be nice if the political media would see what a big f-ing deal these attacks are. Maybe they think all the influencing of the elections consists of leaking documents.

At least the outstanding political comedy news media have covered the Russian trolls. Check out this hilarious piece from Samantha Bee’s Full Frontal.

There are tools in hacking toolkits that major foreign countries could still unleash. Later in the debate after Wallace prompting Trump begrudgingly agreed to condemn the attacks then said, “if the United States got along with Russia, it wouldn’t be so bad.”  (“If their attacks get me elected I won’t investigate. If they don’t I’ll demand they investigate how they helped Hillary.”)

I’m sick and tired of waiting until after massive damage is done to our democracy to act. Now is a good time to be proactive.

We are getting the equivalent of Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US every day in the computer attacks from foreign state actors.

Allow me to make a suggestion to the political media. Ask Trump about it. How about you get his attention with the ol’ switcheroo? “Mr. Trump, our intelligence agencies have found that a foreign power is interfering with our election. They are testing our limits in ways that could impact the election. You said you didn’t believe it was Russia behind it. That said, what should President Obama be doing about whomever is behind it?”

He will go on about how weak Obama is on “the cyber” about Hillary and the emails. He will assume it is all about him. It might seem to be  a waste of their time, because of the non-answers.

But bringing it up with Trump will give Obama a way to talk about it without having to ask him first. Then it will give Clinton an issue to discuss as well since they must have both sides. Experts can weigh in and the next time the American people are hit by a cyber attack we will demand an investigation and not assume good intentions of the Russians, the Chinese or other nation states.

Yes there are “400 lbs hackers sitting on their mother’s bed” in located in Milpitas California. I’ve met a few, some are really nice people, smart curious people and don’t deserve to be blamed for crap they didn’t cause.

What is happening with Russia and the election is an opportunity to talk about other vulnerabilities in our networks and computer infrastructure with some real life examples.

I Didn’t Notice Your Hair was on Fire Until After the Blackout

Remember the largest blackout in North American history? Most people don’t know  it, but two major attacks on our power grid can be traced to the Chinese in 2003 and 2008.

In Shane Harris’ excellent book @War he details how 2003 hack was connected to China. When Obama talked about cyber attacks in 2009 he revealed that “cyber intruders have probed our electrical grid and that in other countries cyber attacks have plunged entire cities into darkness.” What he didn’t say was some of those cities were in the US.

50 million people were affected by the Northeast Blackout. There were 12 fatalities. Officially it was blamed on failures by FirstEnergy, headquartered in Akron, Ohio and “overgrown trees.”

But in 2003 nobody wanted to say who was behind it. Especially not when it meant calling one of our biggest trading partners a terrorist. (George W. Bush went on TV and said it was “not a terrorist action” You can bet that if he could make it look like it came from Iraq he would have. )

In the book Harris also discusses the Tuesday February 26, 2008 attack that hit Florida and blacked out Miami. It impacted 4 million customers.  Imagine an attack next Tuesday in a state like Florida. I’m sure the timing of these Internet of Things bot attack is just a coincidence. /snark

The companies that operated these plants and networks vehemently denied any accusations of foreign involvement. But while the energy companies might want to keep pretending that it’s “overgrown trees” and failed switches, there is evidence that proves otherwise. Obama has this evidence and now so does Clinton and Trump.

Trump ignoring Hillary’s remark about Russia trying to influence the election means that either he is lying, or he wasn’t informed.  My Quatloos are on lying. But trying to get a straight answer out of Trump is like trying to nail fog.

A few people, in the tech press, like Kelly Jackson Higgins at Dark Reading have brought this up.”How Clinton, Trump Could Champion Cybersecurity tech press addresses this issue? There even have been commissions on what to do, US Should Help Private Sector ‘Active Defense,’ But Outlaw Hacking Back, Says Task Force

It is bizarre to think that defending our computer and network infrastructure is partisan. It’s not. We don’t need to wait until election day to remind people it isn’t.

People Who Went to Jail after Bundy’s Oregon Standoff Trial 

by Spocko

After seven defendants were found not guilty following the Malheur Refuge occupation trial, lots of people are pissed off. I understand the thinking and hear the frustration. Especially when compared to what is happening to unarmed protesters at the Dakota pipeline protests. But did you know eleven defendants pled guilty?

These people, dressed as they are, came from all over America to play militia man. Some, after making a deal with the Feds to NOT participate in future militia actions, still came and broke their agreements.  All eleven have pled guilty.  Photos courtesy of the Multnomah County Sheriff’s Office

These people didn’t get acquitted of all charges: Travis Cox, Geoffry Stanek, Jon Ritzheimer, Ryan Payne, Joseph O’Shaughnessy, Wesley Kjar, Corey Lequieu, Eric Flores, Blaine Cooper, Brian Cavalier, and Jason Blomgren.

One, Corey Lequieu, is already serving his jail term. Others, like Brian Cavalier, have been sentenced for crimes committed in Oregon, and still has to stand trial for charges at the Bundy stand-off in Nevada. These were charges that the government did not press at the time.

There are also seven awaiting trial. Remember this guy, Sean Anderson?

Yes, some of the big names from the Malheur Occupation got off, but that’s not the whole story. The government actually got a number of convictions, with more to come next year with the successful prosecution for crimes committed in Nevada and Oregon.

To the public, the Bundy Ranch standoff also looked like a success for the Bundy’s.  But behind the headlines, you’ll find government agencies that wisely showed restraint and had a longer term plan to deal with the militia threat.

If the Feds felt the need to look tough, like some politicians do whenever their authority is challenged, there might have been a bloodbath.

Some people at the Bundy ranch were counting on that reaction. A martyr for the cause would stir up their base and make the government look bad, even if the feds were totally within the law and right to act.

The government needed to avoid a repeat of Waco, which they did. And, they used the crimes committed at the Bundy Ranch as leverage over armed protesters for crimes that weren’t prosecuted immediately. That sent a message to the militia movement for people who were planning future events.

So while the government didn’t get the money Cliven Bundy owed, they did get leverage and evidence for cases against some of the same people who showed up at the Malheur Occupation.

But I think the government’s biggest win from the Bundy Ranch Standoff was the chance for the media and public to see and hear that Cliven Bundy is a full-blown racist.  

The outing of Bundy as a racist was very powerful, and a major PR blow to his image because even hard-core supporters like Sean Hannity could not go on record embracing Cliven’s racism. Hannity had to disavow it and try to explain it away. He basically had to use the Hitler defense on Cliven, “Yes, he said that, but he had some good points!” Had there been a firefight showdown, the story of Bundy’s racism would have been eclipsed.

Because law enforcement didn’t allow themselves to be baited into a firefight they were able to get more suspects in the future.

In addition to being currently under arrest, Cliven Bundy and his gang failed in their long-term goal, “seeking an opportunity to advance their view that the United States Forest Service (USFS), Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and other agencies are constitutionally required to turn over most of the federal public land they manage to the individual states.”

They also didn’t get the two people out of jail who were convicted of arson. Dwight Hammond Jr., 73, and his son Steven, 46, surrendered at the Terminal Island Federal Correctional Institution in San Pedro, Calif., January 4, 2016 and are still in jail.

Following the Bundy Ranch stand-off, people connected to the Bundy’s had nice ‘chats’ with multiple branches of law enforcement. I wasn’t there, but I imagine it went a little something like this:

“We won’t arrest you for crimes that we could put you away for. In exchange, you are going to agree to stop doing this, and keep us informed on what is happening. If you do go to other Bundy type events, you’ve broken our agreement, and we will throw the book at you.” 

What To Do When Trump Supporters Threaten To Kill

by Spocko

Here is what Trump’s followers are doing right now:
In Virginia two guys with guns show up outside a democrat’s office to protest Hillary saying, “We’re not a threat to anybody, the only threat is ignorance, and ignorance breeds fear.”   Another Trump guy calls for a bloody coup and hopes someone shoots Hillary.

Armed protester, Daniel Parks,  outside Jane Dittmar’s Palmyra campaign office to protest Hillary Clinton. CBS 19 NEWSPLEX

In the space between the extremes of, “OMG, he could win this thing!” and “He will never win!” there is now a discussion of what Trump’s followers will do post election. That’s good. We need to be prepared for their “It was rigged!” screams.  But we also need to talk about what WE will do right now.

When Lou Dobbs published the phone number of Jessica Leeds, the 74-year-old former traveling businesswoman who accused Donald Trump of sexually assaulting her, I told my friends that I hope the secret service, the FBI and local law enforcement will be keeping an eye on all communications she receives.  I want her to be safe, but I also want to see a story about her threats being tracked, people identified and arrests being made before the election.

I want CNN and Fox to report on these arrests to their watchers, because they each helped make the threats happen.  I want arrests to happen before the election so they won’t be written off as Hillary’s “goons” arresting these people as payback. Directives to find and arrest people will be coming from our currently appointed justice department. Maybe the people who are behind the arrests of the Bundy people could lead. (Of course there will still be cries about Obama’s “goons,” FEMA camps and black helicopters, but whatever.)

Actually what should happen is that GOP politicians should demand the end of violent threats. They should demand that law enforcement take threats seriously. Then they should help ensure the threateners are tracked, exposed and arrested. If they are found guilty after a trial there should be appropriate punishment.   The GOP leaders need to say, “You threaten anyone with violence, and it’s a true threat, WE will take your guns, not Obama, not Hillary, but us, your elected Republican leaders, because we don’t do that in America.”

The GOP leaders could seize this opportunity to distance themselves from Trump, and be decent people, but they won’t, because they are afraid of their constituency. The right knows what their base is capable of, even if we don’t.

In Robert Draper’s interview on Fresh Air I heard the story of foul-mouthed conservative bully Erick Erickson getting death threats for not supporting Trump. It doesn’t make me gleeful to hear about him receiving letters from people who discussed how he might be shot. I don’t think it’s cool for armed strangers to show up at his door “just to talk.”

After this experience will he have empathy for all the people on our side who have had this happen to them? Will he now understand that when open carry people show up “just to talk” it’s really meant to convey future violence unless he complies?

Even though those threats were directed at Erick Erickson from the right wing, we can’t count on the right-wing media to act on this. They always assume the gun-toting, violence threatening people are on their side threatening liberals and democrats–so it’s fine. (And when we call them on it they will say, “We were just joking!” )

I think the right knows that if they asked law enforcement to use their full surveillance power, with a warrant, it would uncover the people on their side who they turn a blind eye too.  Law enforcement doesn’t need to go to the FISA court or run unwarranted wiretaps to get this info.

When people get death threats, and they are elevated to “true threat” levels everyone understands it is appropriate to bring in law enforcement.

I know a lot about computers, how they operate and how people can be traced. I also read terms of service contracts. I know acceptable use policies.  It wouldn’t take the NSA to crack the anonymity of most people making death threats, especially if the ISP gets a warrant from law enforcement.

Even with all my knowledge I know I could be found with a lawful warrant. But I’m not making death threats. I’m not showing up at protests with my gun and bragging about my arsenal or talking about killing people. I don’t show up armed at people’s house to remind them I know where they live and where their kids go to school.

People should NOT have to accept getting threats of violence as just the price of modern life. If they are coming from “social media” it is likely a violation of their terms of services. If people are writing threatening emails while at work it might be a violation of their organization or employer’s code of ethics. It might also be illegal.  It definitely is wrong and unacceptable in our democracy.

The people making threats can be found. In fact, a lot of tech savvy people can find these people right now. In the past I’ve encouraged people to keep track of these threateners, so you can show a pattern and importantly prove their intent.

The reason that most people making death threats aren’t traced or identified isn’t their digital hiding skills, it’s about the lack of will and capacity of law enforcement to do anything.

I get no satisfaction from “I told you so.” 

“I told you so’s” after the fact aren’t enough for me. If we know that a group of domestic terrorists are planning to kill people and we don’t act because we thought they were joking, we are failing in our duty to grasp reality and protect others. People can say Trump and RW media hosts have blood on their hands, but nothing is going to happen to them latter.

I also want to remind people that there are other exceptions to the First Amendment besides, “You can’t falsely yell fire in a crowded theater.” Threatening speech is NOT protected speech. It is essential to show the public that making true threats to others will have consequences.

After people are shot, killed or assassinated, pundits will wring their hands and say, “Nobody could have seen this coming!” Yes we can.

And before some concern troll starts talking about a chilling effect to political speech,  I’m not talking about thoughtcrime or pre-crime. We’ve seen the threats, they are specific and they are happening now. We need to act to prevent violence now, instead of waiting for after the election to really take them seriously.

Glenn Beck’s Blaze is Flaming Out, And We Helped! 

by Spocko

From the Huffington Post:

Glenn Beck’s The Blaze Is Falling Apart, Staff Says Once the envy of other right-leaning sites. Not anymore. -Huffington Post

Dragon’s Breath at Firefighter School, by Lance Cheung Creative Commons Licence

It’s a nice story about Glenn Beck’s The Blaze falling apart. The other day Digby wrote about what this might mean for conservative media and what it might mean for the Talking Yam after his electoral failure.

What the Huffington Post story doesn’t cover is why Beck had to create his own media “empire” instead of staying in the protected bubble of Fox News and News Corp. He was fired, canned, pushed out, let go, contract not renewed, left to spend more time crying with his family or whatever euphemism is used these days. News Corp gave all sorts of lame reasons, but the documented fact that he stopped bringing in ad revenue for News Corp is a huge part of why he is off Fox.

And the reason ad revenue disappeared is because of the incredible work of my friends at Color of Change, Angelo Carusone of @stopbeck (now at Media Matters) and all of their supporters. They convinced advertisers to not associate their brand with Beck’s race baiting and craziness.

This decoupling of consumer goods advertisers from conservative media is a really big deal. It’s something that I and a legion of people have been working on for over a decade. The success of my friends in the #stoprush group alone is absolutely phenomenal.

We’ve found that in general advertisers don’t like to support racist, sexist bigots. There are some exceptions, especially those whose audience sees being called a sexist bigot a compliment.

The reason I developed the Spocko Method to defund right-wing media was because while I knew there are plenty of people who will happily consume racist, sexist claptrap, I also knew that the women and men running consumer businesses do not want to be publicly associated with it. Using these people’s desire to protect their brand has led to a massive loss of revenue to right-wing media distributors.

Right-wing radio and TV hosts like Limbaugh and Beck have gone from cash generating assets, to consumer brand damaging liabilities.

If Trump decides to start a media company he will be competing with Fox News and other networks for advertisers, many of whom pressured those media companies to not associate their brand with Trump.

• Are the thousands of advertisers who left Limbaugh because of his sexist comments about women going to want to be associated with Trump News?
• Will the hundreds of advertisers who said, “Take us off race-baiter Beck’s show!” flock to the network of Donald “Mexicans are rapists and women are pigs” Trump? 

This does not mean that a “Trump News” wouldn’t have tremendous traffic like Glenn Beck did. In the beginning Trump will be able to generate huge traffic, but not necessarily ad revenue. And traffic alone might be enough for Trump, especially if it is the only metric that he reveals. But the idea pushed by conservatives to the mainstream media and the liberal media is that if you don’t generate revenue it’s not really a success. Of course the same metric doesn’t exist for right-wing media.

The possibility of a popular, but money losing, Trump network should concern us and remind us of another media model that is glossed over. It currently exists and it shapes “conventional wisdom.” It’s the “purposely lose millions in your news divisions to push an agenda” model. As an example, did you know that the New York Post LOSES around $110 MILLION dollars a year, every year?

This is the Murdoch model. He uses his money-losing properties, often newspapers, to punish his enemies and threaten the people who disagree with him and his views. He uses all his properties to push the “no-taxes on the rich, no trust busting, no regulation” views.

And he’s not the only rich right winger who throws bad money after bad to push extreme conservative views in the media, often times by being the media. Were you aware that the Washington Times lost a billion dollars over 33 years? I’m sure you know about how Pete Peterson is spending one billion dollars

“..to underwrite numerous organizations and PR campaigns to generate public support for slashing Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, citing concerns over “unsustainable” federal budget deficits.
 –SourceWatch, the Center for Media and Democracy

But here’s the thing, Trump doesn’t need a profit making media empire to push his ideas, just a Twitter account and a phone. Why would he spend money on programming or infrastructure when the media will include his Tweets for free?

I think that Trump will continue to use the media to promote himself after he loses. It will be very hard for the media to wean themselves of the tiny-fingered walking orange hairball they have enjoyed pimping 24/7 for over a year. What will stop them from continuing to run his tweets alongside every single story about every single Clinton action during her term?

I’m actually kind of hoping that Cheeto head does try to start a media empire, because it would cut into his visibility on the rest of the “news” shows.

One of the reasons that media will keep running with Trump’s comments on Hillary after the election is because it keeps the conflict going. Expect continued, “He said she said, the truth lies somewhere in the middle, we have to leave it there.” from the media.

Sometimes watching the media use their constitutionally granted power to enrich their investors, rather than inform people, leads me to despair. We talk a lot about the need to get money out of politics. We know it’s bad because of how it corrupts our elected officials. But it also twists the people who get that money.

The media aren’t going to voluntarily walk away from an Orange Goose who lays golden eggs. We need to change things so that the media doesn’t have to depend on covering the tweets of an Orange Goose to feed their families.

On Debate Night Your Tweet Matters

by Spocko

When the debates are on, my comedian friends and I are trying to come up with funny tweets. We’ll comment on the zingers and if they landed or not. We retweet the ones we think are the funniest. Getting a like for a funny tweet is nice, but getting a retweet really hits the ol’ dopamine centers. ( Frank Conniff is my favorite. The HRC camp should classify him as a national treasure and put him in charge of strategic zingers.)

While I’m trying to craft 140 character zingers, my political friends are trying to fill out their debate bingo drinking cards.

“When Hillary’s opponent says, ‘I’m going to build a wall!’ take a drink. If he says, ‘Mexico will pay for it,’ take a shot of tequila.’ If the moderator, asks ‘How will that work?’ or cites comments from the Mexican President about paying for the wall, eat the worm. (Don’t worry, you won’t have to eat a worm!)”

When I watched the first GOP debate I knew I was no longer watching a political debate but the TV show Who Wants to be President? which morphed into Last Comic Standing. It was all about the zingers, insults and nicknames. I expect a lot of the same in tonight’s debate.

I’ll admit it, it’s great fun to make fun of the debates, but, as we used to say in the shop, “It’s all fun and games until someone launches a nuke.”

Like most sentient beings, I don’t want to help the short-fingered vulgarian get into power. You might not either. Beyond screaming at the TV during one of his lies, what can you do now? it turns out that you should also Tweet smart, because the media is dumb.

Tweeting Smart example for sane people: Because some analysis only counts keyword use, Tweet Hillary Clinton‘s full name vs. The Talking Yam’s. “Hillary won. #imwithher You heard me, Hillary Clinton won the #debatetonight and we are #strongertogether

The mainstream media covering the Presidential election has an over reliance on social media to replace their “man on the street” pieces. Every word we say, or don’t say, is counted, sorted and analyzed by the media then presented as “the public’s reaction.” So, if you don’t use the right keywords you might get missed by the dumb tools in the media. As far as the media is concerned, my funny-pithy tweet doesn’t count because their tool didn’t see I was commenting about the debate.

Credit, Shout: Wired TwitterBots Eagle

But you know whose tweets will get picked up? The millions of TwitterBots controlled by a handful of people. They know how the keywords, counting and sorting tools of the media work. This means that when the media talks about “the public’s reaction” It’s not totally the public’s reaction. This is a problem. How big is it?

One estimate from Twitter Audit is that 1 out of every 4 followers of Big Orange Hair are fake. And yes, both sides do it, Hillary Clinton has the same percentage of fake twitter followers as her opponent. You can be outraged or see it as “Bot Parity” for those accounts.

However, simply looking at fake followers of one candidate isn’t enough. Think about all the dark money spent on the election. Millions of fake followers from the 11 GOP presidential candidates can be endorsing Mr. “Issued Two Death Threats To Hillary In a Month” with a few keystrokes.

Samuel Woolley and Phil Howard wrote a very enlightening piece for Wired this May, Bots Unite to Automate the Presidential Election

Social media bots exist and they are being used. Fake Twitter accounts are a great way for corporations and rich people to push a trend. They can even order up positive tweets about the Mr. “My Ex-Wife Testified I Raped Her” from millions of hispanics, women and black tweeters. Plus, the tweets can’t be traced back to them.

How much do these fake tweets influence people? Does the media understand them and factor them out before talking about “public perceptions?” (Have you ever heard anyone in the news media even mentioning them when they read off Twitter stats?)

I would say, ‘Buyer Beware.” but we are the ones being sold. In the world of social media there is no regulation, no Federal Election Commission pushing for transparency.

Social media manipulation tools exist, they are being used all the time and we know nothing about them. If the mainstream media doesn’t understand how they are being played, we the people need to understand this, so we can act appropriately.

Let the #debatenight tweets begin. And may the best real Tweets from actual individuals win.

Monday’s Debate Is Not An Episode Of ‘America’s Got Presidential Talent


by Spocko

My friend Joel Silberman was on MSNBC talking about what to expect at the debates. He talked about how important it is for the media to not lower the bar for Trump.

This isn’t Dancing With the Stars, or The Voice or America’s Got Presidential Talent. We’re talking about the leader of the free world so let’s ask some real questions and hold them accountable.

Monday’s debate should be a place where both candidates get asked serious questions and are expected to give serious answers. The performance should be judged by how well each answers those questions. But that is so BORING! The mainstream media knows that, so they do everything they can to make the debates more dramatic and exciting. “Live questions from social media! Live audiences to cheer and boo! Gotcha questions!”

Trump won his debates partly because he’s been running for Entertainer in Chief and has delivered. (The last funny Republican was Bob Dole, so the media knows Trump is a rare bird.)

The media played along with Trump as Entertainer in Chief because it’s more fun. Serious policy answers are boring and don’t get ratings.

Trump knows he isn’t going to win a debate based on having good policy answers, he’ll win because he has the best zingers and “In your face, liberals!” one-liner positions on everything. People remember, “Well, there you go again.” from Reagan, which makes sense because as an actor he knew how to deliver a well-timed line. This is Debate Theater not a debate.

My question for Monday is, “Will Trump pay any price for not having deeper answers to serious questions?”

Some people in his camp might think he needs to show knowledge about the issues, they will be ignored. That stuff is for liberal nerds and policy wonks who read blogs and know the names of Supreme Court Justices. His voters just want to hear zingers and see swagger.

Roger Ailes, the un-incarcerated serial sexual harasser, is advising Trump. He’s not going to tell him to bone up on Aleppo. He’ll advise him on how to say the things his Fox audience loves. He’ll remind him, “You don’t need to satisfy Holt and the liberal media, they are already in the tank for Hillary. You need to satisfy your base. Show them you are the alpha and are in control.”

I see where Trump has already suggested inviting Gennifer Flowers to the debate, So now I expect Holt to bring up the Lewinsky affair.  Holt might use the “some people say…” formula because “it’s out there” and will define it as a “character” issue.  If he doesn’t, Trump might bring it up via the Clinton Foundation then wondering, “What role will Bill play if elected? Then ending with a, “Well, if you can’t control your husband… how are you going to be able to control anything?” comment.

This is classic right wing projection attack model. Trump’s the one with problems with his foundation and with relinquishing control of his business, but she will be the one having to defend her’s.

In general the idea is to position Hillary as the Cuckolded President. If questioned about what he means with his “If you can’t control your husband” comment he will say, “I was talking about control of the Clinton FOUNDATION, not about what your husband did while in the White House!”

If Trump brings up the Lewinsky affair, and I think he will, he will do it by defending and forgiving her. He will acknowledge he’s no saint, people have a right to privacy, etc. BUT, his point will be made. This interaction will be seen as a “character” debate about her. Not about the thrice married man who cheated on his wife.  

It will be a big “OMG, HE WENT THERE!”moment. How she responds will be all the media will want to talk about, as well as the audacity of Trump bringing it up.

(I’ve watched a bunch of clips of Trump on The Apprentice. He knew how to control the moment. Now some of that is editing, but his confidence in the setting is what comes across. Even if his reasoning, when you look at it later, is clearly capricious and loopy, he still “wins the interaction” especially if there is no one there to follow up and question him. )

Karl Rove and Karen Hughes believed, and showed time after time with Bush, that “It’s better to look and sound strong than to actually BE strong.” When they didn’t want to talk about a plan, they classified it. When it didn’t work, they changed what the goals were. Details are for underlings. It’s about the look and the attitude. You want policies and positions? Sure, if they can fit on a tweet. That, Trump can do.

Which Media will show up?

When Tamron Hall asked what to expect from Trump, Joel responded. “That’s the wild card, isn’t it? Which Donald shows up?” That will depend on which Media shows up. Will it be the media that don’t feel it’s their job to point out lies and errors, as Chris Wallace of Fox News said? Or will it be the media that understands the winners’ policies will mean life or death to millions? And when the Media gets their answers will they accept them without follow up or demand more?

In the distant past, the metric for success by the journalist moderator were good questions that let people see the knowledge, competence and character of the candidates so voters can decide. I think the last time we saw that was when the League of Women Voters were in charge. If we have a moderator who sees the job like that, then Hillary will nail the debate with knowledge and competence.

If that is how Holt approaches the debate, Trump will try to move to be light and funny. He’ll kick the policy details down the road. If Holt then doesn’t ask for more detail or accepts vagaries, Trump wins because Holt has let Trump set the rules.

Hillary understands Debate Theater, she knows how to play the zinger game. Zingers actually can be very powerful. I hope someone is writing some new ones for her. She’s come up with a few good ones in the past. “A man who can be baited by a tweet” and “Delete your account.”

Here’s the deal, we need the media that shows up to hold each candidate to the same, “Millions of lives are in the balance” standard. Because that is the reality. If they don’t, and let him control the moment and the depth of the debate, Trump will have a real shot at winning the debate, and perhaps the election–and that’s not entertaining at all.

Cross posted to Crooks and Liars and Spocko’s Brain

ICYMI Stuntman Flies over Snake River Canyon on Evel Knievel’s Skycycle


by Spocko

Because a certain short-fingered vulgarian sucked up all the media’s time and attention, you might have missed this really exciting and suspenseful story yesterday.

Stuntman Eddie Braun successfully launches rocket over Snake River Canyon AP ©2016, by Times-News and MagicValley.com

Stuntman Eddie Braun successfully flew over Snake River Canyon on an exact duplicate of Evel Knievel’s X2 Skycycle. Link to KBOI video

Braun has said the rocket was identical to the model Knievel used for his failed canyon attempt on Sept. 8, 1974.

Months of testing was performed on the rocket designed by Scott Truax, whose father constructed the original “X2 Skycycle” for Knievel.

Truax followed his father’s blueprints down to the last bolt and deviated only by updating the parachute system.

Popular Mechanics

THIS is the event the news networks should have gone to yesterday instead of a hotel launch promo.

THIS was a real suspenseful story, it has never been done successfully. The last attempt was 42 years ago. Braun could have literally crashed and burned, not just metaphorically.

THIS would have justified multiple film crews and live reporters at the location.

Instead they got conned. A few fought back though, Robert Mackey of the Intercept tells that story. My favorite part is this.

After Trump left the room, the ABC News producer Candace Smith, who was designated to follow him on his tour of the new hotel on behalf of her colleagues in the press pool, reported that she was physically restrained from accompanying her camera operator.

That led to a decision to delete footage of Trump giving his hotel an inspection tour.

A source says Trump broadcast pool just erased tape of his tour of the hotel in protest of bait-and-switch w no editorial access.

— Maggie Haberman (@maggieNYT) September 16, 2016

That’ll show him! Too bad the show of solidarity among the MSM didn’t happen earlier. That video deleting protest won’t be seen or known about by most of the public. I won’t say the act is futile, but if the broadcast journalists who got conned REALLY wanted to make a statement, they’ll do their job, get in there and ask real questions, with follow-ups and do real-time fact checking.

Meanwhile, breaking news about the media in Texas.

VICE News reporter arrested outside a Donald Trump campaign event | VICE News https://t.co/AaXY7XMK2z

— Katy Tur (@KatyTurNBC) September 17, 2016

What’s that old line by the guy on the 100 bill? “If we don’t hang together…

The media admit they chase ratings. They know people like races and they cover stunts all the time. At least after going to this real stunt and filming it they wouldn’t feel so dirty and used afterwards.

Daily Show Exposes Pro-Gun Activist To C**ks Not Glocks Protest 

by Spocko

The Daily Show did a segment about the University of Texas students protesting the new law allowing students to carry concealed handguns on campus.

Correspondent Roy Wood Jr. talks to Jessica Jin, the creator of the protest. The goal was to strap dildos to their backpacks as a protest, but it turns out that it is illegal to openly brandish a dildo in Texas.

The students went ahead with the protest and the clip shows a number of creative uses of the dildos in the protest, including a nice juggling bit.

Animated juggling version

Jin says they are “fighting absurdity with absurdity.” Then she talks about how the gun nuts handled the absurdity of the protest–by issuing death threats to her. Wood describes the seriousness of the threats and shows some of the footage from the film that a pro-gun person released of someone murdering a dildo protester.

I wrote about that violent film here Gun Nuts Can’t Handle Cocks Not Glocks Protest and put together a clip with the graphic scenes the Daily Show included.

The clip opens with Woods talking to open carry gun nut C. J. Grisham. Grisham talks about the immaturity of college students, who used dildos to protest the state law that allows guns on campus, then describes the maturity of college students, who can now carry guns on campus. The piece ends with Woods giving Grisham a dildo while he talks about how uncomfortable it makes him. (Animated brandishing version)

I’m really glad that this story aired because it’s a way to keep the issue in the public eye without a mass shooting. In an article in the Dallas Morning News, one of the other protestors, Ann Lopez talks about the point of the protest. “The end game is to get this law repealed,” Lopez said. 

Ultimately, Lopez hopes people take Jin’s movement seriously. Jin hopes the silliness of her protests lends credence to the ongoing legislative and legal fight against campus carry. But that’s an uphill battle at the state Republican-dominated Legislature, which is likely to push to allow guns in more places next year.

That made me wonder. “What would it take to repeal campus carry in Texas?” I’ve reached out to a few people in the community to see if they have any ideas or how the efforts to repeal the laws are going.

Meanwhile, I’m enjoying the protest. It makes me want to dig into my closet and find my juggling balls.

Remember The Last Time The MSM Didn’t Do Their Job?

By Spocko

I’ve noticed some serious anger at the mainstream media coming from multiple sources lately. It reminds me of 2003, during the build up to the Iraq war. I, like many people, were thinking, “The mainstream media is going to do their job, right? They will ask the tough questions, sort out the BS from the truth, hold power accountable, you know, the stuff from the movies.” But they didn’t.

Some of us started blogging during that time as an alternative to screaming at the TV.  The MSM didn’t want me helping them be better, so I chose to defund the right-wing media, who were making the world worse. (They still are, but are getting a lot less money for it.)

After the disaster of the Matt Lauer interviews, I got the same sick feeling about the MSM as I had in 2003. “Wait, what? Are you KIDDING ME?” I suppose in the spring and summer people could forgive the MSM for going with the most entertaining candidate. I mean, would you want to cover the unctuous Ted Cruz for 9 months? I couldn’t take enough showers every day.

But this isn’t Dancing with the Stars, the winner of this contest gets the power of life and death over millions.

I think the mainstream media are still assuming that “cooler heads will prevail” and/or Trump will self immolate so they won’t have to call him on his BS. They also expect the Hillary people to do the heavy lifting for them, so they can continue to look “objective.”  Maybe that will work, but as the old saying goes,”It’s all fun and games until a maniac gets the nuclear codes.”

Cliff Schecter and Sam Seder talked about this last Friday on the Majority Report. Cliff was angry at the mainstream media in general and furious at NBC for the Matt Lauer debacle specifically. You can hear the frustration in Cliff’s voice when he says he doesn’t know how to solve this problem.

In this clip Sam points out some of the pressures on the media that most people didn’t know about that led mainstream journalists to their defensive crouch in the first place. They also discuss what has changed with the rise of blogs and social media.

An increase of voices from the left has helped, but the bad news is that journalists are still being punished, not rewarded, for doing the job we expect them to do.  Especially when it comes to coverage of right wing politicians. But this isn’t anything new.

Eric Boehlert wrote a book, Lapdogs, How the Press Rolled Over for Bush, about how the Bush/Cheney White House treated the press like dirt and how well it worked for them.

I remember the story of how Dick Cheney kicked an ABC reporter off the Vice President’s plane. Her bosses and others in the media didn’t stand up for her. Sounds just like how Trump treats the media who challenged him. And the Breitbart editor who didn’t stand up for his own reporter? He’s Trump’s campaign CEO now.

Why so serious Spocko? Trump is funny! 

If you want some humor with your media criticism and miss Jon Stewart’s smart, funny take on the Matt Lauer interview, listen to Jimmy Dore’s political comedy podcast. “Matt Lauer failed at journalism during the town hall with Trump & Clinton, we break it down.”

I’m happy that there are so many people who are pounding on the mainstream media to be better. They aren’t going to get better on their own. The need to be pushed to do their job, especially when they are punished for it.

Joel Silberman wrote a piece, The Media Should Be Put on Trial for Its 2016 Election Coverage that has some good suggestions on what to do.

So, what can we do? Demand better media. Write to the station managers of corporate TV stations/cable operators and tell them you are not satisfied. Tweet about it. Call out CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS, ABC, FOX in all forms of social media. It’s time to demand that media live up to the vision of the founders of our democracy.

If that seems too old school, how about using technology better and faster to do the job the MSM journalists won’t. Jordan Hoffner, Salon Media’s CEO, had an interesting proposal, fact-check the candidates’ statements in real time. What a great idea! We can act as if Google exists and people have memories! Woo hoo!

In the past if networks didn’t treat Trump special, he would cut them off. But imagine the ratings bonanza for the first real journalist to demand the truth and hold his feet to the fire. What if instead of arresting Amy Goodman for doing journalism, she is rewarded for it? Imagine her Trump/Clinton interviews and debates.  I’d also love to see Sam Seder call Trump out during an interview.

But frankly, having to beat up the main stream media again to try to get them to do their job makes me weary. If you feel the same way there is another option. Support blogs like this and other progressive voices.

We are asking the tough questions and pointing out the BS, shouldn’t that be rewarded?