Project: Democracy
Subterms
More stories
- in Elections
La desinformación es más difícil de combatir en EE. UU.
La proliferación de redes sociales alternativas ha ayudado a afianzar la información falsa y engañosa como elemento clave de la política estadounidense.La mañana del 8 de julio, el expresidente Donald Trump recurrió a Truth Social, la plataforma de redes sociales que fundó con gente cercana a él, para afirmar que había ganado las elecciones presidenciales del 2020 en el estado de Wisconsin, a pesar de todas las pruebas que evidenciaban lo contrario.Alrededor de 8000 personas compartieron esa misiva en Truth Social, cifra que distó mucho de los cientos de miles de respuestas que sus publicaciones en Facebook y Twitter solían generar antes de que esas plataformas le apagaran el micrófono tras los mortíferos disturbios en el Capitolio el 6 de enero de 2021.A pesar de ello, la afirmación infundada de Trump pululó en la conciencia pública. Saltó de su aplicación a otras plataformas de redes sociales, por no hablar de pódcast, la radio y la televisión.Al cabo de 48 horas de publicado su mensaje, más de un millón de personas lo habían visto en al menos una decena de otros lugares. Apareció en Facebook y Twitter, de donde fue eliminado, pero también en YouTube, Gab, Parler y Telegram, según un análisis de The New York Times.La difusión de la afirmación de Trump ilustra cómo la desinformación ha hecho metástasis desde que los expertos comenzaron a sonar la alarma sobre la amenaza que supone y todo esto ocurre justo antes de las elecciones de mitad de mandato de este año. A pesar de los años de esfuerzos de los medios de comunicación, de los académicos e incluso de las propias empresas de redes sociales para hacer frente al problema, se puede decir que hoy en día está más generalizado y extendido.“Para ser honesta, me parece que el problema está peor que nunca”, comentó Nina Jankowicz, experta en desinformación que condujo durante un periodo breve un consejo consultivo dentro del Departamento de Seguridad Nacional dedicado a combatir la desinformación. La creación del panel desató furor y provocó su renuncia y la disolución del consejo consultivo.No hace mucho, la lucha contra la desinformación se centraba en las principales plataformas de redes sociales, como Facebook y Twitter. Cuando se les presionaba, solían eliminar los contenidos problemáticos, incluida la información errónea y la desinformación intencionada sobre la pandemia de COVID-19.Sin embargo, ahora hay decenas de plataformas nuevas, incluidas algunas que se enorgullecen de no moderar —censurar, como lo denominan— las declaraciones falsas en nombre de la libertad de expresión.Otras personalidades siguieron los pasos de Trump y se cambiaron a estas nuevas plataformas tras ser “censuradas” por Facebook, YouTube o Twitter. Entre ellos, Michael Flynn, el general retirado que sirvió brevemente como principal asesor de Seguridad Nacional de Trump; L. Lin Wood, una abogada pro-Trump; Naomi Wolf, una autora feminista y escéptica de las vacunas, así como diversos seguidores de QAnon y los Oath Keepers, un grupo de militantes de extrema derecha.Al menos 69 millones de personas se han unido a plataformas como Parler, Gab, Truth Social, Gettr y Rumble, que se promueven como alternativas conservadoras a las grandes empresas tecnológicas, según declaraciones de las empresas mismas. Aunque muchos de esos usuarios ya no tienen cabida en las plataformas más grandes, siguen difundiendo sus opiniones, que a menudo aparecen en capturas de pantalla publicadas en los sitios que les prohibieron la entrada.“Nada en internet existe de manera aislada”, afirmó Jared Holt, gestor principal en la investigación sobre odio y extremismo del Instituto para el Diálogo Estratégico. “Lo que ocurre en plataformas alternas como Gab o Telegram o Truth tarde o temprano llega a Facebook, Twitter y otras”, agregó.Los usuarios han migrado a aplicaciones como Truth Social luego de haber sido “censuradas” por Facebook, YouTube o Twitter.Leon Neal/Getty ImagesEl discurso político se ha radicalizado por la difusión de las personas que propagan desinformación, indicó Nora Benavidez, abogada sénior en Free Press, un grupo de defensa de los derechos digitales y la transparencia.“Nuestro lenguaje y nuestros ecosistemas en línea se están volviendo cada vez más corrosivos”, dijo.Los cambios en el paisaje de la desinformación se están haciendo más evidentes con el ciclo electoral en Estados Unidos. En 2016, la campaña encubierta de Rusia para difundir mensajes falsos y divisorios parecía una aberración en el sistema político estadounidense. Hoy la desinformación, procedente de enemigos extranjeros y nacionales, se ha convertido en una característica del mismo.La idea infundada de que el presidente Joe Biden no fue electo de manera legítima se generalizó entre los miembros del Partido Republicano, e hizo que funcionarios de los estados y los condados impusieran nuevas restricciones para votar, a menudo solo con base en teorías de la conspiración que se cuelan en los medios de comunicación de derecha.Los votantes no solo deben filtrar un torrente cada vez mayor de mentiras y falsedades sobre los candidatos y sus políticas, sino también información sobre cuándo y dónde votar. Los funcionarios nombrados o elegidos en nombre de la lucha contra el fraude electoral han adoptado una postura que implica que se negarán a certificar los resultados que no sean de su agrado.Los proveedores de desinformación también se han vuelto cada vez más sofisticados a la hora de eludir las normas de las principales plataformas, mientras que el uso del video para difundir afirmaciones falsas en YouTube, TikTok e Instagram ha hecho que los sistemas automatizados tengan más dificultades para identificarlos que los mensajes de texto.TikTok, propiedad del gigante chino de la tecnología ByteDance, se ha vuelto uno de los principales campos de batalla en la lucha actual contra la desinformación. Un informe del mes pasado de NewsGuard, una organización que da seguimiento al problema en línea, mostró que casi el 20 por ciento de los videos que aparecían como resultados de búsqueda en TikTok contenían información falsa o tendenciosa sobre temas como los tiroteos en las escuelas y la guerra de Rusia en Ucrania.Katie Harbath en el “sala de operaciones” de Facebook, donde se monitoreaba el contenido relacionado con las elecciones en la plataforma, en 2018Jeff Chiu/Associated Press“La gente que hace esto sabe cómo aprovechar los vacíos”, explicó Katie Harbath, exdirectora de políticas públicas de Facebook que ahora dirige Anchor Change, una consultora estratégica.A pocas semanas de las elecciones de mitad de mandato, las principales plataformas se han comprometido a bloquear, etiquetar o marginar todo lo que infrinja las políticas de la empresa, incluida la desinformación, la incitación al odio o los llamados a la violencia.Sin embargo, la industria artesanal de expertos dedicados a contrarrestar la desinformación —los grupos de expertos, las universidades y las organizaciones no gubernamentales— mencionan que la industria no está haciendo suficiente. El mes pasado, por ejemplo, el Centro Stern para los Negocios y los Derechos Humanos de la Universidad de Nueva York advirtió que las principales plataformas seguían amplificando el “negacionismo electoral” de maneras que debilitaban la confianza en el sistema democrático.Otro desafío es la proliferación de plataformas alternativas para esas falsedades y opiniones aún más extremas.Muchas de esas nuevas plataformas florecieron tras la derrota de Trump en 2020, aunque todavía no han alcanzado el tamaño o el alcance de Facebook y Twitter. Estas plataformas afirman que las grandes empresas tecnológicas están en deuda con el gobierno, el Estado profundo o la élite liberal.Parler, una red social fundada en 2018, era uno de los sitios que más crecía, hasta que las tiendas de aplicaciones de Apple y Google lo expulsaron tras los disturbios mortales del 6 de enero, alimentados por la desinformación y los llamados a la violencia en línea. Desde entonces ha vuelto a ambas tiendas y ha empezado a reconstruir su audiencia apelando a quienes sienten que sus voces han sido silenciadas.“En Parler creemos que el individuo es quien debe decidir lo que cree que es la verdad”, dijo en una entrevista, Amy Peikoff, la directora de políticas de la plataforma.Argumentó que el problema con la desinformación o las teorías de la conspiración se derivaba de los algoritmos que las plataformas usan para mantener a la gente pegada a internet y no del debate sin moderar que fomentan sitios como Parler.El lunes, Parler anunció que Kanye West había, en principio, accedido a comprar la plataforma en un acuerdo que el rapero y el diseñador de moda, ahora conocido como Ye, formuló en términos políticos.“En un mundo en que las opiniones conservadoras se consideran controversiales, debemos de asegurarnos de tener el derecho a expresarnos libremente”, dijo, según el comunicado de la compañía.Los competidores de Parler son ahora BitChute, Gab, Gettr, Rumble, Telegram y Truth Social, y cada uno de ellos se presenta como un santuario frente a las políticas de moderación de las principales plataformas en todo tipo de temas, desde la política hasta la salud.Una nueva encuesta del Centro de Investigaciones Pew descubrió que el 15 por ciento de las cuentas destacadas en esas siete plataformas habían sido desterradas previamente de otras como Twitter y Facebook.Las aplicaciones como Gettr se publicitan como alternativas a los gigantes tecnológicosElijah Nouvelage/Getty ImagesSegún la encuesta, casi dos terceras partes de los usuarios de esas plataformas dijeron que habían encontrado una comunidad de personas que compartían sus opiniones. La mayoría son republicanos o se inclinan por ese partido.Una consecuencia de esta atomización de las fuentes de las redes sociales es que se refuerzan las burbujas de información partidista en las que viven millones de estadounidenses.Según el Centro Pew, al menos el seis por ciento de los estadounidenses se informa de manera habitual en al menos uno de estos sitios relativamente nuevos, que a menudo “ponen de relieve puntos de vista del mundo que no pertenecen a la corriente dominante y, a veces, utilizan un lenguaje ofensivo”. La encuesta encontró que una de cada 10 publicaciones en estas plataformas que mencionaban cuestiones relacionadas con la comunidad LGBTQ incluían alegatos peyorativos.Estos nuevos sitios siguen siendo marginales comparados con las plataformas más grandes; por ejemplo, Trump tiene 4 millones de seguidores en Truth Social, en comparación con los 88 millones que tenía cuando Twitter cerró su cuenta en 2021.Aun así, Trump ha retomado cada vez más sus publicaciones con el ímpetu que antes mostraba en Twitter. El allanamiento del FBI en Mar-a-Lago volvió a poner sus últimos pronunciamientos en el ojo del huracán político.Para las principales plataformas, el incentivo financiero para atraer usuarios, y sus clics, sigue siendo poderoso y podría hacer que den marcha atrás a las medidas que tomaron en 2021. También hay un componente ideológico. El llamado a la libertad individual, con tintes emocionales, impulsó en parte la oferta de Elon Musk para comprar Twitter, que parece haberse reactivado tras meses de maniobras legales.Nick Clegg, el presidente de asuntos globales de Meta, la empresa matriz de Facebook, incluso sugirió hace poco que la plataforma podría restablecer la cuenta de Trump en 2023, antes de la que podría ser otra carrera presidencial. Facebook había dicho previamente que solo lo haría “si el riesgo para la seguridad pública ha disminuido”.Nick Clegga, el presidente de asuntos globales de MetaPatrick T. Fallon/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesUn estudio de Truth Social realizado por Media Matters for America, un grupo de monitoreo de medios con tendencia de izquierda, examinó la forma en que la plataforma se ha convertido en hogar de algunas de las teorías de conspiración más marginales. Trump, que empezó a publicar en la plataforma en el mes de abril, ha amplificado cada vez más el contenido de QAnon, la teoría de conspiración en línea.Ha compartido publicaciones de QAnon más de 130 veces. Los seguidores de QAnon promueven una falsedad amplia y compleja centrada en Trump como líder que se enfrenta a una conspiración de una camarilla de pedófilos del Partido Demócrata. Dichas opiniones han hallado cabida durante las primarias de este año en las campañas electorales de los republicanos.Jankowicz, la experta en desinformación, mencionó que las divisiones sociales y políticas habían agitado las olas de la desinformación.Las controversias sobre la mejor manera de responder a la pandemia de COVID-19 profundizaron la desconfianza en el gobierno y los expertos médicos, sobre todo entre los conservadores. La negativa de Trump a aceptar el resultado de las elecciones de 2020 condujo a la violencia en el Capitolio, pero no terminó con ella.“Deberían habernos unido”, dijo Jankowicz, refiriéndose a la pandemia y a los disturbios. “Pensé que quizás podrían servir como una especie de poder de convocatoria, pero no lo fueron”Steven Lee Myers cubre desinformación para el Times. Ha trabajado en Washington, Moscú, Bagdad y Pekín, donde contribuyó a los artículos que ganaron el Premio Pulitzer al servicio público en 2021. También es el autor de The New Tsar: The Rise and Reign of Vladimir Putin. @stevenleemyers • FacebookSheera Frenkel es una reportera de tecnología premiada que tiene su sede en San Francisco. En 2021, ella y Cecilia Kang publicaron Manipulados. La batalla de Facebook por la dominación mundial. @sheeraf More
- in Elections
The Ins and Outs of America’s Shrug at the Threat to Democracy
With voters distracted by other issues and election denial flourishing, the country has what academics call a legitimacy problem.One way to read the striking results of the New York Times/Siena College poll released this week is that democracy is not shaping up to be the driver of votes that many on the left hoped it would be.The obvious reason is that inflation is a far more immediate issue on the minds of most voters, who are watching their savings evaporate or struggling to pay their bills. That’s Abraham Maslow 101: Physiological needs of food and shelter will always take priority over abstractions.But another way to interpret the survey is as yet more confirmation that American democracy is indeed in trouble.In a Twitter Spaces conversation today with Ruth Igielnik, a staff editor for news surveys who worked on this week’s poll, and Nick Corasaniti, a national correspondent on the politics team, we unpacked why, even though 71 percent of voters agreed that democracy was at risk, only 7 percent said that democracy’s fragile state was the most important problem facing the country. You can listen to our discussion here.Ruth noted that voters’ responses to the question “What one or two words do you think summarize the current threat to democracy?” were all over the map.Some said “election deniers” or “Donald Trump,” while others said “Joe Biden,” “inflation and taxes” or “the one percent, a.k.a. Wall Street and hedge funds.” Another person said “our division” — that is, political polarization itself.Nick, who recently returned from a reporting trip in Michigan, added some texture from tagging along during voter canvassing in Detroit and its suburbs, as well as in Saginaw, a city of about 50,000 people in the center of the state. Biden carried Saginaw County by just a few hundred votes in 2020.“We encountered a ton of voters, and not a single one of them brought up any issues of democracy,” Nick said.He added that the organizers, as they prepared the canvassers for what they should expect to encounter, told them: “You’re going to hear about issues like, why are our wages so low when we’re a predominantly union town? Why are prescription drug prices so persistently high? Why are there potholes in the road? Why can’t I get a garbage can?”Lonna Atkeson, who studies political psychology at Florida State University, said voters were just thinking rationally. When it comes to protecting democracy, she noted, each side sees the other as the problem.The State of the 2022 Midterm ElectionsBoth parties are making their final pitches ahead of the Nov. 8 election.Where the Election Stands: As Republicans appear to be gaining an edge with swing voters in the final weeks of the contest for control of Congress, here’s a look at the state of the races for the House and Senate.Biden’s Low Profile: President Biden’s decision not to attend big campaign rallies reflects a low approval rating that makes him unwelcome in some congressional districts and states.What Young Voters Think: Twelve Americans under 30, all living in swing states, told The Times about their political priorities, ranging from the highly personal to the universal.In Minnesota: The race for attorney general in the light-blue state offers a pure test of which issue is likely to be more politically decisive: abortion rights or crime.“So there’s not really much to go on there other than to vote for your own party,” Atkeson said, “whereas the economy is a clear signal. It’s on your doorstep. You feel it every day. Maybe there’s something that can be done about that.”A legitimacy problemMost serious experts on democracy — academics who study governments around the world, and why they fall apart — would say that election deniers are the real danger.And the new Times/Siena poll shows that millions of them are out there, despite zero evidence that the 2020 presidential election was stolen. As Nick wrote in an article explaining the poll results, “Twenty-eight percent of all voters, including 41 percent of Republicans, said they had little to no faith in the accuracy of this year’s midterm elections.”There’s an academic term for that: a legitimacy problem.Seymour Martin Lipset, a sociologist and political scientist who did seminal work on what makes democracies successful, published an influential paper in 1959 called “Some Social Requisites of Democracy: Economic Development and Political Legitimacy.”At the time, he was trying to understand two main questions: why Europe veered toward extremist ideologies like fascism and communism after World War I, and whether the nascent democracies forged by fire and blood in World War II were sustainable.Lipset defined democracy this way: “a political system which supplies regular constitutional opportunities for changing the governing officials.”The United States still meets that pretty basic requirement. Despite Trump’s bellowing about a stolen election, and his efforts to whip up the mob that assaulted the Capitol, Biden duly assumed office in 2021 after a near-disastrous handover of power. The system held, albeit tenuously.But Lipset’s framework should alarm us today because, as the Times poll suggests, nearly half the country still doesn’t consider Biden the legitimate president.Many of Donald Trump’s supporters deny the legitimacy of the last presidential election.Adriana Zehbrauskas for The New York TimesPretend the U.S. is a foreign country; how would we explain what is happening? Two years on, the fever that powered an attempt to interrupt the peaceful transfer of power has not broken, and it’s still being stoked every day by the loser of the previous election.As Lipset wrote, “If a political system is not characterized by a value system allowing the peaceful ‘play’ of power — the adherence by the ‘outs’ to decisions made by ‘ins’ and the recognition by ‘ins’ of the rights of the ‘outs’ — there can be no stable democracy.”Lipset also defined a stable democracy as the absence “of a major political movement opposed to the democratic ‘rules of the game’” — which required, he thought, that “no totalitarian movement, either Fascist or Communist, received 20 percent of the vote.”The one silver lining in the poll? Only 17 percent of the voters who saw democracy as threatened said there was a need to go “outside the law” to fix the problem. And of those voters, just 11 percent said the answer would be to “take up arms/violence/civil war.”Then again, maybe that’s no silver lining at all: By my math, that would still be over a million people. Buckle up.What to read on democracyA South Florida man became the first of 20 defendants ensnared in Gov. Ron DeSantis’s voter fraud dragnet to have charges dropped, ABC News reports.The midterm legal battles have already begun: The Democratic National Committee has filed a court motion to try to stop Republicans in Pennsylvania who want to disqualify mail-in ballots without handwritten dates on them.Tens of thousands of transgender people could be disenfranchised in the November elections because of strict voter ID laws and other rules in their states, according to Rolling Stone.Nonwhite voters were 30 percent more likely to have their vote-by-mail application or ballot rejected compared with white voters in Texas, according to the Brennan Center for Justice, which analyzed data from the March primary.Election offices large and small across the country are contending with internal threats that could undermine the integrity of the midterms: election deniers holding positions of power in them, CNN reports.The head of a major federal union warned this week that demonization of the Internal Revenue Service by some Republicans could put the agency’s employees in danger.Doug Mastriano, the Republican nominee for governor in Pennsylvania, is stepping up his courtship of right-wing fringe figures, including adherents of the QAnon conspiracy theory, The Philadelphia Inquirer reports.viewfinderSupporters of Stacey Abrams at a campaign event in Athens, Ga.Gabriela Bhaskar for The New York TimesOn the trail in GeorgiaA couple of hundred people had gathered to wait for a glimpse of Stacey Abrams by the time her purple bus pulled up in College Square in Athens, Ga. Abrams’s supporters have often spoken to me about how inspiring it is for them to see her running for office when for so long Black women have organized politically behind the scenes.I crept to the center of the crowd for a photo of Abrams as she spoke. At one point, I turned around and captured this image of a group of racially diverse and multigenerational women. To me, it represented a key group of her supporters and their feelings about her candidacy and the future.Thank you for reading On Politics, and for being a subscriber to The New York Times. — BlakeRead past editions of the newsletter here.If you’re enjoying what you’re reading, please consider recommending it to others. They can sign up here. Browse all of our subscriber-only newsletters here.Have feedback? Ideas for coverage? We’d love to hear from you. Email us at onpolitics@nytimes.com. More
- in Elections
Democratic Secretary of State Candidates Struggle Against Election Deniers
LAS VEGAS — Ted Pappageorge, the head of Culinary Union Local 226, whipped up the crowd of canvassers into a frenzy on a recent Monday morning, earning him “sí, se puede!” chants. But before he sent the canvassers out to knock on doors for Cisco Aguilar, the Democratic candidate of secretary of state, he had a question.“Does anybody know what the secretary of state does in the state of Nevada?” Mr. Pappageorge asked. A few murmured “voting” and a half dozen raised their hands. The buzzing quieted, before Mr. Pappageorge offered his take: The office oversees the election and “makes sure it doesn’t get stolen by any of these MAGA extreme Republicans.” The cheering returned.Such is the plight of many Democratic candidates for secretary of state, an office that has long lived in political obscurity and rarely inspired great passions among voters. But in 2022, after secretaries of state helped thwart Donald J. Trump’s attempt to overturn his defeat, races for the post have taken on new urgency. Facing off against Republican candidates who spread lies about the 2020 election, Democrats have poured tens of millions into the contests, casting them as battles for the future of American democracy.If only they could get voters to see it that way. Instead, voters remain focused on rising inflation, economic woes, education and other issues that are outside the purview of the official duties of a secretary of state. And while a vast majority of Americans view democracy as under threat, a striking few see it as a top issue, according to a recent New York Times/Siena College poll.Democrats are facing other challenges. Many of the candidates are relative unknowns, leaving their futures heavily dependent on what voters think of their party or the party’s high-profile candidates for Senate or governor.The Democrats’ positions — promoting early voting options, including mail voting and protecting poll workers — are not headline-making policies. But Republicans’ denials of the 2020 election, murky statements about upholding future results or pledges to restrict voting to a single day grab the attention of both supporters and detractors.Voting at the Doolittle Community Center in Las Vegas during the state primary in June. Secretaries of state oversee elections.Bridget Bennett for The New York TimesSix of these election-denying candidates for secretary of state are on the ballot in November; one, Diego Morales in Indiana, appears positioned to win in the deeply red state, and several are locked in tight battles. That includes states like Arizona, Michigan and Nevada, presidential battlegrounds where a single election official’s refusal to certify the result could set off a constitutional crisis.As he campaigns, Mr. Aguilar, a 45-year-old lawyer, former board member of the Nevada Athletic Commission and onetime aide to Senator Harry Reid, has sought to tie voters’ top-tier issues to elections.“If I lose this race, your potential to have a say in your kid’s future education is on the line,” Mr. Aguilar said in an interview. “Because the way we change it is electing people that believe in public education.”The State of the 2022 Midterm ElectionsBoth parties are making their final pitches ahead of the Nov. 8 election.Where the Election Stands: As Republicans appear to be gaining an edge with swing voters in the final weeks of the contest for control of Congress, here’s a look at the state of the races for the House and Senate.Biden’s Low Profile: President Biden’s decision not to attend big campaign rallies reflects a low approval rating that makes him unwelcome in some congressional districts and states.What Young Voters Think: Twelve Americans under 30, all living in swing states, told The Times about their political priorities, ranging from the highly personal to the universal.In Minnesota: The race for attorney general in the light-blue state offers a pure test of which issue is likely to be more politically decisive: abortion rights or crime.“That opportunity to vote goes away because my opponent wants to go back to a single day of voting,” he added. “Which in this town, in a 24/7 economy, somebody either works that shift or is working multiple jobs.”Mr. Aguilar’s opponent, Jim Marchant, is the organizer of the America First Secretary of State Coalition, a group of hard-right candidates who have called for eliminating mail voting, using only paper ballots, returning to a single day of voting and giving partisan poll watchers “unfettered access.” It’s a platform that has alarmed election experts and even left some Republicans worried that the group’s members could soon be in a position to overturn or tilt the scales of an election.Last week, Mr. Marchant seemed to indicate that was part of the plan.Jim Marchant, the Republican nominee for secretary of state, is the organizer of the America First Secretary of State Coalition, a group of candidates who say, falsely, that the 2020 election was stolen from Donald J. Trump.Bridget Bennett for The New York Times“I’ve been working since Nov. 4, 2020, to expose what happened. And what I found out is horrifying. And when I’m secretary of state of Nevada, we’re going to fix it,” Mr. Marchant said, referring to the 2020 election during a rally onstage with Mr. Trump. “And when my coalition of secretary of state candidates around the country get elected, we’re going to fix the whole country and President Trump is going to be president again in 2024.”It was secretaries of state — both Republican and Democratic — who played a central role in blocking Mr. Trump’s attempt to subvert the 2020 election. Seeing those losses, key allies of Mr. Trump soon began lining up to run for the office. Mr. Marchant has said that a close ally of Mr. Trump approached him in the aftermath of that election and suggested he run. (Voter fraud is rare, and there was no evidence that fraud determined the 2020 election.).css-1v2n82w{max-width:600px;width:calc(100% – 40px);margin-top:20px;margin-bottom:25px;height:auto;margin-left:auto;margin-right:auto;font-family:nyt-franklin;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1v2n82w{margin-left:20px;margin-right:20px;}}@media only screen and (min-width:1024px){.css-1v2n82w{width:600px;}}.css-161d8zr{width:40px;margin-bottom:18px;text-align:left;margin-left:0;color:var(–color-content-primary,#121212);border:1px solid var(–color-content-primary,#121212);}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-161d8zr{width:30px;margin-bottom:15px;}}.css-tjtq43{line-height:25px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-tjtq43{line-height:24px;}}.css-x1k33h{font-family:nyt-cheltenham;font-size:19px;font-weight:700;line-height:25px;}.css-1hvpcve{font-size:17px;font-weight:300;line-height:25px;}.css-1hvpcve em{font-style:italic;}.css-1hvpcve strong{font-weight:bold;}.css-1hvpcve a{font-weight:500;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}.css-1c013uz{margin-top:18px;margin-bottom:22px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1c013uz{font-size:14px;margin-top:15px;margin-bottom:20px;}}.css-1c013uz a{color:var(–color-signal-editorial,#326891);-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;font-weight:500;font-size:16px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1c013uz a{font-size:13px;}}.css-1c013uz a:hover{-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;}How Times reporters cover politics. We rely on our journalists to be independent observers. So while Times staff members may vote, they are not allowed to endorse or campaign for candidates or political causes. This includes participating in marches or rallies in support of a movement or giving money to, or raising money for, any political candidate or election cause.Learn more about our process.More than a dozen candidates joined the America First Coalition, with six advancing to secure Republican nominations, including Mark Finchem in Arizona, Kristina Karamo in Michigan and Doug Mastriano in Pennsylvania. (Mr. Mastriano is the candidate for governor in Pennsylvania, but the governor there appoints the secretary of state.)Though these officials’ authority varies by state, nearly all have significant oversight in the voting process — from registration to certification.In Nevada, the secretary of state could decide to invalidate all election machines, a plan Mr. Marchant has spoken favorably about, forcing a hand-counted vote that would be riddled with errors and would most likely take days to tabulate.The secretary also is required to be present for the canvassing of the votes by the justices of the state Supreme Court. And in Nevada, as in many states, the office is in charge of audits, as well as assisting in investigations into potential claims of voter fraud.Aside from these powers, secretaries of state have also served as an influential counter to false claims of fraud, misinformation and disinformation about American elections.“One of my biggest concerns with someone like Jim Marchant in that role is that they can use that platform to do exactly the opposite, and exacerbate or spread disinformation,” said Ben Berwick, a counsel at Protect Democracy, a nonpartisan organization focused on election issues.“The idea of putting these people in charge of our elections is nuts,” Mr. Berwick said. “Many of these candidates have said that they would not have certified the 2020 election, and there is good reason to believe they will use their power to try to manipulate the results if their preferred candidate doesn’t win in 2024.”Mr. Aguilar speaking at an Indigenous People’s Day event at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas.Bridget Bennett for The New York TimesMr. Marchant, his campaign manager, his press officer and the head of the state Republican Party did not respond to repeated requests for comment, made in person and in phone calls, text messages and emails.The Republican State Leadership Committee, which is the campaign arm of the Republican National Committee responsible for secretary of state races (as well as state legislatures and lieutenant governor races), is not spending money on Mr. Marchant’s bid or any of the other election-denying candidates. The committee said it was too badly outspent by Democrats.“We simply cannot match what Democrats are spending on these races and we need to prioritize protecting our incumbents,” said Andrew Romeo, a committee spokesman.Though the committee is contributing to multiple incumbent secretaries of state, the only incumbent receiving advertising support from it is Brad Raffensperger, the Republican secretary of state in Georgia who rebuffed requests by Mr. Trump to help him overturn the 2020 election there. Mr. Raffensperger has been critical of those who continue to make false claims about the 2020 election.Indeed, Republicans are not even close to competing with Democrats and allied groups, such as iVote and End Citizens United, on TV ads, currently being outspent by a 57-to-1 margin, according to AdImpact, an ad-tracking firm. Democrats have spent more than $40.6 million on broadcast television ads since July in six battleground states. Republicans have spent just $700,000, with more than $500,000 of that coming from Raffensperger’s campaign.Mr. Marchant has run a nearly invisible campaign. His website and social media accounts have not listed an event in the state in months; the only records of his events have been at local Republican fund-raisers. His campaign reported raising just $89,000 in the third quarter, compared with $1.1 million for Mr. Aguilar.He has not been given a speaking slot at an event with either Republican candidate running for Senate or governor since the primary elections in July; and they have been loath to mention his name while campaigning.Yet polls show Mr. Marchant with a lead on Mr. Aguilar, a reality some political experts in the state say reflects the race’s low visibility and broader political trends, which show Republicans with an edge in Nevada.Mr. Aguilar has been campaigning wherever he can, including an interview this month with a Latino radio station in Las Vegas.Bridget Bennett for The New York TimesMr. Aguilar, a first-time candidate, has been campaigning steadily, knocking doors and finding a space in events around the state wherever he can. This month, he attended an Indigenous people’s event at the base of the “Welcome to Las Vegas” sign, then shuttled over to a union hall before crossing the Las Vegas Strip for a small-business round table at the Four Seasons, where he dined with the president of the Nevada Chamber of Commerce.As he courts voters, Mr. Aguilar at times talks about his more memorable credentials. As a member of the Nevada Athletic Commission, he helped bring Manny Pacquiao and Floyd Mayweather Jr. to fight in Las Vegas in 2015. He’s close to the former tennis star Andre Agassi, a Las Vegas native, and worked as general counsel for the Andre Agassi Foundation for Education.But he spends most of his precious time talking to voters sounding almost like a civics teacher. “The secretary of state has an important role in our election process,” he told a crowd at another Indigenous people’s event at University of Nevada, Las Vegas. “The secretary of state is the regulator of elections.” More
- in Elections
La derecha moviliza a las organizaciones de activistas que monitorean las elecciones en EE. UU.
En la víspera de una segunda vuelta de elecciones primarias en junio, un candidato republicano a secretario de Estado de Carolina del Sur envió un mensaje a sus partidarios.“Para todos los del equipo que van a monitorear las urnas mañana, buena caza”, escribió Keith Blandford, un candidato que en Telegram, la aplicación de redes sociales, promovió la falacia de que se le robó la victoria a Donald Trump en las elecciones de 2020. “Ya saben lo que tienen que buscar. Ahora que el enemigo está a la defensiva, refuercen el ataque”.Al día siguiente, activistas se dispersaron por las casillas electorales en Charleston, Carolina del Sur, y exigieron inspeccionar el equipo de votación y tomar fotografías y video. Cuando los trabajadores electorales rechazaron sus peticiones, algunos regresaron con agentes de policía para denunciar sellos rotos o extraviados en las máquinas de votación, según correos electrónicos que fueron enviados por funcionarios locales a la comisión electoral estatal. No había ningún sello roto ni extraviado.Luego de que Blandford perdió, los activistas publicaron en línea una lista de más de 60 “anomalías” que observaron, suficientes para haber cambiado el resultado de la contienda, afirmaban. Se refirieron al operativo como un “programa piloto”.El episodio es uno de muchos que tienen a los funcionarios electorales en alerta ahora que inician las votaciones para las elecciones de mitad de mandato, la prueba más importante que ha enfrentado el sistema electoral estadounidense desde que las mentiras de Trump sobre los resultados de 2020 instigaron un ataque contra el proceso democrático.En los dos años transcurridos desde entonces, grupos de activistas de derecha se han aliado para difundir afirmaciones falsas sobre fraude electoral generalizado y mala praxis. Ahora, esos activistas se están inmiscuyendo en el conteo de votos, en un esfuerzo amplio y agresivo para monitorear la votación en busca de evidencia que confirme sus teorías. Muchos activistas han sido movilizados por las mismas personas que trataron de revocar la derrota de Trump en 2020.Sus tácticas en las elecciones primarias han hecho que los funcionarios se preparen para una nueva gama de disputas, como observadores y trabajadores electorales alborotadores, estrategias judiciales agresivas, impugnación de votantes y papeletas y patrullajes parapoliciales en busca de fraude.Muchos activistas electorales han sido movilizados por las mismas personas que intentaron revertir la derrota de Donald Trump en 2020.Tamir Kalifa para The New York TimesFuncionarios electorales, tanto republicanos como demócratas, concuerdan en que es poco probable que estas iniciativas generen un desorden generalizado. Afirman que están preparados para contar con precisión las decenas de millones de votos que esperan recibir en las próximas semanas. Pero situaciones como la de Carolina del Sur conllevan consecuencias, pues engendran desinformación y propagan dudas acerca de los resultados, sobre todo en las contiendas cerradas.“De cierto modo, es la manifestación de una profecía autorrealizada”, dijo Tammy Patrick, quien trabaja con funcionarios electorales como asesora principal en el Fondo para la Democracia. Los activistas que están preparados para detectar la falta de ética profesional son más propensos a exagerar los pequeños errores y causar disturbios “que no harán más que apuntalar sus denuncias”, explicó.Entrevistas con funcionarios electorales y activistas, análisis de documentos públicos y correos electrónicos de planificación obtenidos por The New York Times muestran que la amplia red de organizadores incluye a funcionarios del Partido Republicano, grupos conservadores populares y los elementos más conspirativos del movimiento de negación electoral.Al parecer, los grupos recurren a las tácticas que se utilizaron hace dos años: recopilar testimonios de funcionarios de casilla aliados del Partido Republicano, los empleados temporales que supervisan los centros de votación y observadores electorales, los voluntarios que monitorean las operaciones, con el fin de respaldar impugnaciones y rebatir resultados.“Ahora estamos 100 veces más preparados”, dijo en una entrevista Stephen K. Bannon, exasesor de Trump que participó en los intentos de anular la elección de 2020. Bannon es presentador de un pódcast que se ha convertido en una cámara de compensación para los activistas electorales de la derecha. “Vamos a adjudicar la victoria en cada batalla. Esa es la diferencia”.En julio, Bannon fue declarado culpable por desacato al Congreso por no cooperar con el comité de la Cámara de Representantes, responsable de investigar el ataque del 6 de enero de 2021. El lunes, los fiscales recomendaron una sentencia de seis meses en prisión, mientras que Bannon sostuvo que no debía pasar tiempo en la cárcel.Desde hace tiempo, tanto demócratas como republicanos han reclutado a observadores y trabajadores electorales para supervisar las votaciones y anticiparse a disputas. Pero este año, los funcionarios están contemplando la posibilidad de que esos esfuerzos puedan quedar en manos de activistas que difunden teorías fantásticas o desacreditadas.Los funcionarios vieron pruebas de estos nuevos operativos en las elecciones primarias. En Míchigan, un trabajador de casilla fue acusado de manipular una computadora de votación. En Texas, unos activistas siguieron a funcionarios electorales hasta sus oficinas y trataron de entrar en áreas restringidas. En Alabama, activistas intentaron insertar papeletas falsas en una máquina durante una prueba pública.En Kansas, los activistas financiaron un recuento de una medida electoral sobre el derecho al aborto que requería que el condado de Johnson contara a mano un cuarto de millón de votos, a pesar de que la medida fracasó por 18 puntos porcentuales. Fred Sherman, el jefe electoral del condado, dijo que algunos trabajadores involucrados parecían negar las elecciones. Dijo que tuvo que llamar a la policía para sacar a uno que violó la seguridad. El recuento transcurrió sin problemas, agregó, pero fue “aterrador”.Empleados que la semana pasada clasificaban las boletas enviadas por correo que fueron hechas recientemente.Rebecca Noble para The New York Times“Debemos tener en cuenta que es posible que existan personas que no tengan las mejores intenciones desde el punto de vista de la integridad electoral”, dijo Sherman.Los funcionarios electorales se han preparado durante meses para estos retos. Algunos han participado en ejercicios organizados por el FBI sobre cómo lidiar con amenazas, incluso agresiones físicas contra trabajadores electorales. Han ofrecido a su personal capacitación para la “reducción de hostilidades”. Algunos han cambiado sus oficinas, pues han añadido cercas y otras barreras.“Cuando la gente ve que todos trabajamos duro y con ética hacia la misma meta, ¿quién querría alterar eso?”, preguntó Stephen Richer, registrador del condado de Maricopa en Arizona.Los activistas afirman que están tratando de garantizar que todas las reglas sean acatadas y que solo los votantes que cumplen los requisitos tengan acceso al sufragio.“Tenemos a personas capacitadas que conocen la ley, por lo que pueden observar, documentar y reportar cuando las cosas no se realizan conforme dicta la ley”, dijo hace poco en el pódcast de Bannon Cleta Mitchell, organizadora de uno de los grupos nacionales que capacitan activistas y abogada que ayudó a Trump en sus impugnaciones vanas de 2020. Mitchell comentó que su red había capacitado a más de 20.000 personas para formar lo que ella describió como una “agencia de detectives ciudadanos”.Mitchell no respondió a las solicitudes para que ofreciera comentarios.En muchos lugares, los partidos políticos influyen de manera directa en el reclutamiento de trabajadores y observadores electorales. El Comité Nacional Republicano declaró que había desplegado a más de 56.000 trabajadores y vigilantes en las elecciones primarias y especiales este año y esperaba aumentar ese número en las elecciones generales. En varios estados bisagra, el comité también contrató lo que llamó funcionarios de “integridad electoral”.El Comité Nacional Demócrata considera sus esfuerzos como una “protección a los votantes” y ha contratado a 25 directores y 129 miembros de personal en todo el país. El comité no reveló la cifra total de trabajadores ni observadores electorales que reclutó.El pódcast de Stephen Bannon se ha convertido en un centro de intercambio de información sobre el activismo electoral.Kenny Holston para The New York TimesLos observadores veían cómo los votantes sufragaban en Rancho High School el día de las elecciones en Las Vegas en 2020.Bridget Bennett para The New York TimesTanto demócratas como republicanos han lanzado un bombardeo anticipado de litigios electorales: 96 demandas, según Democracy Docket, un grupo jurídico electoral de izquierda. El recuento está distribuido con bastante equilibrio entre ambos bandos.Es una situación que recuerda a lo que sucedió en 2020 porque muchas de las disputas se enfocan en la votación en ausencia: más de la mitad de las demandas interpuestas por grupos de afiliación republicana están relacionadas con las normas de voto por correspondencia, por ejemplo, cómo enmendar errores en una papeleta, según Democracy Docket.Algunos defensores del derecho al voto y grupos demócratas afirman que están alertas ante otra similitud con 2020, cuando Trump y sus aliados impidieron que se certificaran los resultados.“Existe la preocupación subyacente de que, en algunos de estos lugares donde los políticos certifican la elección, quizá no la certifiquen y se desate una crisis”, dijo Jonathan Greenbaum, abogado jefe de Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, un grupo jurídico apartidista por los derechos civiles.Algunas de las personas involucradas en las disputas de 2020 ahora son organizadores líderes.Patrick Byrne, exdirector ejecutivo de Overstock.com y activista que impulsa teorías de conspiración electoral, está reclutando personas a través de su grupo, Proyecto América. Michael Flynn, el primer asesor de seguridad nacional de Trump, es cofundador y asesora a esa organización. (Ambos hombres asistieron a una reunión de diciembre de 2020 en la Casa Blanca donde Flynn instó a Trump a apoderarse de las máquinas de votación).En Míchigan, un funcionario estatal del partido se identifica en los documentos como el director estatal de la estrategia de Proyecto América, llamada Operación Eagles Wings. Ese funcionario también se coordina con la Red de Integridad Electoral de Mitchell, que organiza llamadas estratégicas y capacitación, según los correos electrónicos obtenidos por el Times.En su pódcast War Room, Bannon le dice a su audiencia que los demócratas solo ganarán las elecciones si las roban. Él y sus aliados pueden impedir esto al “tomar el control del aparato electoral”, comentó en su programa este mes.Boletas por correspondencia recién impresas en PhoenixRebecca Noble para The New York TimesUn observador electoral voluntario en Wilkes-Barre, Pensilvania, en 2020Robert Nickelsberg para The New York TimesBannon ha estado dirigiendo a sus seguidores a sitios web que motivan una especie de vigilancia clandestina de las elecciones. The Gateway Pundit, un sitio web de derecha, insta a los activistas para que exijan que a los observadores se les permita supervisar mientras las papeletas se suben a los camiones en las oficinas postales e insistir en acercarse más al conteo de papeletas de lo permitido por las normas.Bannon también ha incitado a su audiencia a abordar a los partidos locales, que en algunos estados están a cargo de seleccionar a los trabajadores de casilla.En el condado de El Paso, Colorado, la directora local del Partido Republicano, que coincide con figuras influyentes del movimiento de negación electoral, le pidió al secretario del condado que depusiera a varios trabajadores electorales que habían servido desde hace años a quienes describió en un correo electrónico como “desleales” al partido. El secretario, Chuck Broerman, dijo que cumplió la petición muy a su pesar, ya que estaba obligado por la ley.Un partidario de Trump sostiene un cartel que pide elecciones justas afuera del Capitolio del estado de Arizona en Phoenix en 2020.Adriana Zehbrauskas para The New York Times“Los individuos que están desplazando han sido republicanos trabajadores y dedicados desde hace mucho”, dijo Broerman, quien también fue presidente del partido en el condado.En Carolina del Norte, un grupo de derecha dedicado a la “integridad electoral” dijo que capacitó a 1000 observadores electorales en el estado, con la ayuda de la red de Mitchell. Algunos fueron objeto de decenas de quejas durante las primarias.En el condado de Pasquotank, uno estaba “intimidando a los trabajadores electorales porque salió varias veces del recinto para ‘reportarse con su cuartel general’”, según las denuncias obtenidas por el Times.Para abordar las quejas, el estado redactó una propuesta de cambios que habrían facilitado la destitución de un observador electoral por mala conducta. La comisión de reglas controlada por los republicanos las rechazó después de un torrente de correos electrónicos y testimonios públicos de activistas locales.Mitchell fue una de las personas que intervino. Los cambios estaban tratando de frenar “el interés entusiasta” que los ciudadanos tenían en el proceso electoral, dijo.Alexandra Berzon es una reportera de investigación ganadora del Premio Pulitzer para la sección de Política, que se enfoca en los sistemas electorales y la votación. Antes fue reportera de investigación en The Wall Street Journal y cubrió la industria de las apuestas y la seguridad en el lugar de trabajo. @alexandraberzonNick Corasaniti cubre la política nacional. Fue uno de los principales reporteros que cubrieron la campaña presidencial de Donald Trump en 2016 y ha estado escribiendo sobre las campañas presidenciales, del Congreso, de gobernadores y alcaldías para el Times desde 2011. @NYTnickc • Facebook More
- in Elections
Ahead of Midterms, Disinformation Is Even More Intractable
On the morning of July 8, former President Donald J. Trump took to Truth Social, a social media platform he founded with people close to him, to claim that he had in fact won the 2020 presidential vote in Wisconsin, despite all evidence to the contrary.Barely 8,000 people shared that missive on Truth Social, a far cry from the hundreds of thousands of responses his posts on Facebook and Twitter had regularly generated before those services suspended his megaphones after the deadly riot on Capitol Hill on Jan. 6, 2021.And yet Mr. Trump’s baseless claim pulsed through the public consciousness anyway. It jumped from his app to other social media platforms — not to mention podcasts, talk radio or television.Within 48 hours of Mr. Trump’s post, more than one million people saw his claim on at least dozen other sites. It appeared on Facebook and Twitter, from which he has been banished, but also YouTube, Gab, Parler and Telegram, according to an analysis by The New York Times.The spread of Mr. Trump’s claim illustrates how, ahead of this year’s midterm elections, disinformation has metastasized since experts began raising alarms about the threat. Despite years of efforts by the media, by academics and even by social media companies themselves to address the problem, it is arguably more pervasive and widespread today.“I think the problem is worse than it’s ever been, frankly,” said Nina Jankowicz, an expert on disinformation who briefly led an advisory board within the Department of Homeland Security dedicated to combating misinformation. The creation of the panel set off a furor, prompting her to resign and the group to be dismantled.Not long ago, the fight against disinformation focused on the major social media platforms, like Facebook and Twitter. When pressed, they often removed troubling content, including misinformation and intentional disinformation about the Covid-19 pandemic.Today, however, there are dozens of new platforms, including some that pride themselves on not moderating — censoring, as they put it — untrue statements in the name of free speech.Other figures followed Mr. Trump in migrating to these new platforms after being “censored” by Facebook, YouTube or Twitter. They included Michael Flynn, the retired general who served briefly as Mr. Trump’s first national security adviser; L. Lin Wood, a pro-Trump lawyer; Naomi Wolf, a feminist author and vaccine skeptic; and assorted adherents of QAnon and the Oath Keepers, the far-right militia.At least 69 million people have joined platforms, like Parler, Gab, Truth Social, Gettr and Rumble, that advertise themselves as conservative alternatives to Big Tech, according to statements by the companies. Though many of those users are ostracized from larger platforms, they continue to spread their views, which often appear in screen shots posted on the sites that barred them.The State of the 2022 Midterm ElectionsBoth parties are making their final pitches ahead of the Nov. 8 election.Where the Election Stands: As Republicans appear to be gaining an edge with swing voters in the final weeks of the contest for control of Congress, here’s a look at the state of the races for the House and Senate.Biden’s Low Profile: President Biden’s decision not to attend big campaign rallies reflects a low approval rating that makes him unwelcome in some congressional districts and states.What Young Voters Think: Twelve Americans under 30, all living in swing states, told The Times about their political priorities, ranging from the highly personal to the universal.Debates Dwindle: Direct political engagement with voters is waning as candidates surround themselves with their supporters. Nowhere is the trend clearer than on the shrinking debate stage.“Nothing on the internet exists in a silo,” said Jared Holt, a senior manager on hate and extremism research at the Institute for Strategic Dialogue. “Whatever happens in alt platforms like Gab or Telegram or Truth makes its way back to Facebook and Twitter and others.”Users have migrated to apps like Truth Social after being “censored” by Facebook, YouTube or Twitter.Leon Neal/Getty ImagesThe diffusion of the people who spread disinformation has radicalized political discourse, said Nora Benavidez, senior counsel at Free Press, an advocacy group for digital rights and accountability.“Our language and our ecosystems are becoming more caustic online,” she said. The shifts in the disinformation landscape are becoming clear with the new cycle of American elections. In 2016, Russia’s covert campaign to spread false and divisive posts seemed like an aberration in the American political system. Today disinformation, from enemies, foreign and domestic, has become a feature of it.The baseless idea that President Biden was not legitimately elected has gone mainstream among Republican Party members, driving state and county officials to impose new restrictions on casting ballots, often based on mere conspiracy theories percolating in right-wing media.Voters must now sift through not only an ever-growing torrent of lies and falsehoods about candidates and their policies, but also information on when and where to vote. Officials appointed or elected in the name of fighting voter fraud have put themselves in the position to refuse to certify outcomes that are not to their liking.The purveyors of disinformation have also become increasingly sophisticated at sidestepping the major platforms’ rules, while the use of video to spread false claims on YouTube, TikTok and Instagram has made them harder for automated systems to track than text.TikTok, which is owned by the Chinese tech giant ByteDance, has become a primary battleground in today’s fight against disinformation. A report last month by NewsGuard, an organization that tracks the problem online, showed that nearly 20 percent of videos presented as search results on TikTok contained false or misleading information on topics such as school shootings and Russia’s war in Ukraine.Katie Harbath in Facebook’s “war room,” where election-related content was monitored on the platform, in 2018.Jeff Chiu/Associated Press“People who do this know how to exploit the loopholes,” said Katie Harbath, a former director of public policy at Facebook who now leads Anchor Change, a strategic consultancy.With the midterm elections only weeks away, the major platforms have all pledged to block, label or marginalize anything that violates company policies, including disinformation, hate speech or calls to violence.Still, the cottage industry of experts dedicated to countering disinformation — think tanks, universities and nongovernment organizations — say the industry is not doing enough. The Stern Center for Business and Human Rights at New York University warned last month, for example, that the major platforms continued to amplify “election denialism” in ways that undermined trust in the democratic system.Another challenge is the proliferation of alternative platforms for those falsehoods and even more extreme views.Many of those new platforms have flourished in the wake of Mr. Trump’s defeat in 2020, though they have not yet reached the size or reach of Facebook and Twitter. They portray Big Tech as beholden to the government, the deep state or the liberal elite.Parler, a social network founded in 2018, was one of the fastest-growing sites — until Apple’s and Google’s app stores kicked it off after the deadly riot on Jan. 6, which was fueled by disinformation and calls for violence online. It has since returned to both stores and begun to rebuild its audience by appealing to those who feel their voices have been silenced.“We believe at Parler that it is up to the individual to decide what he or she thinks is the truth,” Amy Peikoff, the platform’s chief policy officer, said in an interview.She argued that the problem with disinformation or conspiracy theories stemmed from the algorithms that platforms use to keep people glued online — not from the unfettered debate that sites like Parler foster.On Monday, Parler announced that Kanye West had agreed in principle to purchase the platform, a deal that the rapper and fashion designer, now known as Ye, cast in political terms.“In a world where conservative opinions are considered to be controversial, we have to make sure we have the right to freely express ourselves,” he said, according to the company’s statement.Parler’s competitors now are BitChute, Gab, Gettr, Rumble, Telegram and Truth Social, with each offering itself as sanctuary from the moderating policies of the major platforms on everything from politics to health policy.A new survey by the Pew Research Center found that 15 percent of prominent accounts on those seven platforms had previously been banished from others like Twitter and Facebook.Apps like Gettr market themselves as alternatives to Big Tech.Elijah Nouvelage/Getty ImagesNearly two-thirds of the users of those platforms said they had found a community of people who share their views, according to the survey. A majority are Republicans or lean Republican.A result of this atomization of social media sources is to reinforce the partisan information bubbles within which millions of Americans live.At least 6 percent of Americans now regularly get news from at least one of these relatively new sites, which often “highlight non-mainstream world views and sometimes offensive language,” according to Pew. One in 10 posts on these platforms that mentioned L.G.B.T.Q. issues involved derisive allegations, the survey found.These new sites are still marginal compared with the bigger platforms; Mr. Trump, for example, has four million followers on Truth Social, compared with 88 million when Twitter kicked him off in 2021.Even so, Mr. Trump has increasingly resumed posting with the vigor he once showed on Twitter. The F.B.I. raid on Mar-a-Lago thrust his latest pronouncements into the eye of the political storm once again.For the major platforms, the financial incentive to attract users — and their clicks — remains powerful and could undo the steps they took in 2021. There is also an ideological component. The emotionally laced appeal to individual liberty in part drove Elon Musk’s bid to buy Twitter, which appears to have been revived after months of legal maneuvering.Nick Clegg, the president of global affairs at Meta, Facebook’s parent company, even suggested recently that the platform might reinstate Mr. Trump’s account in 2023 — ahead of what could be another presidential run. Facebook had previously said it would do so only “if the risk to public safety has receded.”Nick Clegg, Meta’s president for global affairs.Patrick T. Fallon/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesA study of Truth Social by Media Matters for America, a left-leaning media monitoring group, examined how the platform had become a home for some of the most fringe conspiracy theories. Mr. Trump, who began posting on the platform in April, has increasingly amplified content from QAnon, the online conspiracy theory.He has shared posts from QAnon accounts more than 130 times. QAnon believers promote a vast and complex falsehood that centers on Mr. Trump as a leader battling a cabal of Democratic Party pedophiles. Echoes of such views reverberated through Republican election campaigns across the country during this year’s primaries.Ms. Jankowicz, the disinformation expert, said the nation’s social and political divisions had churned the waves of disinformation.The controversies over how best to respond to the Covid-19 pandemic deepened distrust of government and medical experts, especially among conservatives. Mr. Trump’s refusal to accept the outcome of the 2020 election led to, but did not end with, the Capitol Hill violence.“They should have brought us together,” Ms. Jankowicz said, referring to the pandemic and the riots. “I thought perhaps they could be kind of this convening power, but they were not.” More
- in Elections
As Midterm Campaign Norms Erode, Even Debates Are Under Debate
Candidates for senator or governor routinely used to participate in two or three debates. Now some are skipping them altogether. Retail politicking at diners and state fairs is no longer the cliché it was for generations. And town-hall-style meetings, where citizens get to question their elected leaders and those running to replace them, have given way to the online echo chamber.In midterm campaigns across the country, direct political engagement has been falling away, victim to security concerns, pandemic-era workarounds and Republican hostility to the mainstream media.Many candidates are sticking instead to safer spaces: partisan news outlets, fund-raisers with supporters, friendly local crowds. The result is a profound shift in the long traditions of American campaigns that is both a symptom of and a contributor to the ills afflicting the country’s politics.Campaigning used to force candidates to engage up close with the public, exposing them not only to supporters but to those who might disagree with them. Avoiding those tougher interactions cuts down on the opportunities for candidates’ characters and limitations to be revealed, and for elected officials to be held accountable to those who elected them. For the politicians, it creates an artificial environment where their positions appear uniformly popular and opposing views are angrily denounced, making compromise seem risky.“They run these campaigns in bubbles to these voters who are in bubbles,” said former Representative Tom Davis, a moderate Republican who won seven terms in Congress in a Northern Virginia district and headed his party’s congressional campaign committee.Mr. Davis said he felt “a duty” as a lawmaker to participate in debates and town-hall meetings. “People don’t feel that duty anymore,” he added. “When they say, ‘I went home and talked to my constituents,’ they are talking to their base.”Nowhere is the trend clearer than on the country’s shrinking debate stage. Candidates in 10 of the most competitive contests for Senate and governor have agreed to just one debate, where voters not long ago could have expected to watch two or three. Those debates have already happened in Senate races in Arizona, North Carolina, Ohio, Georgia and Wisconsin and in the Texas and Wisconsin governor’s races.Only in five contests — the Senate race in Ohio and governor’s races in Georgia, Kansas, Maine and Oregon — have the candidates agreed to multiple meetings.In at least four other competitive contests, the candidates failed to agree to any debates at all.In Arizona, Katie Hobbs, the Democrat running for governor, flatly declines to debate her Republican opponent. In Pennsylvania, Doug Mastriano, the far-right Republican nominee for governor, has rejected debates run by news organizations, citing what he called their “hidden partisan agenda.” In Missouri, the Republican nominee for Senate, Eric Schmitt, accused his opponent of refusing to debate. Ten days later, he failed to show for the first general election matchup.And in Nevada, the major-party candidates for Senate agreed in principle to a televised face-off, but none has happened, because they couldn’t agree on the forum.The State of the 2022 Midterm ElectionsWith the primaries over, both parties are shifting their focus to the general election on Nov. 8.The Final Stretch: With elections next month, a Times/Siena poll shows that independents, especially women, are swinging toward the G.O.P. despite Democrats’ focus on abortion rights as voters worry about the economy.Georgia Governor’s Race: A debate between Gov. Brian Kemp and Stacey Abrams produced a substantive hour of policy discussion. Here are five takeaways.Aggressive Tactics: Right-wing leaders are calling on election activists to monitor voting in the midterm elections in search of evidence to confirm unfounded theories of election fraud.Jill Biden: The first lady, who has become a lifeline for Democratic candidates trying to draw attention and money in the midterms, is the most popular surrogate in the Biden administration.“It was almost inconceivable that we would not have a series of debates,” said Sig Rogich, a longtime Republican political consultant in Nevada and a former aide to Paul Laxalt, the grandfather of the current Republican Senate candidate, Adam Laxalt. “It used to be three, then it went to two and now it’s down to one. And pretty soon it will be none, and I don’t think that’s healthy.”It’s not just debates. Town halls and other events that offered opportunities to interact with voters — stump speeches in sweaty high school gymnasiums, town square meet-and-greets, barnstorming bus tours — have become less common, and those that are still held are often more restricted than in the past. Campaign schedules that used to be blasted to email inboxes are kept private, leaving reporters to dig like detectives just to figure out where a candidate will show up.The shift reflects a drop in the number of competitive House districts and a polarized environment in which swing voters are disappearing, so candidates see little advantage in trying to win them over.It all amounts to an erosion of fundamental American traditions that date back to the earliest years of the Republic: forums in 17th-century New England meeting houses, Abraham Lincoln’s travels across Illinois to debate slavery with Stephen A. Douglas, and packs of reporters surrounding candidates in crowded church basements and veterans’ halls.Pushing Away Reporters, LiterallyWhen Mr. Mastriano, the Republican running for governor in Pennsylvania, appeared in Philadelphia last month, the event had some of the trappings of a traditional campaign stop. It was open to the news media, the candidate sounded standard Republican themes about crime and he emphasized the need for his party to engage Latino voters.A Texas debate with Gov. Greg Abbott and his Democratic challenger, former Representative Beto O’Rourke, featured no audience and no livestream on C-SPAN.Tamir Kalifa for The New York TimesBut just off-camera, little was as it might have seemed. Mr. Mastriano took no questions from journalists. And, as they often have during his campaign, aides muscled reporters away from the candidate, throwing arms or blocking those who tried to approach with questions.In Atlanta earlier this month, reporters were not allowed into a “worship and luncheon” held for Herschel Walker, the Republican Senate nominee, who had just been accused of paying for an ex-girlfriend’s abortion. Police officers and a security guard even shooed journalists out of the parking lot..css-1v2n82w{max-width:600px;width:calc(100% – 40px);margin-top:20px;margin-bottom:25px;height:auto;margin-left:auto;margin-right:auto;font-family:nyt-franklin;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1v2n82w{margin-left:20px;margin-right:20px;}}@media only screen and (min-width:1024px){.css-1v2n82w{width:600px;}}.css-161d8zr{width:40px;margin-bottom:18px;text-align:left;margin-left:0;color:var(–color-content-primary,#121212);border:1px solid var(–color-content-primary,#121212);}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-161d8zr{width:30px;margin-bottom:15px;}}.css-tjtq43{line-height:25px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-tjtq43{line-height:24px;}}.css-x1k33h{font-family:nyt-cheltenham;font-size:19px;font-weight:700;line-height:25px;}.css-1hvpcve{font-size:17px;font-weight:300;line-height:25px;}.css-1hvpcve em{font-style:italic;}.css-1hvpcve strong{font-weight:bold;}.css-1hvpcve a{font-weight:500;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}.css-1c013uz{margin-top:18px;margin-bottom:22px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1c013uz{font-size:14px;margin-top:15px;margin-bottom:20px;}}.css-1c013uz a{color:var(–color-signal-editorial,#326891);-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;font-weight:500;font-size:16px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1c013uz a{font-size:13px;}}.css-1c013uz a:hover{-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;}How Times reporters cover politics. We rely on our journalists to be independent observers. So while Times staff members may vote, they are not allowed to endorse or campaign for candidates or political causes. This includes participating in marches or rallies in support of a movement or giving money to, or raising money for, any political candidate or election cause.Learn more about our process.For some Republicans, declining debates and shunning nonpartisan news outlets is a way to cast themselves in the image of former President Donald J. Trump, who frequently breaks with political norms. His attacks on reporters energized a conservative base that rewards Republican politicians for viewing the mainstream media as the enemy, leaving many strategists to see skipping debates and interviews as a way not only to protect their candidates from unforced errors but to rally support.The irony of that approach is that while Mr. Trump often attacks mainstream journalists, he can’t quit them, either.“You have these candidates saying, ‘I’m Trump-like, so I’m not going to talk to media or debate’ — meanwhile, that’s all he does,” said Christopher Nicholas, a Republican consultant in the battleground state of Pennsylvania who is involved with organizing political debates there.A Republican Stance That SpreadWhile the trend of avoiding the public was initially driven by Republicans, it has seeped across party lines. In-person congressional town-hall meetings have fallen to record lows, according to Indivisible, a liberal grass-roots group that formed after the 2016 election. In 2017, the group counted 1,875 town-hall events by members of Congress. The number spiked to nearly 3,000 in 2019.This year is not on pace to return to prepandemic levels. The group has tracked just 408 through the first half of the year. (Those numbers, the organization said, may fail to account for events announced abruptly on partisan social media.)Dr. Mehmet Oz checked Nikki Haley’s blood pressure during a town-hall-style event last month. These kinds of public political forums have become less common.Hannah Beier for The New York TimesBradford Fitch, president of the Congressional Management Foundation, which advises lawmakers on issues like running their offices and communicating with constituents, said he now urged members not to hold open public meetings because of security concerns.In Democratic circles, candidates have skipped debates by saying their opponents’ actions suggest that any forums between them will not amount to a productive exchange of ideas.Campaign aides to Ms. Hobbs, the Democratic nominee for governor in Arizona, cited the raucous Republican primary debates in their state as a reason for avoiding a general election face-off against her Republican opponent, Kari Lake, a former newscaster who has molded herself after Mr. Trump and his election lies.Mr. Trump benefited immensely in 2016 from primary debates, where he dominated a large field. Four years later, as the pandemic raged and he recovered from Covid, he refused to hold virtual events, leading to the cancellation of the second scheduled presidential debate.A sparsely attended town-hall event this month in Atlanta featured Gov. Brian Kemp, Stacey Abrams and Senator Raphael Warnock.Nicole Craine for The New York TimesThe Strategy Favoring DebatesFor decades, debates about debates were driven by political strategy. A candidate in a strong position didn’t want to risk a misstep, and strategists grumbled that the hours of preparation could be better used for fund-raising or other events. Those trailing in the polls would push for more face-offs in hopes of a game-changing moment.Such moments are rare, but they do happen.In October 2016, Senator Kelly Ayotte, a Republican from New Hampshire, said that, “absolutely,” Mr. Trump could be a role model for young children. She spent weeks explaining the remark before losing by about 1,000 votes.That same month in 2016, in the Nevada Senate race, Catherine Cortez Masto, a Democrat, delivered a strong performance in a debate against a Republican who struggled to explain why he had backed away from his endorsement of Mr. Trump. She won narrowly and now is trying to pressure Mr. Laxalt onto the debate stage in hopes of gaining momentum in her re-election race.Kari Lake supporters last month during a Latinos for Lake rally. Instead of debates, candidates prefer speaking to their supporters.Rebecca Noble for The New York TimesMr. Nicholas, the Republican strategist in Pennsylvania, said the lighter debate schedule this year was a far cry from the three debates that his old boss, former Senator Arlen Specter, always participated in.“In normal times, we would have done three to five debates in the Senate race,” Mr. Nichols said. “Now, it looks like of all of the big Pennsylvania races, there’s only going to be one debate in one race.”There is little sign that debates will return in two years. The Republican National Committee has told the Commission on Presidential Debates that its 2024 presidential candidate will not participate in commission-sponsored debates unless it changes its rules on dates and moderators.“The constructive collision of ideas that used to be the hallmark of our democracy is becoming a distant memory,” said Jason Grumet, president of the Bipartisan Policy Center.Representative Lauren Boebert, the Colorado Republican, debated her Democratic opponent, Adam Frisch, last month, but attendance was sparse.William Woody for The New York TimesKatie Glueck More
