Rumors and Misinformation

Subterms

    More stories

    • 213 Shares139 Views

      in Elections

      En Brasil, un solo hombre puede decidir lo que se dice en internet para combatir las mentiras

      by

      Las autoridades brasileñas han otorgado al jefe de elecciones un amplio poder para ordenar la retirada de contenidos digitales en un intento de combatir la creciente desinformación antes de las elecciones de este mes.RÍO DE JANEIRO —Las autoridades brasileñas, que se enfrentan a un torrente de desinformación en línea antes de las elecciones presidenciales del país, concedieron al jefe de elecciones de la nación el poder unilateral para ordenar a las empresas tecnológicas que retiren muchos mensajes y videos de la red, una de las medidas más agresivas adoptadas por cualquier país para combatir la información falsa.En virtud de las normas aprobadas el jueves, el jefe de las elecciones puede ordenar la remoción inmediata de los contenidos que considere que han violado las órdenes de retirada anteriores. Las redes sociales deben cumplir esas exigencias en un plazo de dos horas o se enfrentan a la posible suspensión de sus servicios en Brasil.La medida es la culminación de una estrategia cada vez más enérgica por parte de las autoridades electorales de Brasil para reprimir los ataques divisivos, engañosos y falsos que han inundado la carrera presidencial del país en los últimos días, incluidas las afirmaciones de que los candidatos son satanistas, caníbales y pedófilos.Pero al permitir que una sola persona decida lo que se puede decir en internet en el período previo a las elecciones, que se celebrarán el 30 de octubre, Brasil se ha convertido en un caso de prueba en un debate mundial cada vez más intenso sobre los límites de la lucha contra las “noticias falsas”.La decisión provocó indignación entre los partidarios del presidente de derecha Jair Bolsonaro, así como la preocupación de muchos expertos en derecho digital y derechos civiles, que dijeron que representaba una expansión de poder potencialmente peligrosa y autoritaria que podría ser abusada a fin de censurar puntos de vista legítimos e influir en la contienda presidencial.El presidente Jair Bolsonaro en un acto de campaña en São Paulo el jueves.Fernando Bizerra/EPA, vía ShutterstockEl jefe de las elecciones, Alexandre de Moraes, también es juez del Tribunal Supremo de Brasil, lo que lo ha colocado en el centro de otra lucha sobre la creciente autoridad del tribunal.Como juez de la corte, ha ordenado investigaciones sobre Bolsonaro y ha encarcelado a algunos de los partidarios del presidente, acusados de lo que Moraes dijo que eran ataques a las instituciones democráticas de la nación.Moraes ha sido quizás el contrapeso más eficaz a Bolsonaro, que durante años ha atacado a la prensa, los tribunales y los sistemas electorales del país. Pero en el proceso, el juez ha suscitado la preocupación de que sus esfuerzos por proteger la democracia del país la hayan erosionado.“Es un acto de malabarismo muy complicado”, dijo Philip Friedrich, analista de elecciones y tecnología en Freedom House, un grupo estadounidense que promueve la expansión de la democracia. “Se trata de proteger la integridad de las instituciones democráticas de Brasil y el derecho de la gente a la libertad de expresión, y al mismo tiempo mantener a la gente segura en línea”.Carlos Affonso Souza, profesor de derecho de la Universidad Estatal de Río de Janeiro, dijo que el fallo del jueves “podría ir demasiado lejos, dependiendo de cómo” Moraes ejerza su poder.Aun así, la medida fue aplaudida por muchos en Brasil, que la consideran como una herramienta necesaria para combatir una avalancha de denuncias falsas de los partidarios de Bolsonaro que no ha hecho más que ganar velocidad en los últimos días.Las nuevas reglas fueron aprobadas por unanimidad por los siete jueces federales que integran el tribunal electoral de Brasil. Cuando propuso las reglas en una sesión del tribunal el jueves, Moraes dijo que las denuncias por desinformación habían aumentado casi 17 veces en comparación con las elecciones pasadas.“Ha habido una proliferación no solamente de noticias falsas, sino de la agresividad de estas noticias, de este discurso de odio, que todos sabemos que no conduce a nada más que a una erosión de la democracia”, dijo. “Por eso precisamente necesitamos una vía más rápida”.Otra jueza, Cármen Lúcia, dijo durante la audiencia que estaba preocupada por las implicaciones de las medidas recientes del tribunal electoral para combatir la desinformación. “El regreso de la censura no puede permitirse bajo ningún argumento en Brasil”, dijo.En una entrevista con un pódcast el jueves, Bolsonaro dijo que las autoridades electorales estaban moviendo a Brasil hacia un “estado dictatorial” y que “después de las elecciones, dependiendo de quién gane, vamos a poner fin a esto”.El año pasado, Bolsonaro pidió al Senado de Brasil que llevara a juicio político y destituyera a Moraes, pero fue rechazado.Bolsonaro se enfrenta el 30 de octubre al expresidente de izquierda Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva en una votación que se considera la más importante de Brasil en décadas y una prueba clave para una de las mayores democracias del mundo.Según las nuevas normas de internet, los poderes ampliados del jefe de las elecciones están en vigor durante las campañas electorales. Los poderes caducarán después de la votación presidencial, pero volverán a entrar en vigor en campañas futuras.El expresidente Lula da Silva hacía campaña en Río de Janeiro el jueves.Ricardo Moraes/ReutersEl tribunal electoral ya ha prohibido las publicaciones que han calificado a Bolsonaro de pedófilo, una afirmación que se aceleró en los últimos días tras la aparición de un vídeo en el que el presidente dice que hubo “una atraccion mutua” entre él y dos adolescentes. El tribunal también ha ordenado retirar contenidos que digan que Da Silva es corrupto. Da Silva cumplió condena en prisión por cargos de corrupción, que posteriormente fueron anulados.Los partidarios de ambos bandos han difundido mentiras, pero el volumen de información engañosa de la derecha ha superado con creces al de la izquierda, dijo Tai Nalon, directora de Aos Fatos, una organización brasileña de verificación que ha seguido de cerca las afirmaciones falsas de la campaña.Los partidarios de Bolsonaro han difundido la mentira de que Da Silva planea cerrar las iglesias si es elegido, lo que llevó al expresidente a lanzar una carta pública insistiendo en que no lo haría. El viernes, muchos miembros de la derecha comenzaron a publicar imágenes en las que se afirmaba falsamente que estaban siendo censurados directamente por los funcionarios electorales.Bolsonaro también ha atacado las máquinas de votación electrónica de Brasil al afirmar que están plagadas de fraude, a pesar de la falta de pruebas, y sus partidarios han difundido teorías de la conspiración infundadas que afirman que la izquierda está planeando robar las elecciones.Da Silva aventajaba a Bolsonaro en cinco puntos porcentuales tras la primera vuelta, pero en los últimos días los sondeos sugieren que la diferencia se está reduciendo.La desinformación también empañó las elecciones presidenciales de 2018 que ganó Bolsonaro, lo que llevó a los funcionarios electorales a adoptar una postura más agresiva durante esta campaña.Esta semana, el tribunal electoral restringió a uno de los mayores medios de Brasil para que no describiera a Da Silva como corrupto, y bloqueó a un destacado canal de YouTube de derecha por publicar un documental sobre un intento de asesinato contra Bolsonaro en 2018. Bolsonaro y sus partidarios han acusado al tribunal de tratar de favorecer a Da Silva.Preparando las máquinas de votación electrónica en Brasilia el miércoles.Evaristo Sa/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesA pesar de los esfuerzos del tribunal electoral por intervenir, han proliferado los contenidos falsos y engañosos, lo que ilustra la lucha a la que se enfrentan los funcionarios y las empresas tecnológicas para frenar la desinformación que se propaga más rápido de lo que pueden actuar y que se comparte cada vez más fuera de su alcance.Por ejemplo, gran parte de la desinformación en Brasil se comparte en WhatsApp, la aplicación más popular del país. Como WhatsApp encripta los mensajes, la empresa y los funcionarios no pueden ver los mensajes que los usuarios comparten entre sí, lo que complica su capacidad para combatir la información falsa.WhatsApp ha modificado su aplicación para frenar la propagación, por ejemplo, al poner límites al tamaño de los grupos y al número de veces que se puede reenviar un mensaje, pero la desinformación sigue siendo un problema, según los investigadores.Google y Meta, propietaria de WhatsApp, Facebook e Instagram, declinaron comentar. La campaña de Da Silva no respondió a las solicitudes de comentarios.Según las nuevas normas, si una empresa tecnológica se niega repetidamente a cumplir las órdenes de Moraes, este puede “suspender el acceso a los servicios” de la plataforma en Brasil por hasta 24 horas.A principios de este año, De Moraes dijo que planeaba bloquear Telegram, el servicio de mensajería con millones de usuarios en Brasil, después de que la empresa no siguiera sus órdenes de eliminar la cuenta de un destacado partidario de Bolsonaro acusado de difundir desinformación. (Moraes actuaba entonces en calidad de juez del Supremo Tribunal). Moraes revocó esa prohibición varios días después, después de que Telegram aceptara cambios.Affonso Souza, el profesor de derecho en Río de Janeiro, dijo que dado el plazo de dos horas para cumplir con las órdenes de Moraes —y solo una hora en la víspera de las elecciones— Moraes podría intentar bloquear una plataforma en los últimos días de la campaña. “Eso definitivamente agregaría combustible al fuego para los partidarios de Bolsonaro”, dijo.André Spigariol More

    • 125 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Brazilian Official Granted Power to Order Removal of Misinformation Online

      by

      Brazilian authorities granted the country’s elections chief broad power to order the takedown of online content in a bid to combat soaring misinformation ahead of this month’s election.RIO DE JANEIRO — Brazilian authorities, grappling with a torrent of online misinformation ahead of the country’s presidential election, granted the nation’s elections chief unilateral power to order tech companies to remove many online posts and videos — one of the most aggressive actions taken by any country to combat false information.Under the rules passed on Thursday, the elections chief can order the immediate removal of content that he believes has violated previous orders. Social networks must comply with the election chief’s takedown orders within two hours or face potential suspension of their services in Brazil.The move culminates an increasingly assertive strategy by election officials in Brazil to crack down on the misinformation that has flooded the country’s presidential race in recent days, including claims that candidates are Satanists, cannibals and pedophiles.But by allowing a single person to decide what can be said online in the run-up to the high-stakes election, which will be held on Oct. 30, Brazil has made itself a test case in a swelling debate over how far to go in fighting “fake news.”The decision drew outcry from supporters of right-wing President Jair Bolsonaro, as well as concern from many internet-law and civil-rights experts, who said it represented a potentially dangerous, authoritarian expansion of power, one that could be abused to censor legitimate viewpoints and swing the presidential contest.The elections chief, Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes, is already at the center of a separate fight over the increasing authority of Brazil’s highest court. He has ordered investigations into Mr. Bolsonaro and jailed some of his supporters for what Mr. Moraes said were attacks on the nation’s democratic institutions.“It’s a risky move,” Carlos Affonso Souza, a professor at Rio de Janeiro State University, said of Thursday’s decision. “I think it could go too far depending on how he exercises these rights.”Still, the move was cheered by others in Brazil, including many on the left, who see it as a necessary tool to fight an avalanche of false claims from Mr. Bolsonaro’s supporters that has only accelerated in recent days.During Thursday’s vote on the rules, Mr. Moraes said complaints about misinformation had increased nearly 17-fold compared with past elections.“There has been proliferation of not only false news, but of the aggressiveness of this news, this hate speech, which we all know leads to nothing but an erosion of democracy,” he said. “This is precisely why we need a faster way.”Mr. Bolsonaro faces off on Oct. 30 against the leftist former President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva in a vote that is widely regarded as Brazil’s most important in decades.Under the new rules, which were passed unanimously by the seven federal judges who make up Brazil’s electoral court, the elections chief’s expanded powers are effective during election campaigns. The powers will lapse after the presidential vote, but will take effect again in future campaigns.The rules allow Mr. Moraes to order social networks to immediately take down content that he determines has violated previous decisions by the broader electoral court.The electoral court has already banned posts that call Mr. Bolsonaro a pedophile, a claim that accelerated in recent days after video emerged of the president saying “there was a spark” between him and two teenage girls. The court has also ordered the takedown of content that says Mr. da Silva is corrupt. Mr. da Silva served time in prison on corruption charges, which were later nullified.André Spigariol contributed reporting from Brasília. More

    • 100 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Ahead of Midterms, Disinformation Is Even More Intractable

      by

      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

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Ron Johnson Website and Video Urge Reporting of Suspected Election Problems

      by

      Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, who has amplified unfounded claims of voter fraud for years, launched a website and a video on Wednesday encouraging people to report suspected “election integrity” problems and instructing poll workers in how to spot and report “disqualifying issues” with absentee ballots.The move by Mr. Johnson, a Republican, was not part of the usual get-out-the-vote effort that is typical in the final weeks of a midterm election. Instead, the senator and his campaign seemed eager to put his supporters on alert for suspicious voting activity.“Everyone in Wisconsin should have the assurance that their vote counts, and it will not be canceled by a fraudulent vote,” Mr. Johnson said in a statement his campaign released.The website that was launched by the Johnson campaign provides voters with a form to report incidents involving “election integrity” and to submit any files or images of such incidents.A corresponding 45-second video appears to be a brief instruction guide aimed at poll workers or election monitors. It describes how to spot “disqualifying issues” with absentee ballots, including verifying that both signature sections are completed. And it urges viewers to fully document any problems with a ballot if a ballot is accepted despite their objections.While Republicans have spent much of the last two years mounting false arguments about voter fraud and illegally cast ballots in the 2020 election, no evidence has emerged to support their claims. In Wisconsin, the Republican-controlled State Assembly allocated more than $1 million to a former State Supreme Court justice to investigate the 2020 election and emerged with no new information.Mr. Johnson is among an array of Republicans seeking office this year who have refused, in advance, to accept the results of the 2022 elections. After an onslaught of attack ads aimed at his Democratic challenger, Lt. Gov. Mandela Barnes, Mr. Johnson leads in public polling in the state.Since the 2020 election, Republicans who falsely believe that the presidency was stolen from Donald J. Trump have spread misinformation claiming widespread electoral fraud. They are now becoming involved in the counting of votes, using aggressive litigation, the monitoring of poll workers and challenges to voter registrations. More

    • 150 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Some Republicans Want to Count Votes by Hand. Bad Idea, Experts Say.

      by

      Over the past two years, Republicans have pursued an array of changes to how Americans vote. The past few weeks have drawn attention to a particularly drastic idea: counting all ballots by hand.Officials in Cochise County, Ariz., recently pushed to do that in next month’s election, and whether or not they go through with it, the efforts may spread. Republicans in at least six states introduced bills this year that would have banned machine tabulation, and several candidates for statewide offices have expressed support, including Kari Lake and Mark Finchem, the party’s nominees for Arizona’s governor and secretary of state, and Jim Marchant, its nominee for Nevada’s secretary of state.The New York Times spoke with six experts in election administration, and all said the same thing: While hand counting is an important tool for recounts and audits, tallying entire elections by hand in any but the smallest jurisdictions would cause chaos and make results less accurate, not more.“People who think they would have greater confidence in this process think so because they haven’t seen it,” said Mark Lindeman, the policy and strategy director at Verified Voting, a nonpartisan organization focused on election technology. “The process in real life would not inspire confidence at all on this scale.”The proposals often stem from false claims by former President Donald J. Trump and his allies that voting technology was somehow to blame for Mr. Trump’s loss in the 2020 presidential election. Most of those claims center on electronic voting machines, but some extend to scanners and tabulators that count paper ballots.The right-wing arguments against tabulators rely not on evidence that they have been compromised — because there is none — but on the possibility that they could be. In a lawsuit filed in April, Ms. Lake and Mr. Finchem asked a federal court to mandate hand counting in Arizona, arguing that the state’s ballot scanners were “potentially unsecure” and denied voters “the right to have their votes counted and reported in an accurate, auditable, legal and transparent process.” The court dismissed the case, and Ms. Lake and Mr. Finchem are appealing.Research indicates that hand counting increases errors.A study published in 2012 looked at discrepancies between initial counts and recounts in New Hampshire and found that, on average, those discrepancies were 0.8 percentage points smaller in towns that used scanners than in towns that counted by hand. A study in 2018 analyzed two statewide races in Wisconsin and found that “vote counts originally conducted by computerized scanners were, on average, more accurate.”What to Know About the Trump InvestigationsCard 1 of 6Numerous inquiries. More

    • 163 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Poll Shows Voters See Democracy in Peril, but Saving It Isn’t a Priority

      by

      Voters overwhelmingly believe American democracy is under threat, but seem remarkably apathetic about that danger, with few calling it the nation’s most pressing problem, according to a New York Times/Siena College poll.In fact, more than a third of independent voters and a smaller but noteworthy contingent of Democrats said they were open to supporting candidates who reject the legitimacy of the 2020 election, as they assigned greater urgency to their concerns about the economy than to fears about the fate of the country’s political system.Voters who are open to candidates who reject 2020 election resultsThinking about a candidate for political office who you agree with on most positions, how comfortable would you be voting for that candidate if they say they think the 2020 election was stolen? More

    • 50 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      The Misinformation Beat, Translated

      by

      To report an article on the spread of false narratives in non-English languages, the journalist Tiffany Hsu spent time on fringe platforms — and Google Translate.Times Insider explains who we are and what we do and delivers behind-the-scenes insights into how our journalism comes together.Facts are facts no matter the language in which they are shared. Ahead of the midterm elections, misleading translations and blatant falsehoods about topics such as inflation and election fraud are swirling in non-English languages on social media — and multilingual fact checkers are struggling to keep up.The Times journalist Tiffany Hsu tackled this topic in a recent report. After spending several years on the media beat for The Times, she joined the team covering disinformation and misinformation this summer. (Disinformation means a coordinated campaign by people or organizations that generally know the information is false; misinformation, as Ms. Hsu puts it, is when your uncle repeats something he read on Facebook, not realizing the post wasn’t factual.) For the article, Ms. Hsu spoke with about a dozen researchers — and spent time on Google Translate — to understand how the spread of falsehoods may target immigrant communities and affect the vote.In an interview on Thursday, Ms. Hsu shared more about her recent reporting. This conversation has been edited.When did you start to hear about misinformation in other languages?My family is from Taiwan, and for several years now there has been this interesting flow of content from not only Taiwanese producers, but also Taiwanese American producers and mainland Chinese producers that reaches immigrants like my parents in this country. Often a lot of that information is twisted or is just flat-out wrong.Misinformation, especially in Spanish, was a big problem in 2020. Jennifer Medina wrote a great couple of stories for us on this during that election. I was talking to researchers and many of them were pointing out that the problem had not only not gone away, it had gotten worse. We were entering the midterm season with more fact checkers working in different languages, but also with more misinformation on more topics in more languages on more platforms.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.Questioning 2020: Hundreds of Republicans on the ballot this November have cast doubt on the 2020 election, a Times analysis found. Many of these candidates are favored to win their races.Georgia Senate Race: The contest, which could determine whether Democrats keep control of the Senate, has become increasingly focused on the private life and alleged hypocrisy of Herschel Walker, the Republican nominee.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.Do you spend a lot of time on fringe services?For this particular story, because it covered so many different languages that I’m not familiar with, the researchers were a fantastic lifeline. I would reach out to them and say, “This narrative is circulating in English language communities. Are you seeing this in Spanish or Chinese or Vietnamese or Hindi?” They would tell me if they had, and often, they had.Generally in my reporting, I spend a lot of time on various platforms like Gab, Telegram, Truth Social, Rumble and TikTok. This morning, I was commuting on the train, and I spent an hour scrolling through TikTok, looking at videos that were tagged with the midterm hashtag and seeing quite a lot that were not fully factual.Has your work changed the way that you use social media?Absolutely. I had been on Facebook for a while. I was on Instagram for a long time, and I used to look at it just as entertainment. But ever since taking on the media beat and now the misinformation beat, I’m hyperconscious of what’s being served to me. Covering this beat has personally been helpful to me because it’s trained me to stop and think about what it is I’m seeing on these platforms and to not take everything at face value.In your reporting, you already have to cut through what’s true and what’s not. Now you have to do that in languages that you don’t speak. What tools did you use?Every time a researcher, tipster or my editor sends me a post, I try to find it myself either on one of the platforms or through Wayback Machine, which often can find deleted posts. I try to confirm for myself the post does in fact exist in the form that it was sent to me.And a lot of Google Translate. I’m lucky in that I know a lot of people who speak these popular languages, so I run a lot of the content by them. A lot of what ended up in the story had already been independently fact-checked by many excellent fact-checking groups like Factchequeado and Viet Fact Check. The key with all stories is to find the authoritative sources and then try to double check them.What audience are you thinking about?I don’t think about audience per se, because I’m not coming into this with an angle. I’m not trying to convince a disbelieving audience, and I’m not trying to back up what a supportive audience might think. What I’m trying to do is look at the content that’s out there and determine whether or not it’s accurate. If it’s not accurate, I’m trying to prove why and then explain what some of the consequences might be. My job is to lay out the evidence and readers will determine for themselves whether or not that’s convincing to them.As we approach the midterms, what most concerns you?There’s a lot of chatter still on a lot of these platforms and in other mediums about the integrity of elections. That, from everything I’ve heard, is very dangerous. There’s a piece of research that says that new voters are most likely to be Latino. Primarily Spanish-speaking voters are at risk of being exposed to disinformation about voting. There have been changes in voting policies that make the election process confusing, even to a native English speaker. To have this doubt swirling in the environment heading into a really consequential election is problematic, especially when so many diasporic communities are going to become or are becoming very powerful voting centers.The midterms are important, which is why a lot of our coverage right now is focused on political misinformation. But misinformation is everywhere. It touches every single topic you can think of: Parenting groups, education, crime. I really do think it’s important to have a lot of reporting firepower behind it. More

    • 113 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      The Rise of Salem Media, a Conservative Radio Juggernaut

      by

      In recent months, the conservative personalities Eric Metaxas, Sebastian Gorka and Charlie Kirk have used their nationally syndicated radio shows to discuss baseless claims of rigged voting machines, accuse election officials of corruption and espouse ballot fraud conspiracy theories.Now, the three men are joining a live speaking tour that will take them across Arizona, Georgia, Pennsylvania and other battleground states to promote those views — and Republican candidates — ahead of the Nov. 8 midterm elections.The radio hosts and their tour are united by a common backer: Salem Media Group, a publicly traded media company in Irving, Texas. Mr. Metaxas, Mr. Gorka and Mr. Kirk have contracts with the company, which is also hosting the Battleground Talkers trip. The tour features more than half a dozen other conservative media personalities as well, including Hugh Hewitt and Dennis Prager, who also have deals with Salem.Created as a Christian radio network nearly 50 years ago by two brothers-in-law, Salem has quietly turned into a conservative media juggernaut as it increasingly takes an activist stance in the midterm elections. The company has publicly said it wants a strong turnout of conservative voters for Nov. 8, and its hosts have amplified the messages of conspiracy theorists, including misinformation about the voting process.“The war for America’s soul is on the line,” Salem said in promotional materials for the tour. It added that the radio hosts were traveling to “influence those who are undecided.”Salem, which has a market capitalization of nearly $45 million, is smaller than audio competitors like Cumulus Media and iHeartMedia, as well as conservative media organizations such as Fox News. But it stands out for its blend of right-leaning politics and Christian content and its vast network of 100 radio stations and more than 3,000 affiliates, many of them reaching deep into parts of America that don’t engage with most mainstream media outlets.Salem also operates dozens of religious and conservative websites, as well as podcasts, television news, book publishing and a social media influencer network. The company, which describes its news content as “the antidote to the mainstream media,” has said it reaches 11 million radio listeners.Salem expanded into film this year by financing “2000 Mules,” a widely debunked but popular movie that claimed voter fraud in the 2020 presidential election.Charity Rachelle for The New York TimesThis year, it expanded into film by financing “2000 Mules,” a widely debunked but popular movie that claimed significant voter fraud in the 2020 presidential election. It was directed by Dinesh D’Souza, a conservative figure who has a deal with Salem, and features interviews with others who have shows on Salem. The company plans to publish a book version of the film this month.The general public may not be familiar with Salem, “but their hosts are big names and they have huge reach, which makes them one of the most powerful forces in conservative media that hardly anyone knows about,” said Craig Aaron, president of Free Press, a nonprofit that fights misinformation and supports media competition.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 less than one month until Election Day, Republicans remain favored to take over the House, but momentum in the pitched battle for the Senate has seesawed back and forth.A Surprising Battleground: New York has emerged from a haywire redistricting cycle as perhaps the most consequential congressional battleground in the country. For Democrats, the uncertainty is particularly jarring.Arizona’s Governor’s Race: Democrats are openly expressing their alarm that Katie Hobbs, the party’s nominee for governor in the state, is fumbling a chance to defeat Kari Lake in one of the most closely watched races.Herschel Walker: The Republican Senate nominee in Georgia reportedly paid for an ex-girlfriend’s abortion, but members of his party have learned to tolerate his behavior.Salem did not respond to requests for interviews. Phil Boyce, the company’s senior vice president of spoken word, said in a news release for the battleground states tour that “there has never been a more important midterm election than this one, and Salem is thrilled to be front and center, leading the charge.”Mr. Metaxas, Mr. Prager, Mr. Kirk, Mr. Hewitt and Mr. D’Souza did not respond to requests for comment. In his response for comment, Mr. Gorka said The New York Times was “FAKENEWS fraud.”Sebastian Gorka, a right-wing personality who has a radio show on Salem Media, had former President Donald J. Trump on his show this year.Scott McIntyre for The New York TimesSalem has faced legal challenges as its hosts have discussed conspiracy theories about voter fraud. Eric Coomer, a former executive of Dominion Voting Systems, a maker of election technology, has filed lawsuits against Salem, Mr. Metaxas and several media outlets since 2020 for defamation after being accused on air of perpetuating voter fraud and joining the left-wing antifa movement. Nicole Hemmer, a political historian at Vanderbilt University and author of “Messengers of Right: Conservative Media and the Transformation of American Politics,” said Salem’s effect was far-reaching.“They are using their many different properties for coordinated messaging to promote misinformation, which is undermining democracy,” she said.Salem was started in 1974 with two tiny radio stations in North Carolina owned by two brothers-in-law, Edward G. Atsinger III and Stuart W. Epperson. Over time, they steadily added more stations across the country and sold blocks of airtime for sermons. Salem is now in most major radio markets..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.The company went public in 1999 as the internet was rising. In its public offering prospectus, Salem said it would focus on acquiring digital platforms and cross-promoting content across its channels to attract new audiences.In 2006, Salem bought the conservative political website Townhall.com; other deals for conservative sites followed, including HotAir, Twitchy and PJ Media. It purchased a publishing company, Eagle Publishing, in 2014 in a deal that included RedState, a conservative blog, and Regnery, a publisher with conservative authors like Ann Coulter and Laura Ingraham. Regnery said last year that it was “proud to stand in the breach” with Senator Josh Hawley, Republican of Missouri, when it agreed to print his book after Simon & Schuster dropped the title in the wake of the Jan. 6 Capitol riot.This summer, Salem said it had added a podcast hosted by two “culture warriors,” Rob McCoy and Bryce Eddy of the talk show “Liberty Station.” In January, the company awarded its Culture Warrior of the Year award to Ron DeSantis, the Republican governor of Florida, who has made a point of goading liberals.More recently, Salem has promoted to advertisers its “360-degree deals,” meaning that it can amplify messages across radio, podcasts, books, film and websites.Salem has said it is “thrilled to be front and center, leading the charge” in next month’s midterm elections.Rebecca Noble for The New York TimesPolitics were not new to Salem’s founders. Mr. Epperson unsuccessfully ran for Congress in 1984 and 1986 as a Republican. Mr. Atsinger contributed to Republican candidates like George W. Bush and Larry Elder, a Salem radio host who mounted a failed campaign in the California governor’s recall election last year. In Washington, Salem fought to remove regulatory hurdles that complicated its acquisition spree.At the beginning of the year, Mr. Atsinger stepped down as Salem’s chief executive and became chairman, succeeding Mr. Epperson, who took on the title of chairman emeritus.Salem’s executives largely stayed out of editorial decisions — until the Trump administration, said Ben Howe, a former employee of RedState; Craig Silverman, a former Salem radio commentator in Denver; and a third former employee, who declined to be identified for fear of retaliation.In July 2017, Salem held an event at the White House, and several radio hosts interviewed top Trump administration officials. At a Salem reception at the Capitol the next day, the Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell, and the House Republican leader, Kevin McCarthy, gave speeches.“There was a lot of closeness,” said Mr. Silverman, who attended the events. “McConnell and McCarthy praised Salem, and vice versa. It felt like some sort of team effort.”In April 2018, Salem’s RedState blog fired several employees who had been vocal critics of Mr. Trump. The site’s unofficial slogan had long been “Take on the left. Clean up the right,” said Mr. Howe, a writer for the site who was one of those fired. “But one to two years into office, everything changed. It was like it was no longer good for business to be critical of Trump.”Mr. Silverman said his radio show was cut off in November 2019 as he excoriated Mr. Trump over accusations that the president had pressured Ukraine to investigate Joseph R. Biden Jr., then a Democratic presidential candidate, by withholding aid to the country. Mr. Silverman said he was then fired.“The political environment has never been as interesting and as heated and intense as it is right now,” David Santrella, Salem’s chief executive, said on a recent earnings call.Business Wire, via Associated PressSalem said in press reports at the time that such dismissals were not politically motivated, explaining that it had fired the RedState employees because of financial considerations and Mr. Silverman because he had appeared on non-Salem shows. Mr. Silverman said those appearances were allowed under his contract.As Mr. Trump’s term wound down, Salem ran into financial pressure. In 2019, the company said four board members, including two of the co-founders’ sons, had resigned because “Salem has faced several unique financial headwinds and we are looking for ways to cut costs while not impacting revenue.” Both sons have since returned to the board.In May 2020, the company moved to eliminate new hiring, suspend its dividend, reduce head count, cut pay and request discounts from vendors, blaming the pandemic for forcing it to conserve cash. It reported $11.2 million in forgiven loans from the government’s Paycheck Protection Program.But Salem’s finances have improved since then. Its net income rose to $41.5 million in 2021 from a loss in 2020, while revenue increased to $258.2 million from $236.2 million a year earlier.Salem’s political platforms are a bright spot. On an earnings call in August, Salem executives said that so far this year, political advertisers had spent nearly twice as much on Salem platforms as they did over the same period in the presidential election year of 2020, which had been the “biggest political year ever.” David Santrella, the chief executive, has predicted that “hot button” issues like abortion would probably boost ad revenue.“The political environment has never been as interesting and as heated and intense as it is right now,” he said.Kitty Bennett More