Administrivia

PGP Public key

For Sean at SeanMGallagher Dot Com:

—–BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK—–
Version: Mailvelope v1.8.0
Comment: https://www.mailvelope.com
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=9t8s
—–END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK—–

Standard
Flames, infosec shenanigans, Policy, work

On journalism, “fake news,” and the business of news media

I tweeted most of this last night. But as several people have requested, I’m re-posting this here for the purposes of readability, illumination, and annotation.

Journalism is (supposed to be) a search for the truth. It’s not (supposed to be) easy. Like science, sometimes the results are imperfect. Only through peer review, conversation, revisions and (occasionally) corrections does journalism more closely approach the truth.

This is why the drive to make news generation more efficient is so horrible for actual journalism. We’ve already repeatedly seen the problems created by what people call “the news cycle,” particularly on 24-hour cable news networks, but the problem has become more widespread as news media goes “digital.”

The problem with television journalism (especially cable) is that it is transactional, disposable and low fidelity, making quality even harder.  TV journalists are largely generalists thrown at stories with perceived mass appeal, and are expected to quick-read themselves into instant experts on topics they have little if any background in.  (For more on this, see the story I wrote on Sharyl Atkisson in November 2014). It is not a crucible for truth.

If nobody does a sanity/fact check on a story or forces the reporter to defend each sentence, and the focus is on volume, the results will inevitably be lower quality. Narratives will get forced. Facts will be bruised and bent. It’s even worse when there’s a war against truth being waged, and the sources of truth are being destroyed or obscured by bullshit. When you are time-limited and don’t have a review process on story selection and production, bad things can and will happen.

So that’s why it’s especially disheartening to see the New York Times cutting copy editors, and others trading quality for quantity & efficiency. The “digital” process adds more roles for reporters and “preditors” (producer/editors), and by focusing on producing more digital content at the expense of quality control and editorial dialogue, media companies are creating more opportunities for error–and more opportunities for the enemies of truth to exploit those errors to discredit journalism writ large.

The truth can hardly ever be found with efficiency at scale. I’m lucky because Ars is sort of artisanal about journalism. Even so, I know and acknowledge that I make mistakes, especially when thrown headlong into a breaking story. But I make a lot less of those mistakes when I have another editor checking my stuff.

Given how people are actively working to derail journalism and destroy truth, we need to acknowledge how hard a job this is. And we really need to take a step back and look at what “efficiency” and speed in news production actually costs us.

Unfortunately, we’re being driven by a business model that is anathema to deliberateness and reflection. But we need to realize that the more automated, efficient and digitally optimized “news” becomes, the more vulnerable it becomes to manipulation and attack. Journalism needs to take a deep look at its threat model, and harden itself against the forces aligned to bring it down.

 

Standard
Administrivia

DOD successfully tests terrifying swarm of 104 micro-drones | Ars Technica

The Department of Defense has released video of a test of swarming drones conducted in the skies over the US Navy’s test range at Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake in California. In the October test, conducted by the Department of Defense Strategic Capabilities Office in collaboration with the Naval Air Systems Command, three FA-18 Hornet aircraft dispersed 104 Perdix micro-drones from onboard flare dispensers. The drones then communicated with each other, swarmed, and performed a series of designated “missions”—including finally swarming in a circle around a designated point on the ground.

The sound of the drone swarm, audible from the ground at the designated rendezvous point (at about 2 minutes into the video below), might be described as terrifying. But we’ll leave that judgment to the reader.

In the course of the test, the drones demonstrated advanced swarm behaviors, including self-healing communications, self-adapting formation flying, and collective decision-making.Watch the skies…The battery-powered Perdix drones were developed at MIT’s Lincoln Labs and can be largely produced with a 3-D printer.

“Due to the complex nature of combat, Perdix are not pre-programmed synchronized individuals, they are a collective organism, sharing one distributed brain for decision-making and adapting to each other like swarms in nature,” Strategic Capabilities Office Director William Roper explained in a statement about the test. “Because every Perdix communicates and collaborates with every other Perdix, the swarm has no leader and can gracefully adapt to drones entering or exiting the team.”

Source: DOD successfully tests terrifying swarm of 104 micro-drones | Ars Technica

Standard