Open letter signed by more than 400 Washington Post employees demands fair pay, benefits and job security

An open letter sent by more than 400 Washington Post employees to CEO Jeff Bezos petitioned for fair pay, benefits, and job security. It also criticized present practices calling them shocking.

	1 of 2
The employees also uploaded a video on You Tube setting forth their position. It is appended to this article.

The Washington Post

The Washington Post was founded on December 6, 1877. It is the largest newspaper published in the United States capital Washington DC. It emphasizes coverage of national politics. Its slogan is "Democracy Dies in Darkness" which appears on its masthead. There are daily broadsheet editions that are printed for the District of Columbia and Maryland.

The paper has won 47 Pulitzer prizes

Jeff Bezos buys the Washington Post

In August of 2013 Jeff Bezos, founder and CEO of Amazon, bought the Washington Post for $250 million.

At the time, the current publisher and CEO Katherine Weymouth said:"With Mr. Bezos as our owner, we enter a new era and embrace an exciting future. I look forward to it, and I firmly believe you should as well." Weymouth stayed on as publisher until 2014 when Frederic Ryan Jr. took over where he remains now.

Trump has been a constant critic of Jeff Bezos and also the Washington Post as reported in a recent Digital Journal article. Trump has called the Post the chief lobbyist for Amazon.

The letter notes that the unionized staff under the Washington Post Guild are "extremely grateful" that Jeff Bezos bought the Post when he did but the employees want better pay, benefits, as well as job security.

The petition claims: "All we are asking for is fairness for each and every employee who contributed to this company's success,Fair wages, fair benefits for retirement, family leave and health care; and a fair amount of job security." The employees claim that negotiations with the Guild's bargaining committee have been ongoing for more than a year.

Some benefits have been gained. This includes a right to ask for pay review based on the possibility of gender or minority-based pay discrimination. However, employees complain that top management has not been willing to meet them half-way on many issues they they consider important.

One issue is the rate of pay. Management is offering a pay raise of ten dollars a week but employees complain that this is below the present inflation rate. The employees also mentioned that there was a refusal to increase retirement benefits. The management is also demanding that laid-off employees waive their legal right to receive severance payments. The Washington Post has refused to comment on the letter so far. The petition can be found here.

Previously published in Digital Journal

Facebook will allow users to flag articles as fake news

Facebook is making good on its promise to try to eradicate "fake news". One of the techniques Facebook will use for doing so is a tool that will allow users to flag anything that they consider to be fake news.

The 1.8 billion users of Facebook will be able to click the upper right-hand corner in any post to flag the content as fake news. There is one huge problem right off the bat according to an article in Zero Hedge. Not all posts can be flagged, only those not from "legitimate news sources". Which outlets are legitimate news sources and why? Even if a new source has an excellent reputation it can still carry fake news especially if the news is produced by the government as in the coverage of the issue of Hussein's having WMD. Zero Hedge asks of the list of legitimate news outlets: ".. does it include the likes of NYTs and the WaPos, which during the runup to the election declared on a daily basis, that Trump has no chance of winning, which have since posted defamatory stories about so-called "Russian propaganda news sites", admitting subsequently that their source data was incorrect, and which many consider to be the source of "fake news". " Who exactly would make the determination of which sites are legitimate news sites? The elimination of legitimate news sites from flagging blocks users from identifying any fake news reports on these sites. Yet these are the very sites that people have become more skeptical about.

The many remaining sites will be subject to a type of "crowd sourced" censorship in which as a result of flagging by members of the crowd of Facebook users a post can then be reviewed by Facebook researchers and then relayed to a fact-checking organization for further verification or it could be marked as false. Zero Hedge wonders what this process could evolve into in practice: ".. how much good will checking will take place considering that these "researchers" will be bombarded with tens of thousands of flagged articles daily, until it ultimately become a rote move to simply delete anything flagged as false by enough disgruntled readers, before moving on to the next article, while in the process not touching the narrative spun by the liberal "legitimate news outlets", the ones who would jump at the opportunity to have dinner with Podesta in hopes of becoming Hillary Clinton's public relations arm. " As I understand it, flagged articles are not deleted.

Adam Mosseri, Facebook vice-president of News Feed said in a blog post: "We believe in giving people a voice and that we cannot become arbiters of truth ourselves, so we're approaching this problem carefully." Yet in selecting "legitimate news sources" as not subject to crowd-sourced flagging, Facebook has been already an arbiter of truth.

If a story is determined by fact-checkers to be fake the item will still appear and can even be shared however there will be a warning and you can connect through a link to know why. The stories cannot be promoted or turned into advertisements and will no doubt appear lower in News Feed.

The fake news issue trended just days after the election. At the time, Facebook head Zuckerberg said that it was "pretty crazy" to think that fake news could have influenced the election. He said that Facebook "must be extremely cautious about becoming arbiters of truth". However as pointed out earlier by eliminating the legitimate news services from flagging, Facebook is already an arbiter of truth. The Facebook team claims it does not want "censorship" but it is carrying out something similar in a crowd-sourced vetting process supplemented by fact-checking. While posts are not deleted they are clearly downgraded.

The fact-checkers are working under the banner of the Poynter International Fact-Checking Network, a group that also owns the Tampa Bay Times. However, the Tampa Bay Times in no doubt a legitimate news outlet so they need not worry about being fact-checked. Those working as fact-checkers will follow the Poynter principles. Facebook's plans can be found here.

After finishing this article. I checked some of the articles about the new techniques being used by Facebook. I found no reference to legitimate news sources being an exception to the flagging. I then read the Zero Hedge article and it actually gives a link to NBC news as mentioning that legitimate news sources would not be flagged. However, I could find no place in the article that claimed this. Perhaps, this is partially fake news. Lets see! If all posts are included, the system could be a great job creator for fact-checkers.

.

Filters used to detect fake news could be used to censor news

There is more and more concern about "fake news" as being responsible for events such as the election of Donald Trump, and Brexit. The Russians have been accused of using fake news to influence the US election.

An article in the Guardian by Jonathan Albright has an interesting analysis of the topic of "fake news". What he finds most interesting about the topic is not what many other stress, factual errors, misinformation, propaganda, or its relation to the election of Donald Trump. Albright claims:

What’s scary about fake news is how it is becoming a catch-all phrase for anything people happen to disagree with. In this regard, fake news is sort of the stepbrother of “post-fact” and “post-truth”  –  though not directly related, they’re all part of the same dysfunctional family.

Albirght notes that Facebook and Twitter have been accused of being responsible for the presidential election results in the US and events such as Pizzagate, described in a recent Digital Journal article. This implausible sex scandal conspiracy narrative resulted in many threats against a pizza shop owner. It led Hillary Clinton to declare that fake news is a danger that must be addressed.

Albright points out that fake news has been a fact of life since humans used language to communicate. What has changed Albright claims is the rise of the Internet. This has taken fake news to another level altogether. Yet it is not clear exactly what is fake news. When Google Maps does not give us the fastest route to our destination is that fake news? Is a deceptive review of a product the leads us to buy an inferior product "fake news"? The problem with ensuring that we are protected against fake news is this according to Albright: "As global technology companies move forward with solutions to protect us  –  and their advertising revenue – from the scourge that is fake news, they must ensure that the smaller, less visible, alternative news outlets are not caught in their operational cleansing." The filtering responses attempting to weed out fake news "could signal the end of legitimate news outlets that make an effort to draw attention to issues they feel are underrepresented or intentionally suppressed by the mainstream media."

A recent article in the Washington Post makes reference to a website that talks about websites that spread Russian propaganda during the election campaign. The article makes reference to a website PropOrNot that lists 200 websites that spread Russian propaganda. The article has been subjected to scathing criticism including an article in the Daily Beast, the Intercept and Digital Journal. The websites include virtually any site that produces content critical of Western governments and their policies. Ironically, one of the prime producers of fake news are governments themselves as discussed in a recent Digital Journal article.

Albright points out problems in filtering out what are regarded as pornographic images by Facebook. Facebook removed a Pulizer prizewinning Vietnam war photograph of a running, naked child. It was eventually restored. Albright remarks: "If a combination of human and machine detection has difficulty differentiating between child pornography and Vietnam war images, wait until we start pre-filtering (ie, preferentially censoring) news based on issue-based framing and community self-reporting."

Albright does not know if there is a practical solution to the problem of fake news but as articles such as that in the Washington Post indicate, there may be attempts to label any news out that is anti-government or is trying to influence people against the government as "fake news". Powerful corporations will also use similar tactics to suppress criticism. Albright concludes:The filters in the future won’t be programmed to ban pornographic content, or prevent user harassment and abuse. The next era of the infowars is likely to result in the most pervasive filter yet: it’s likely to normalise the weeding out of viewpoints that are in conflict with established interests.No doubt governments and other powerful interests such as large corporations have always attempted to control the flow of information so as to ensure that mainly positive information reaches the public about them, their policies and operations. The problem of filtering out fake news is simply another opportunity for control of information by pre-filtering it so that the public does not itself get to decide what is fake news and what is not. Big Brother will already have done this for the public.

Washington Post list dozens of sites peddling Russian propaganda

A recent article by Craig Timberg in the Washington Post lists dozens of news sites that supposedly are "routine peddlers of Russian propaganda".

 

The entire article can be found here. There is a long, detailed analysis of the article in the Intercept.

The article cites a report by a website called PropOrNot which claims that millions of Americans were deceived by a massive Russian "misinformation campaign". As one would expect, on the list are sites such as RT but included are also Wikileaks, the Drudge Report (Drudge being a conservative), a number of left-wing sites such as Truthout, Black Agenda Report and Naked Capitalism, all often critical of Clinton. It includes Libertarian sites such as the Ron Paul Institute and antiwar.com. It also includes Infowars, and Prison Planet. The entire list can be found on Prop or Not's website.

The Washington Post is one of the prime U.S. dailies. It is published in Washington DC. The paper has won 47 Pulitzer prizes and Post journalists have received 18 Nieman Fellowships. It is the paper that revealed the Nixon Watergate scandal. Yet in the recent election it was hostile to Bernie Sanders: "On March 8th, 2016, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting published links to 16 purportedly negative articles on Bernie Sanders published in the on-line version of the paper during a period of 16 hours from March 6th to March 7th." The paper also called for the prosecution of Edward Snowden who helped them win a Pulitzer prize.

The Post published this article that is filled with reckless accusations and unproven allegations. The executive editor, Marty Baron, helped promote the article with posts on twitter:Marty Baron ✔ @PostBaron Russian propaganda effort helped spread fake news during election, say independent researchers. 8:07 PM — 24 Nov 2016 Photo published for Russian propaganda effort helped spread ‘fake news’ during election, experts say Russian propaganda effort helped spread ‘fake news’ during election, experts say. Researchers say sophisticated tools were used to boost Trump and undermine Clinton. washingtonpost.com 3,240 3,240 Retweets 2,506 2,506 likes

The experts behind ProOrNot are described as "a nonpartisan collection of researchers with foreign policy, military and technology backgrounds". Not a single contributing individual or organization is named. There is a quote from the executive director but he is not named in order "to avoid being targeted by Russia's legions of skilled hackers". These experts with technology background are simply defenseless against Russian hackers. When the Intercept tried to find out from PropOrNot details about its team it replied: “We’re getting a lot of requests for comment and can get back to you today =) [smiley face emoticon].We’re over 30 people, organized into teams, and we cannot confirm or deny anyone’s involvement.”

PropOrNot listed numerous organizations as being allied with it. When the Intercept checked with some of them they claimed to have nothing to do with the group and had not even heard of it. After many of the groups complained on social media the Intercept asked about the inconsistency. At least the reply was clear. They admitted they had no institutional affiliation with any organization. The relationship list was changed to "related projects".

The Intercept quotes a number of tweets by PropOrNot that give a sample of what the groups views are like. Here is one: PropOrNot ID Service @propornot Fascists. Straight up muthaf*****n' [asterisks inserted] fascists. That's what we're up against. Unwittingly or not, they work for Russia." Another tweet says that they will consider revealing their names when Russia reveals the names of those running its propaganda operations in the West. The group even has a new Chrome plug in which will alert you when you visit a website that is on their list.

PropOrNot claims that stories planted or promoted by the Russian disinformation campaign have been viewed more than 213 million times. No account was given of how this number was determined. The group recommends relying on publications such as the New York Times, Washington Post, the BBC and Wall Street Journal among other establishment publications. The group does not give its criteria for including a site on its list. It includes not just sites such as RT which do promote Russian propaganda but also "useful idiots" which include any publication that publishes anything that might help the Russian government. Of course that includes any material critical of Western governments and their policies. They deny being McCarthyite, yet they want U.S. media outlets investigated by the FBI for espionage on behalf of Russia, the Intercept notes.

When the Intercept asked Craig Timberg the author of the article on PropOrNot, where it got its funding, whether it was linked to any government and whether it was fair to label left-wing news sites such as Truthout, "Russian propaganda outlets," he replied: “I’m sorry, I can’t comment about stories I’ve written for the Post.”

The Intercept points out in the past the Post itself has promoted "fake news". In September it published an article that took seriously a claim that Hillary Clinton collapsed on 9/11 because she was poisoned by Putin. The Post also printed numerous articles about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction and alliances with Al-Qaeda. At least we can be thankful the Post has exposed itself as a creator of "fake news".

Iran elections: Middle class westernized Iranians may not vote

Most U.S. media is focused on the upcoming U.S. elections. However there are elections upcoming in Iran for the parliament. The Washington Post has an article on those elections.

The article has a particular focus. When it comes to Iranian election the U.S. is concerned about the more liberal westernized groups who had their moment in the press spotlight when they protested after the last elections. Unfortunately the article tells us nothing about what is happening within the ruling groups. Ahmadinejad is unpopular not just with liberals but also with many of the conservative clerics who disdain his lack of religious credentials.

Some analysts claim that the middle class opponents of Ahmadinejad will likely not demonstrate but they will probably not vote either. Candidates for office are vetted by authorities and many would be liberal candidates would probably be disqualified.

The article claims that the March 2 elections will show a disconnect between the leaders and the electorate--at least the electorate the west seems concerned about! The regime is hoping for a large turnout seeing this as a vindication of 33 years of Islamic rule.

The groups the Washington Post writes about are often university educated and into Facebook, and satellite television, all illegal in Iran. These citizens live in a separate reality in which state ideology and elections as well are irrelevant.

A watch seller noted:"In my world, the currency has lost its value, our oil is under sanctions, we are weak, and I feel humiliated," But in their world, the country is strong, the economy is booming, and our future is glorious. We are on different planets." He said that voting will not change the basic realities in Iran.

State television continually gives positive news. For example Iran is supposed to have the fastest rate of growth because of its Iranian Islamic model of development. In truth people are being hurt by sanctions. According to state news national self-confidence is high. In reality many Iranians fear they will be attacked by Israel or the U.S.

Contrary to the official view many Iranians are depressed and worried about the future. According to the article a Health Ministry official facetiously advocated that antidepressants might be added to the water supply.

Of course as in other countries there are alternatives to antidepressants. A Tehran secretary said she preferred watching soap operas on satellite TV to political activism:"They bring me to a different world," "I'm happy there." For more see the full article.