All posts by nedhamson

Activist, writer, researcher, addicted to sharing information and facts.

Sessions’s Use of Bible Passage to Defend Immigration Policy Draws Fire

The attorney general’s invocation of a passage once used to defend slavery and oppose the American Revolution has prompted criticism from historians and theologians.

East Jerusalem Palestinians are ready to take back their city

After 51 years of boycotting the municipal elections, the Palestinians of East Jerusalem are tired of waiting and want a new way forward. Now activists are re-thinking the best strategy to reassert their power.

By Meron Rapoport

A Palestinian woman sits on rubble of a structure after it was razed by the Israeli army and Civil Administration in the East Jerusalem neighborhood of Beit Hanina, on the outskirts of the West Bank, November 24, 2011. (Issam Rimawi/FLASH90)

A Palestinian woman sits on rubble of a structure after it was razed by the Israeli army and Civil Administration in the East Jerusalem neighborhood of Beit Hanina, November 24, 2011. (Issam Rimawi/FLASH90)

One need not be an expert on Jerusalem to recognize that only few Palestinians will participate in the upcoming municipal elections, to be held in October. Perhaps no more than a few thousands. A low voter turnout among the close to 400,000 Palestinians who live in the neighborhoods, towns, and villages that were annexed by Israel following the occupation of 1967. And yet, the sense is that something has changed. After 50 years of a near-total election boycott by Palestinians, some are now calling for a new strategy.

[tmwinpost]

The most open challenge to that status quo has been posed by Gershon Baskin, a veteran left-wing Israeli activist, and Aziz Abu Sarah, a Palestinian activist and +972 writer, who announced their decision to form a new Jewish-Arab list for the upcoming elections. “Palestinians in Jerusalem have no father,” said Baskin in a recent interview. “The Palestinian Authority cannot function, in East Jerusalem people understand that the strategy of non-participation in the elections has not done them much good.” Baskin and Abu Sarah are in talks with other groups of young Palestinians in the city. Meanwhile, Ramadan Dabash, a social activist from the Sur Baher neighborhood, also announced his decision to run.

The harsh responses were almost immediate. Muhammad Hussein, the mufti of Al-Aqsa Mosque, said that participating in the elections is akin to removing oneself from “the religion, the nation, and the homeland.” Walid Salem, who runs the Palestinian Center for Democracy and Community Development, wrote a scathing article against voting, calling the idea of participating in the elections “rotten.”

Even Ziyad Abu Ziyad, the former PA Minister for Jerusalem Affairs, and one of the figures most closely associated with East Jerusalem’s political leadership, expressed reservations about the idea in an article he published in the Palestinian daily, Al Quds. Abu Ziyad wrote that this is not the first time that such an idea has come up, but that this time the phenomenon is more widespread — due both to the hardship in East Jerusalem as well as the feeling that the Palestinian Authority does not care about what happens in the city.

One can understand these feelings, Abu Ziyad wrote, but Jerusalem does not only belong to its residents — but to every Palestinian as well as the Arab world. Thus, participating in the elections means recognizing the Israeli occupation and annexation of the city. Even if Baskin and Abu Sarah’s list is elected to the city council, he adds, they will have zero influence, and will be used as a fig leaf by Israel to prove that the city is united.

During a meeting in his East Jerusalem office, Abu Ziyad emphasized that this is an “argument among friends.” There is no doubt that the Palestinian reality is grim, he says, but the problem is political — it’s not just a problem of water and services. “If we agree to participate in the elections, it means we recognize the legal authority of Israel in East Jerusalem, and the occupation. Yes, we suffer from the municipality’s treatment, from the lack of representation, from discrimination. We are resigned to suffer because of the political situation.”

An Israeli bulldozer demolishes homes in the East Jerusalem neighborhood of Issawiya, August 15, 2017.

An Israeli bulldozer demolishes homes in the East Jerusalem neighborhood of Issawiya, August 15, 2017.

What is the solution to Palestinian suffering in Jerusalem? How can they influence their own lives?

Meron Benvenisti (former deputy mayor of Jerusalem — m.r.) previously proposed the idea of dividing Jerusalem into quarters and giving each one its own municipality. We’ll divide Jerusalem into three or more parts, and the Palestinians will elect their own city council. East Jerusalem will manage its own affairs. This can be done without changing the political situation. But right now, there is no chance for proper Palestinian representation.

Much has been written on the “Israelization” of Palestinians in Jerusalem. More young people are getting their Israeli matriculation certificates.

There is a change taking place, but it is not so significant. I hear that more Palestinians are studying in public high schools and are taking Israeli matriculation exams, but the Palestinian universities do not accept this certificate, which means they are in a bind. There is also the strengthening of relations between Arabs from East Jerusalem and Arabs in Israel, including weddings. These relations can be part of the general process of moving toward one state.

Palestinians in East Jerusalem protest President Donald Trump's announcement about recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, Damascus Gate, Jerusalem, December 7, 2017. (Hadas Parush/Flash90)

Palestinians in East Jerusalem protest President Donald Trump’s announcement about recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, Damascus Gate, Jerusalem, December 7, 2017. (Hadas Parush/Flash90)

This is Abu Ziyad’s central point: moving toward one state, he believes, can also solve the problem of the Palestinians in East Jerusalem. “If there were a Palestinian decision to abandon the two-state idea and call for annexing the West Bank and for one state, then participating in the Jerusalem elections would be logical,” he says. “I personally believe that there is no chance for two states, and there is no option but to move toward one state. Yes, the interim situation will be apartheid. But this is the legal situation today anyway. But as long as this political decision has not been made, participating in the elections will be a political mistake. Israel is trying to do everything it can to turn Jerusalem into a Jewish city — not even an Israeli city.

Dr. Omar Yousef, who teaches urban studies at Al Quds University, agrees with Abu Ziyad when it comes to boycotting the elections, but he places a greater emphasis on the changes taking place in the city, especially among young people. “The historical approach of boycotting the elections has not changed,” says Yousef. “But on a personal level, people are far more easygoing about the idea of applying for an Israeli passport. They even view it as a way of resistance. I heard people in taxis saying, ‘I received an Israeli passport, and my cousin applied for one as well.’”

Yousef describes an exercise he gave to one of his classes. “I asked the students if they were willing to take an Israeli passport. We were surprised by the responses. A few students associated with Fatah said that anyone who takes an Israeli passport is a heretic. Those associated with Islamist groups said that there is no difference between their current blue IDs and Israeli citizenship. ‘If I receive Israeli citizenship, I will be able to live where I want. In the West Bank, abroad, or Jerusalem, and nobody will be able to take away my residency,’ one of the students told me.”

National-religious Israeli settlers walk past a police checkpoint in the East Jerusalem neighborhood of Sheikh Jarrah. (File photo by Oren Ziv/Activestills.org)

Israeli settlers walk past a police checkpoint in the East Jerusalem neighborhood of Sheikh Jarrah. (File photo by Oren Ziv/Activestills.org)

Yousef agrees with Abu Ziyad’s analysis that participation in the elections hinges on a political decision to go toward one state, “otherwise we will only serve as decoration in the city council and give legitimacy to Israeli rule.” The growing bonds with Palestinians in Israel, argues Yousef, actually decrease the desire to participate in the elections. “People say: look at the Palestinians in Israel, they participate in the elections and get nothing. So why should we participate?”

Yousef is aware of the dead end that Palestinians in Jerusalem find themselves in. “We are in a corner,” he says, “even if they demolish our school, we won’t go to the municipality, since this would mean recognizing the occupation.” His solution is that Palestinians in Jerusalem “begin taking back the city for themselves.” His proposal is not far from that of Abu Ziyad’s, just without Israeli agreement. “Let us, the Palestinians, elect a “Shadow Council” for East Jerusalem, without Israeli permission,” he says. “This is how we’ll build ourselves a structure, we’ll build good mechanisms. Maybe we’ll take care of the neighborhoods and education ourselves. This will also empower the Palestinians in Jerusalem, particularly the youth. Maybe we will be able to negotiate with Israeli institutions from a position of power. At the moment, East Jerusalemites feel like orphans.”

Attorney Elias Khoury is Palestinian citizen of Israel who has lived in Jerusalem for many years, and is heavily involved in politics within the Palestinian Authority and in East Jerusalem. He agrees that the Palestinians first need to retake control over their lives in the city. “This city belongs to whoever controls it, whoever works within it, whoever builds in it,” he says. Now, Khoury claims, the situation of Palestinians in the city is bleak. “When I look at the trash cans in the streets, it teaches about a lack of belonging,” he says sadly.

SUBSCRIBE TO +972 MAGAZINE’S WEEKLY NEWSLETTER

SUBMIT

Khoury, like Abu Ziyad, opposes participating in the municipal elections because “we will just lose from it,” but agrees about the need to change strategy. “Our struggle is over how we can preserve and foster our existence,” he says. “The lack of a strategic plan, the lack of an alternative, this is the reason we are dancing in the dark.”

The Palestinians, Khoury says, must put their own policy proposal on the table. “For 50 years we have been reacting,” he says. This kind of policy proposal could be a general Palestinian decision that the Palestinians in East Jerusalem should demand Israeli citizenship. Then it would make sense to participate in the elections. But even then, he doesn’t think a joint Jewish-Arab list is a good idea. He prefers a Palestinian list that could later cooperate with Jewish forces. “Someone with wide public support would have to run, someone who knows how to bring people to the polls.”

Shuafat refugee camp, overlooking the settlement of Pisgat Ze'ev. (photo: Keren Manor/Activestills)

Shuafat refugee camp, overlooking the settlement of Pisgat Ze’ev. (photo: Keren Manor/Activestills)

Khoury proposes challenging Israeli control over the city in other ways. “We should establish a fund that will pay Palestinians who want to buy apartments in Neve Yaakov, Pisgat Ze’ev, French Hill, and all the neighborhoods built on occupied territory,” he says, referring to East Jerusalem neighborhoods built over the Green Line. “This would probably cause terrible tension, but it would challenge the right.” In short, the worst thing to do is to sit and wait.

In the meantime, it seems that the pressure has done its work. Baskin and Abu Sarah said they were taking a “break” to think until they know where things seem to be going. There are rumors that they might join a different group of young Palestinians, which would mean the list would stop being Jewish-Arab. It is also possible that they might not run in the end. But one thing is certain: after 51 years without representation, the Palestinians of East Jerusalem are tired of waiting and want a new way forward.

Meron Rapoport is an Israeli journalist and an editor for Local Call, where this article was first published in Hebrew. Read it here.

The night the Palestinian Authority showed us whose side it is on | +972 Magazine

The Palestinian Authority is not a subcontractor of the occupation. The Palestinian Authority is a full partner in implementing every Israeli tactic in oppressing the Palestinian people. Suddenly, the beatings against the women who chanted in support of Gaza seemed logical. On Wednesday night, the PA announced openly and practically: just like Israel, we are against Gaza.

Source: The night the Palestinian Authority showed us whose side it is on | +972 Magazine

STUDY: Local Mississippi Prosecutors Struck Black Jurors at More than Four Times the Rate of Whites

A new study shows that the Mississippi District Attorney’s office that has prosecuted Curtis Flowers for capital murder six times—striking almost all black jurors in each trial—has disproportionately excluded African Americans from jury service for more than a quarter century. Reviewing the exercise of discretionary jury strikes in 225 trials between 1992 and 2017, American Public Media Reports discovered that during the tenure of Mississippi’s Fifth Circuit Court District Attorney Doug Evans (pictured) prosecutors have exercised peremptory strikes to exclude African Americans from jury service at nearly 4½ times the rate at which they struck white jurors. APM Reports collected and analyzed data on more than 6,700 jurors called for jury service in the the Fifth District. Its study—which was reviewed before its release by a statistics expert and two law professors who had conducted prior jury-strike studies—found that Fifth District prosecutors struck 50 percent of all eligible black jurors compared to only 11 percent of eligible whites. Looking at potentially race-neutral factors raised during juror questioning, APM Reports found that prosecutors were still far more likley to strike black jurors than similarly situated white jurors (click here to enlarge graph). Controlling for these factors, the study found that the odds prosecutors would strike a black juror were six times greater than the odds that they would strike a white juror. APM Reports prepared the study in connection with its acclaimed podcast series In the Dark, which this season focuses on the Flowers case. Evans’ office has been scrutinized for alleged race-related abuses of powers during the course of Flowers’ six trials for the murder of four furniture store employees. Flowers has consistently professed his innocence. In his first three trials, Flowers was convicted and sentenced to death by all-white or nearly all-white juries. In each of these cases, the state Supreme Court overturned the convictions and ordered new trials. Just before the second trial, Flowers’ parents’ house burned down. Shortly afterwards, his mother was told of a threat made by a white resident that, “If they let that n—– go, another house is going to burn.” Jurors deadlocked in Flowers’ fourth and fifth trials, split along racial lines. All the white jurors voted for death in both of those trials. Only one black juror served on the sixth jury, and Flowers was sentenced to death in that trial. Although it is unconstitutional to exclude jurors from service based on race, the practice is ubiquitous in many jurisdictions that heavily use the death penalty. Over the course of 332 criminal trials in CaddoParish, Louisiana in the decade from 2003-2012, prosecutors struck black jurors at more than triple the rate of other jurors, approximately the same disproportionate rate at which black jurors were struck in 35 cases resulting in death sentences in South Carolina in the fifteen years between 1997-2012. In 173 capital cases tried over a twenty-year period in North Carolina, and in more than 300 capital trials over more than two decades in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, prosecutors struck black jurors twice as frequently as other jurors. Most recently, in Georgia, Johnny Gates, who was sentenced to death in Columbus, Georgia in 1977, has challenged his conviction with evidence that his prosecutors struck every black juror they could in the seven capital trials they prosecuted between 1976 and 1979, empaneling all-white juries in six of those cases. 

(Will Craft, Mississippi D.A. has long history of striking many blacks from juries, American Media Reports, June 12, 2018; Jerry Mitchell, Report: Mississippi DA struck black jurors at 4½ times greater rate, June 12, 2018; Sarah Larson, Why “In the Dark” May Be the Best Podcast of the Year, The New Yorker, June 1, 2018; In the Dark, Series 2, Episode 8: The D.A.) See Studies, RaceProsecutorial Misconductand Mississippi

  • 91 reads

Trump Seems to Love Dictators, Tyrants, and Autocrats

By Arturo Castañares / Publisher and CEO

The United States has now abandoned its place as the world leader advocating for democracy, economic freedom, and human rights.

In just 18 months in office, President Donald Trump has flipped the script, and has insulted, dismissed, and antagonized our traditionally close allies like Germany, France, and Canada, while at the same time has praised and coddled old adversaries like Russia, China, and now North Korea.

At a recent meeting of the G7, made up of the leading economic powers of the world, including England, Germany, France, Japan, Canada, Italy, and the US, Trump spurned the leaders by unilaterally deciding not to sign on to the summit’s final declaration, the group’s statement of agreements reached during their annual gathering.

Instead, Trump suggested at the G7 meeting that Russia should be included in the summits, after having been kicked out of the group in 2014 for invading Crimea in defiance of UN resolutions.

It didn’t go over well.

The current G7 states are also all members of NATO, the alliance set up after World War II for the specific goal of protecting themselves from who? Russia.

Before last week’s summit, Trump clashed with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau when Trump announced trade tariffs on Canadian steel and aluminum imports, citing national security. Trudeau said Canada would impose retaliatory tariffs and objected to Trump’s claim that Canadian imports pose a threat to the US, but Trump responded by calling Trudeau “weak” and “dishonest”, and one of Trump’s economic advisers, San Diego’s own Peter Navarro, said “there’s a special place in Hell” for Trudeau for opposing Trump.

Trump’s past comments about Angela Merkel, Germany’s Chancellor, as well as England’s Prime Minister Theresa May, always carry a negative slant and aggressive tone, probably because they’re both powerful women that tell Trump what they really think, something he doesn’t seem to like.

And these are our friends.

But, Trump always seems to strike a more favorable tone when dealing with international leaders that have a less friendly past with the US, with some having been out-right enemies not too long ago.

Last year, Trump said that Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte was doing a great job fighting drugs in his country, when Duterte has been accused of ruthlessly killing more than 7,000 drug users through non-judicial actions. When Trump finally met with Duterte at an Asian summit in Manila, Trump bragged about his great relationship with Duterte and barely even raised the issue of human rights in their face-to-face meeting.

Since Trump’s election, he has also gone out of his way to praise and promote Russian President Vladimir Putin, one of the US’s most staunch rivals.

Trump has argued publicly against our intelligence community’s unanimous conclusion that Russia meddled in our presidential elections. Trump refuses to acknowledge that our adversary worked to skew the election because he believes it would cast doubt on the legitimacy of his own victory, but his denial may allow Russia or other foreign actors to disrupt our elections again in the future.

Putin is known to be a professional spy, a former KGB officer, and a fierce opponent of the US’ standing as the world super power. For years, Putin has worked to gain political and military strength around the world to counter our influence, and Trump seems eager to help him, even if its inadvertent.

And this week, Trump finally committed what may be his biggest diplomatic fail.

After months of alternating between flirting and threats, Trump finally pulled off his much-hyped summit with North Korea’s dangerous and unpredictable leader, Kim Jong-un.

Kim, like his father and grandfather before him, has ruled the secretive Asian country with an iron fist, killing many that posed a real or perceived threat to his rule.

He had his uncle eaten by dogs. He had foes blasted to pieces by anti-aircraft cannons. He is accused of having his half-brother killed with poison VX gas in a Malaysian airport.

Even worse, Kim has been pursuing a nuclear weapons program for years in order to forcibly join the exclusive club of the world’s seven counties with the power to incinerate millions of people with the push of a button.

In recent years, Kim has tested nuclear bombs and intercontinental missiles that could deliver those warheads to neighboring countries, US allies, Hawaii, and even the US mainland.

Earlier this year, Kim was threatening to launch a preemptive nuclear attack against the US and our allies in the region, triggering a bombastic back and forth with Trump about whose nuclear button was bigger like teenaged bullies on the playground.

This week’s summit was the culmination of recent overtures by Kim to seemingly normalize relations with South Korea and the US, after first having visited China.

Kim and his family have long sought to be taken seriously on the world stage. They have carried out a military-first agenda that diverted money to their military at the cost of feeding his citizens and growing their economy.

What for years seemed like a failed plan has now been rewarded by Trump. No US President had met with the Kims before because none of the North Korean leaders were willing to agree, as a pre-condition to the meeting, to end their development of weapons of mass destruction that have been pursued against UN resolutions and international non-proliferation agreements.

This week, Trump granted Kim the legitimacy he’s always wanted without any guarantees the young ruler will give up anything for it. Kim got a photo opportunity with the most powerful man in the world, a peek into the presidential limo, and even an invitation to the White House.

The Philadelphia Eagles football team was disinvited over the national anthem, but Kim was invited even though he’s killed people and threatened to bomb us.

Kim did agreed to repatriate the remains of soldiers from the 1950s Korean conflict and to destroy a missile engine testing site that already accomplished its goal of delivering functional ballistic missiles. No skin

off his nose.

At the end of the summit, both Trump and Kim signed a toothless statement to continue talking about denuclearization, but with no guarantees such a long-sought goal to make the world a safer place will happen, and with no concrete next steps.

Kim’s pledge to talk about denuclearization is similar to other promises made for decades by his family, but not once have they lived up to the deals. The nukes are the only protection Kim has to stay in power.

Kim Jong-un was treated like royalty at the summit, with Trump saying he was “honored” to meet the maniacal thug that has threatened, killed, and abused his own population.

Trump said Kim is loved by his own people, a statement that sounded more like it came from North Korea’s state-run media than from the leader of the free world, and ignored the starvation, rapes, murders, and imprisonment that Kim sanctions.

This week, the world was witness to nothing more than another episode of a reality show where strangely opposite characters are thrown together in front of live cameras to see what kind of mischief will come of it. It would be funny if it wasn’t so serious.

There’s a reason Presidents Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Obama didn’t grant a meeting with any of the North Korean leaders, and it wasn’t because they weren’t smart enough to negotiate or committed enough to peace.

US leverage over North Korea was squandered because diplomacy lost out to publicity. It will be a lot more difficult, if not impossible, to find a real solution to the nukes hidden somewhere in the hills of North Korea now that Kim is viewed as a legitimate leader on par with the President of the United States, and he didn’t have to give anything up to get it.

Now, that makes two Kims that got what they wanted from Trump in just one week; Jong-un and Kardashian.

What a world we live in.

Inoreader – On the action and inaction of law enforcement personnel | Kandy: The damage and the distrust

One place to keep up with all your information sources. Rely on powerful free search, full archive of your subscriptions. Monitor specific keywords, save pages from the web and subscribe to social media feeds.

Source: Inoreader – On the action and inaction of law enforcement personnel | Kandy: The damage and the distrust

Ajit Pai Rushes to Aid Sinclair Before Court Can Kill Merger –

Pimping for profits after he is out of government

2302959.gif
FCC boss Ajit Pai is rushing to approve Sinclair Broadcast Group’s $4 billion acquisition of Tribune before a court ruling can scuttle the deal. Pai is already facing a corruption probe by the nonpartisan FCC Inspector General amidst allegations he coordinated the elimination of decades-old media consolidation rules simply to help Sinclair. The rules, which have long had bipartisan support, are designed to protect smaller competitors and local news stations from being obliterated by media giants like Sinclair, whose news has been widely ridiculed as misleading on a good day.

Undaunted, Pai is rushing forward with several additional rule changes allowing the merger to proceed, with the hopes of beating a looming court challenge to the punch.

One of Pai’s moves included restoring an obscure loophole known as the UHF Discount. The rule was discarded a few years ago by the FCC for being largely useless. But Pai rushed to restore it because it lets Sinclair falsely claim that its overall post-merger reach is much smaller than it actually is, letting the company duck underneath limits on just how large one broadcaster can get.

A panel of appellate judges is currently considering a challenge to Pai’s decision to reinstate the obscure rule, but Pai is clearly trying to help Sinclair’s merger gain approval before the court ruling can come down. As such, he’s scheduled a a July 12 vote on further altering rules that cap broadcasters reach at 39 percent of the national audience. Sinclair, meanwhile is engaging in all manner of tricks to try and further reduce its perceived footprint, including proposing selling off some stations to companies still tied to Sinclair, often via notable sweetheart deals for some involved in the shell game.

In short, Pai continues to gut decades-old media consolidation rules specifically to aid Sinclair. While under investigation for…corruption allegations that he’s specifically trying to aid Sinclair.
read comment(s)

Facebook’s Screening for Political Ads Nabs News Sites Instead of Politicians

by Jeremy B. Merrill and Ariana Tobin

One ad couldn’t have been more obviously political. Targeted to people aged 18 and older, it urged them to “vote YES” on June 5 on a ballot proposition to issue bonds for schools in a district near San Francisco. Yet it showed up in users’ news feeds without the “paid for by” disclaimer required for political ads under Facebook’s new policy designed to prevent a repeat of Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election. Nor does it appear, as it should, in Facebook’s new archive of political ads.

The other ad was from The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit news outlet, promoting one of its articles about financial aid for college students. Yet Facebook’s screening system flagged it as political. For the ad to run, The Hechinger Report would have to undergo the multi-step authorization and authentication process of submitting Social Security numbers and identification that Facebook now requires for anyone running “electoral ads” or “issue ads.”

Help Us Monitor Political Ads

ProPublica needs your help holding Facebook’s political ad system accountable. Please download our tool to catch ads Facebook is missing.

When The Hechinger Report appealed, Facebook acknowledged that its system should have allowed the ad to run. But Facebook then blocked another ad from The Hechinger Report, about an article headlined, “DACA students persevere, enrolling at, remaining in, and graduating from college.” This time, Facebook rejected The Hechinger Report’s appeal, maintaining that the text or imagery was political.

As these examples suggest, Facebook’s new screening policies to deter manipulation of political ads are creating their own problems. The company’s human reviewers and software algorithms are catching paid posts from legitimate news organizations that mention issues or candidates, while overlooking straightforwardly political posts from candidates and advocacy groups. Participants in ProPublica’s Facebook Political Ad Collector project have submitted 40 ads that should have carried disclaimers under the social network’s policy, but didn’t. Facebook may have underestimated the difficulty of distinguishing between political messages and political news coverage — and the consternation that failing to do so would stir among news organizations.

The rules require anyone running ads that mention candidates for public office, are about elections, or that discuss any of 20 “national issues of public importance” to verify their personal Facebook accounts and add a “paid for by” disclosure to their ads, which are to be preserved in a public archive for seven years. Advertisers who don’t comply will have their ads taken down until they undergo an “authorization” process, submitting a Social Security number, driver’s license photo, and home address, to which Facebook sends a letter with a code to confirm that anyone running ads about American political issues has an American home address. The complication is that the 20 hot-button issues — environment, guns, immigration, values foreign policy, civil rights and the like — are likely to pop up in posts from news organizations as well.

“This could be really confusing to consumers because it’s labelling news content as political ad content,” said Stefanie Murray, director of the Center for Cooperative Media at Montclair State University.

An ad from The Hechinger Report to promote an article about financial aid for college students was flagged as political by Facebook and prevented from running.

The Hechinger Report joined trade organizations representing thousands of publishers this week in protesting this policy, arguing that the filter lumps their stories in with the very organizations and issues they are covering, thus confusing readers already wary of “fake news.” Some publishers — including larger outlets like New York Media, which owns New York Magazine — have stopped advertising on the platform.

“When it comes to news, Facebook still doesn’t get it. In its efforts to clear up one bad mess, it seems set on joining those who want blur the line between reality-based journalism and propaganda,” Mark Thompson, chief executive officer of The New York Times, said in prepared remarks at the Open Markets Institute on Tuesday.

In a statement Wednesday, Campbell Brown, Facebook’s head of global news partnerships, said the company recognized “that news content was different from political and issue advertising,” and promised to create a “differentiated space within our archive to separate news content from political and issue ads.” But Brown rejected the publishers’ request for a “whitelist” of legitimate news organizations whose ads would not be considered political.

“Removing an entire group of advertisers, in this case publishers, would go against our transparency efforts and the work we’re doing to shore up election integrity on Facebook,” she wrote. “We don’t want to be in a position where a bad actor obfuscates its identity by claiming to be a news publisher.” Many of the foreign agents that bought ads to sway the 2016 presidential election, the company has said, posed as journalistic outlets.

Her response didn’t satisfy news organizations. Facebook “continues to characterize professional news and opinion as ‘advertising’ — which is both misguided and dangerous,” said David Chavern, chief executive of the News Media Alliance — a trade association representing 2,000 news organizations in the U.S. and Canada —and co-author of an open letter to Facebook on June 11.

ProPublica asked Facebook to explain its decision to block 14 advertisements shared with us by news outlets. Of those, 12 were ultimately rejected as political content, one was overturned on appeal, and one Facebook could not locate in its records. Most of these publications, including The Hechinger Report, are affiliated with the Institute for Nonprofit News, a consortium of mostly small nonprofit newsrooms that produce primarily investigative journalism (ProPublica is a member).

Here are a few examples of news organization ads that were rejected as political:

  • Voice of Monterey Bay tried to boost an interview with labor leader Dolores Huerta headlined “She Still Can.” After the ad ran for about a day, Facebook sent an alert that the ad had been turned off. The outlet is refusing to seek approval for political ads, “since we are a news organization,” said Julie Martinez, co-founder of the nonprofit news site.
  • Ensia tried to advertise an article headlined: “Opinion: We need to talk about how logging in the Southern U.S. is harming local residents.” It was rejected as political. Ensia will not appeal or buy new ads until Facebook addresses the issue, said senior editor David Doody.
  • inewssource tried to promote a post about a local candidate, headlined: “Scott Peters’ Plea to Get San Diego Unified Homeless Funding Rejected.” The ad was rejected as political. Inewssource appealed successfully, but then Facebook changed its mind and rejected it again, a spokeswoman for the social network said.
  • BirminghamWatch tried to boost a post about a story headlined, “‘That is Crazy:’ 17 Steps to Cutting Checks for Birmingham Neighborhood Projects.” The ad was rejected as political and rejected again on appeal. A little while later, BirminghamWatch’s advertiser on the account received a message from Facebook: “Finish boosting your post for $15, up to 15,000 people will see it in NewsFeed and it can get more likes, comments, and shares.” The nonprofit news site appealed again, and the ad was rejected again.

For most of its history, Facebook treated political ads like any other ads. Last October, a month after disclosing that “inauthentic accounts … operated out of Russia” had spent $100,000 on 3,000 ads that “appeared to focus on amplifying divisive social and political messages,” the company announced it would implement new rules for election ads. Then in April, it said the rules would also apply to issue-related ads.

The policy took effect last month, at a time when Facebook’s relationship with the news industry was already rocky. A recent algorithm change reduced the number of posts from news organizations that users see in their news feed, thus decreasing the amount of traffic many media outlets can bring in without paying for wider exposure, and frustrating publishers who had come to rely on Facebook as a way to reach a broader audience.

An ad on Facebook urges “vote YES” for a California school district’s proposed bond issue. It did not appear with a “paid for by” disclaimer nor was it recorded in Facebook’s new archive of political ads.

Facebook has pledged to assign 3,000-4,000 “content moderators” to monitor political ads, but hasn’t reached that staffing level yet. The company told ProPublica that it is committed to meeting the goal by the U.S. midterm elections this fall.

To ward off “bad actors who try to game our enforcement system,” Facebook has kept secret its specific parameters and keywords for determining if an ad is political. It has published only the list of 20 national issues, which it says is based in part on a data-coding system developed by a network of political scientists called the Comparative Agendas Project. A director on that project, Frank Baumgartner, said the lack of transparency is problematic.

“I think [filtering for political speech] is a puzzle that can be solved by algorithms and big data, but it has to be done right and the code needs to be transparent and publicly available. You can’t have proprietary algorithms determining what we see,” Baumgartner said.

However Facebook’s algorithms work, they are missing overtly political ads. Incumbent members of Congress, national advocacy groups and advocates of local ballot initiatives have all run ads on Facebook without the social network’s promised transparency measures, after they were supposed to be implemented.

Ads from Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., Rep. Don Norcross, D-N.J., and Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., all ran without disclaimers as recently as this past Monday. So did an ad from Alliance Defending Freedom, a right-wing group that represented a Christian baker whose refusal for religious reasons to make a wedding cake for a gay couple was upheld by the Supreme Court this month. And ads from NORML, the marijuana legalization advocacy group and MoveOn, the liberal organization, ran for weeks before being taken down.

ProPublica asked Facebook why these ads weren’t considered political. The company said it is reviewing them. “Enforcement is never perfect at launch,” it said.

Read More

What Facebook’s New Political Ad System Misses

Facebook announced a new system to make political ads more transparent. It’s got holes.

9462737.gif