A December report from Harvard University’s Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy delivered some sobering news for all those investigative reporters who may have supposed that their Trump exclusives were changing the world: None of them were breaking from the pack. “Clinton’s controversies got more attention than Trump’s (19 percent versus 15 percent) and were more focused,” noted study author Thomas E. Patterson. “Trump wallowed in a cascade of separate controversies. Clinton’s badgering had a laser-like focus. She was alleged to be scandal-prone. Clinton’s alleged scandals accounted for 16 percent of her coverage—four times the amount of press attention paid to Trump’s treatment of women and sixteen times the amount of news coverage given to Clinton’s most heavily covered policy position.”

Another study-producing instrumentality of Harvard University couldn’t agree more. In a report released last week, the Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society at Harvard put together this chart documenting coverage of various Clinton-Trump issues from May 2015 through the November 2016 election.





“Clinton – Email” is clearly the beast of this lot, though the category includes not only the scandal over the candidate’s use of a personal email server during her run as secretary of state, but also emails that surfaced on WikiLeaks relating to her campaign. Whereas the Shorenstein Center conclusions featured inputs from the major broadcasters and newspapers over the final months of the 2016 race, the Berkman Klein results stem from online content over a longer period. That they both reached the same conclusion says something. “I think the fact that we get the same results as Shorenstein using significantly different methodologies yields a high degree of confidence,” Robert Faris, the center’s research director, tells the Erik Wemple Blog.

So just how did this disparity evolve? “One of the possible explanations of this is that these scandals associated with Hillary Clinton spanned the entirety of the whole campaign. The Trump scandals came and went over time,” says Faris. Of course, scandals don’t behave entirely of their own accord; they need media attention or inattention to live another day or expire. As Faris himself notes, the Trump campaign and its allies — particularly in Congress — found ways to keep the email server in the news. The story, says Faris, “just kept getting updated repeatedly over time.” Take it from the Erik Wemple Blog, who has written millions of posts on topics like Fox News, “Fox & Friends” and Rolling Stone’s disastrous rape story: Updating a story whose facts and outlines are already familiar is a great deal easier than starting a fresh topic.

more... https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2017/08/25/studies-agree-media-gorged-on-hillary-clinton-email-coverage/?utm_term=.f3ebe5b5c727


Edit: Reminder form 2016.


Hillary Clinton Interview: One-On-One | Andrea Mitchell | MSNBC

Harvard study: Breitbart dominated 2016 immigration coverage
Research from Harvard University shows that the media was tilted towards Donald Trump in the 2016 election. Robert Faris and Farai Chideya join Ari Melber to discuss. Duration: 7:27
THE BEAT WITH ARI MELBER 8/25/17

Video here: http://www.msnbc.com/the-beat-with-ari-melber/watch/harvard-study-breitbart-dominated-2016-immigration-coverage-1032779843998

Harvard study: Breitbart dominated 2016 immigration coverage
Research from Harvard University shows that the media was tilted towards Donald Trump in the 2016 election. Robert Faris and Farai Chideya join Ari Melber to discuss. Duration: 7:27
THE BEAT WITH ARI MELBER 8/25/17

Video here: http://www.msnbc.com/the-beat-with-ari-melber/watch/harvard-study-breitbart-dominated-2016-immigration-coverage-1032779843998

Become an OFA community engagement fellow this fall
https://www.ofa.us/ofa-training-updates/

OFA supporters are change-makers. We're bold. We speak out for progress. And we fight for change by getting organized. Right now, we need folks like you—smart, passionate people—more than ever. Whether you're new to organizing or just need to brush up on your skills, the Community Engagement Fellowship equips organizers of all levels with the tools and training to successfully run events that bring communities together around important issues.

For six weeks, fellows learn from experienced organizers and trainers through weekly webinars. Fellows get a deep dive into the theory of change behind community organizing, then work side-by-side with experienced community organizers where they live.

Throughout the program, fellows are challenged to build community relationships, develop fundamental organizing skills, and explore their leadership potential.

What you’ll do as a community engagement fellow:

Attend the fellows onboarding in your area
Attend weekly webinars every Wednesday at 7:30 pm CT from September 27 to November 1
Complete weekly assignments after each webinar
Work with your fellows manager to execute a community engagement event
Application process and timeline:

Application deadline: Tuesday, September 12, 2017
Acceptance date: Tuesday, September 19, 2017
Program onboarding training: Saturday, September 23, 2017
Ready to apply? Please complete the fields below.

The OFA Community Engagement Fellowship is unpaid, is primarily for educational and training purposes, and is not expected to lead to an offer of permanent employment.

Email*
First name*
Last name*
Address*
City*
ZIP*
Best phone number to use to reach you

How have you been involved with OFA?*

How did you hear about the OFA Fellowship?*

Fellows must commit to attend live webinars every Wednesday (March 8 - April 12). Trainings are held from 7:30 p.m. - 9:00 p.m. Central Time and cannot be rescheduled. Can you commit to attend the weekly trainings?*

What's at stake this year isn't trivial. From access to affordable health care, to protecting our planet, to ensuring we are an open and welcoming country, communities across the United States are taking action on the most important issues of our day. In 300 words or less, describe a pressing issue that is currently affecting your community, explain its personal significance to you, and outline what you would do to organize an event that engages your community around this issue.*

As an OFA fellow, you will participate in weekly online webinars, complete weekly assignments, and engage in weekly meetings with your fellows manager. Successful fellows are self-motivated and comfortable guiding their own learning experience. In 100 words or less, describe a challenging learning experience and what you did to overcome it. What shaped your response?*

What questions do you have for the interviewing team?

@ProPublica

Btw, this is the story that caused trolls to attack our emails.

It's a good story. You should share it.

https://twitter.com/ProPublica/status/900549171819708417




Update, Aug. 22, 2017:
The name of Taboola’s spokeswoman was removed at the company’s request.

Update, Aug. 19, 2017:
This story has been updated to include a comment from PayPal.

Update, Aug. 24, 2017:
This story has been updated to include actions taken by PayPal and Plasso to shut down services.

Also there's this with lots of linked resources:

Can get started with these:



https://twitter.com/civilrightsorg/status/899347638600032256

https://twitter.com/KingEric55/status/898731432809574400

https://twitter.com/ThePlumLineGS/status/898593459203788801


Hate That Doesn’t Hide
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/18/opinion/sunday/hate-that-doesnt-hide.html?smid=tw-nytopinion&smtyp=cur

SNIP/
When you look at the sum of his behavior, it’s obvious that Mr. Trump is actually not equivocating. He is actively demonstrating that his loyalties lie with only some of the American people.

There are other forms of equivocating. Back in November, pundits began attributing Mr. Trump’s win to “economic anxiety,” because they were unwilling to face the blatant racism that fueled his popularity. Look where that thinking has brought us. Everyone who says, “This is not America” or “This is not us” is being willfully ignorant of both the past and the present. We all need to acknowledge that yes, this is indeed us, the very worst of us. There are people who think it is a problem that the white supremacists from Charlottesville are being publicly identified and fired from their jobs, as if those who would eradicate all of us who are not Aryan deserve empathy. They do not. A white newscaster cries because talking about race makes her uncomfortable because discomfort is most likely the worst thing she can imagine.


Heather Heyer’s mother just brutally unmasked Trump’s racism and cruelty
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2017/08/18/heather-heyers-mother-just-brutally-unmasked-trumps-racism-and-cruelty/

SNIP/
Meanwhile, Trump’s chief strategist, Stephen K. Bannon, is strutting around extolling the political brilliance of Trump’s Charlottesville response. Bannon did a media tour yesterday boasting that Trump’s escalating defense of Confederate statues is a political winner for him. Now Bannon adds to this in a brash email to The Post:

“This past election, the Democrats used every personal attack, including charges of racism, against President Trump. He then won a landslide victory on a straightforward platform of economic nationalism.”

The idea that Trump won a landslide is an absurd lie, and the idea that Trump has any kind of agenda of “economic nationalism” to speak of is laughable. There are no trade or infrastructure plans (something progressives would actually like to see) in sight. The only real policies Trump has embraced that fit under what Bannon describes as “economic nationalism” are stepped-up deportations, slashing legal immigration and the thinly disguised Muslim ban. Indeed, it’s telling that Bannon defends Trump’s Charlottesville response by pointing to the alleged power of his alleged “economic nationalism” — it validates suspicions that this was always intended largely as a fig leaf for xenophobia and racism.

VIDEO:



The divisiveness plaguing American politics today is nothing new, says constitutional law scholar Noah Feldman. In fact, it dates back to the early days of the republic, when a dispute between Alexander Hamilton and James Madison led the two Founding Fathers to cut ties and form the country's first political parties. Join Feldman for some fascinating history of American factionalism -- and a hopeful reminder about how the Constitution has proven itself to be greater than partisanship.

Noah Feldman studies the intersection of religion, politics and law.


https://www.ted.com/talks/noah_feldman_hamilton_vs_madison_and_the_birth_of_american_partisanship#t-1733

And almost no answers on the ATA Forum. Last was on June 28th or so.


https://upload.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=100801

https://upload.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1259

Hope it is ok to ask here.