Richard Stevens, chair of the UNC Board, wants me to share his email with the 300 journalism faculty and deans who signed the letter of protest regarding Nikole Hannah-Jones' appointment to the school. Here it is:1/
I responded that I take this as promising as I hope the board will offer Nikole Hannah-Jones tenure and will be the first to congratulate them. Otherwise, I am sure many schools would leap at the opportunity to hire a journalist of such singular reputation, and ability. 2/
More: I asked Stevens whether the board would vote on tenure. He responded: "Our last board meeting of the academic year was last week and my term as chair & as a board member is ending." I said: "It is a pity that your term ended without the milestone of hiring @nhannahjones."
Stevens kept trying to come back to his fake-news defense: that a "blog" got it wrong.
Except the truth remains that Hannah-Jones does not now have tenure.
What so, uh, ironic about the UNC affair is that by not granting tenure the Board demonstrates just how vital tenure is.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
This is good, as far as it goes. It is written from journalism's perspective without acknowledging media's larger strategy, its moral panic, against technology, playing out not only in print but in lobbying governments. 1/ nymag.com/intelligencer/…
See this paragraph from a proposal I'm working on. 2/
What the titan v. titan storyline misses is the public: "reader" to one side, "user" to the other. The internet gave people too long not heard agency; they are flexing their power and that is what scares the incumbents from media and their conspirators in politics. 3/
Now here's Niall Ferguson on TV making excused for Donald Trump and the pandemic.
As an antidote to the moral panic of Niall Ferguson & Morning Joe about disinformation and social media, please read this paper by @duncanjwatts, @DavMicRot & @markusmobius: "Fake news is a tiny proportion of Americans' information diets." google.com/search?q=measu…
N.B., @JoeNBC, that @BrendanNyhan said *elite* messages are where danger lurks: not your average Facebook post but lies from politicians and that other cable "news" channel that exploit group identity. 1/
What can we do? I'm working on a post arguing that we in media need to provide other paths for belonging: e.g., demonstrating to parents that they share concerns and needs as the start of conversation and journalism, rather than setting groups against each other. 2/
I'm grateful that @BrendanNyhan dismissed glib claims--hmm, wonder where--that Section #230 is the problem. The question is, how can we use Facebook + media to foster constructive paths of belonging and community.
I have spoken. I gave @ginoseast five pies in my very scientific survey/boondoggle for @people. (God, those were the days.)
Take that @mathewi
CC: @pilhofer
And then there is this, my welcome to San Francisco for Uno's and Chicago pizza. They used to hang this in every Uno's across the country. Those, too, were the days.
Here is my full report for People, thank goodness without the embarrassing picture of me in a red-striped pizza chef's outfit. people.com/archive/in-sea…
Legal Twitter is enjoying the nuances of the Oversight Board decision while information, political, and tech Twitter are viewing it through other sides of the prism, looking more at the impact, I think.
Many are enjoying the bind the Oversight Board put Facebook in. Meanwhile, that bind will be exploited by Trump et al over the next six months, doing more damage to the net as self-appointed net watchdogs from both right and left imagine new torture for #230, etc.
So *neither* Facebook nor the Oversight Board made a strong statement about the unacceptability of not only inciting insurrection but also promulgating the Big Lie against democratic elections. Both failed to keep their eyes on the highest priorities.
The decision in a nutshell, throwing the ball back over the net to Facebook. I disagree with the board that Facebook's decision was not proportionate. In fact, Facebook's decision was long overdue and appropriate. oversightboard.com/decision/FB-69…
The Oversight Board "insisting" that Facebook review its own decision is kinda cute: the Board telling Facebook to do what the Board itself didn't have the guts to do.
The board says: " It is not permissible for Facebook to keep a user off the platform for an undefined period, with no criteria for when or whether the account will be restored." No. There are cardinal sins that merit hell, forever.