For people who want only the facts behind the story, it’s hard to discover them. I haven’t come across any articles which show the full text without introducing bias somehow. Most journalists and bloggers haven’t been able to post the memo without adding their own opinions on the content. And the “discussion” across social media tends to involve personal insults or emotional appeals, instead of actual discussion.
What I find especially fascinating about this memo is the number of interpretations. Different people are drawing vastly different conclusions from the same thing. No doubt part of this is because fake quotes have been circulating.
But without further ado, the full text, so people can reach their own conclusions:
The now-infamous “Google Memo”
You can view the memo on diversitymemo.com, download a PDF, or read it right here:
Comments from Google employees
“We strongly support the right of Googlers to express themselves, and much of what was in that memo is fair to debate regardless of whether a vast majority of Googlers disagree with it. However, portions of the memo violate our Code of Conduct and cross the line by advancing harmful gender stereotypes in our workplace.” – Sundar Pichai, CEO of Google
“We are unequivocal in our belief that diversity and inclusion are critical to our success as a company, and we’ll continue to stand for that and be committed to it for the long haul.” – Danielle Brown, Google’s Vice President of Diversity, Integrity and Governance
A small internal poll (282 responses) showed mixed reactions to the memo.
The author, engineer James Damore, was fired. He’s reportedly considering legal action against Google, and there’s some debate over whether or not he could be successful there. For extra information, Heavy.com has a lengthy article.
This is a bit of a follow-up to my analysis on who owns the media.
I also came across this infographic. While it’s decent, I felt it wasn’t 100 percent accurate. It’s worth mentioning that news sources have nebulous affiliations with partisan bias. Opinion pieces further muddy the waters, as any source can publish articles by liberal or conservative sources. For example, The Washington Post is often considered left-leaning as a whole, but occasionally uses pieces from conservative journalists.
A media organization’s rating (neutral, liberal, conservative, etc.) does not mean everything from that outlet will conform to the rating. Ratings are overall estimations. Sometimes a news site will surprise you. For instance, I’ve seen utter trash published by The New York Times and quality journalistic content published on Breitbart. Most people still agree that the Times is more reputable than Breitbart.
Note that indications of partisan bias don’t necessarily correlate with low quality. Sometimes a highly partisan article can have excellent/useful information. Just keep an eye out.
As always: use your own judgment on a case-by-case basis. Does an article appear to promote only one viewpoint? Does it make claims which require citations? Has it been refuted by Snopes? Is it a satire site like The Onion? Sometimes it’s helpful to check who the writer is.
And never, ever get your news from only one source.
I may create an infographic of my own. But in the meantime, here’s a list format on partisan bias. If you disagree with anything, let me know!
tl;dr It’s unclear. Even if they do, it’s not the opinion of every U.S. intelligence agency.
The Washington Post, not necessarily a bastion of quality journalism these days, recently posted an article with an extraordinary claim as a headline: “Secret CIA assessment says Russia was trying to help Trump win White House“!
If you read through the article, that’s not quite what happened. The headline is (unsurprisingly) sensationalized.
CIA agents supposedly held a secret meeting with some members of Congress about a secret report on alleged Russian interference with the U.S. election. Agents were said to have potentially “identified individuals with connections to the Russian government who provided WikiLeaks with thousands of hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee and others.” Those individuals are not employed by the Russian government and may not have direct ties to the Kremlin. The CIA further claimed “it was now ‘quite clear’ that electing Trump was Russia’s goal,” according to the report. It’s important to note that the Washington Post’s article is not based on statements from the CIA. It’s based on statements from someone (likely a member of Congress) who attended the “secret meeting” or read a Senate-written summary about it. Therefore, this is all second-hand unverified information.
The New York Times ran a similar story, seemingly using another source (of course, also anonymous). The source said “We now have high confidence that [Russia] hacked the DNC and the RNC, and conspicuously released no documents [from the RNC hack].” This seems to be the basis of the “Russia helped Trump” claim. Meanwhile, there is no proof that the RNC was hacked. The RNC denied that their systems were breached, saying the FBI had personally reviewed RNC cybersecurity.
Many of the Wikileaks documents from government officials came from whistleblowers, FOIA requests, and unsophisticated phishing scams. It can also be argued that the contents of those documents and emails were more damaging than the leaks themselves. If so, Democratic officials would rather point fingers at a nuclear power (without proof) than accept personal responsibility for their own words and actions. Of course, cybersecurity is a serious issue and the source of alleged hacks should be discovered. That investigation is ongoing.
Craig Murray, the former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan, was quoted in the Guardian as saying the CIA claims were “bullshit.” Murray said he knew who gave information to Wikileaks, claiming that it was an ‘insider’ – who wasn’t Russian and wasn’t a hacker. He also said “America has not been shy about arresting whistleblowers and it’s not been shy about extraditing hackers. [The CIA] plainly [has] no knowledge whatsoever.” He believes that if the CIA really found out who performed the hackings, that person (or persons) would already be in an American prison.
A new piece of U.S. legislation wants $10 million in taxpayer dollars to create government-sponsored propaganda campaigns. The House and Senate have passed it: the “Portman-Murphy Counter-Propaganda Bill.”
An internet conspiracy theory said that South Korean President Park Geun-hye is under the control of a secret society (called the Eight Goddesses or the Fairy Eight). The alleged society was described as a council of eight Korean billionaires who ran the South Korean government from behind the scenes, using President Park as a mouthpiece.
And now, it’s come to light that there’s a potential truth to this.
October 2016’s “Choi-gate” scandal involves President Park and her close associate Choi Soon-sil. Park Geun-hye has been accused of repeatedly leaking official government documents to her long-time friend, who often advised the President on what to do and say. Sensitive government documents were found on a computer owned by Soon-sil, who is not a government employee and doesn’t hold public office. Choi’s influence on Park has been present for decades, leading some to wonder who really has the power of President. Some sources say Choi organized secret meetings to run state affairs, handing out state documents to an unspecified number of people. After weeks of speculation and denial, the President made a public apology where she admitted having a connection to Choi Soon-sil.
It’s also alleged that Choi Soon-sil abused her friendship with the president for personal and financial gain. Some people accused Choi of “strong-arming” companies into giving massive donations to two non-profit organizations – which she has links to. The donations may have been misused. A university official resigned after allegations that Choi Soon-sil pressured them into giving special treatment to her daughter Chung Yoo-ra.
Rodong Sinmun, North Korea’s most read national newspaper, responded to the recent scandals by saying “The current government faces de-facto collapse… Park Geun-hye and her party face the worst political crisis ever.”
- 2 bombs in NY, 29 injured
- 3-4 bombs in NJ, no injuries
- 9 stabbed/slashed in MN
No casualties have been reported.
I’ve been wondering about possible conflicts of interest within the news media. Over the past year or two, instances of collusion and other suspicious behaviors have caught my eye. So I decided to dig into who owns what. In some cases, the ownership of a company might reflect bias in the news put forth by that company.
In 1983, 90% of US media was controlled by fifty companies; today, 90% is controlled by just seven companies. (Wikipedia)
US distrust in the media remains high, and we may have good reasons for that. 60% of Americans “have little or no trust in the mass media to report the news fully, accurately, and fairly.” (Gallup 2012) (Gallup 2015) Confidence in newspapers has continued to drop, now with only 20% of Americans “who are confident in newspapers as a U.S. institution.”
“Americans’ orientation to news is changing, with a growing emphasis on identifying more closely with a favorite media organization.” (Gallup 2016) People are turning more to social media and specific sources to get news. This could lead to widespread echo chambers, where other opinions are not considered or even tolerated. Getting your news from a variety of sources can be very important.
Within the past week or so, it’s been revealed that billionaires are involved with the lawsuit between Gawker and Hulk Hogan (real name Terry Bollea). Peter Thiel, co-founder of Paypal, has been helping fund Hogan’s fight against Gawker.
In 2013 Gawker published a clip of a 2006 sex tape between Hogan and the wife of Todd “Bubba the Love Sponge” Clem, one of Hogan’s close friends. Clem secretly filmed an approved encounter between the two. The act of filming was an alleged violation of Florida law. Gawker says it received a DVD-R of the footage from an “anonymous source” who “wanted no payment.” An unidentified source told one media outlet that a disgruntled ex-employee of Todd Clem sent in the DVD.
After the Gawker article went live, they refused to take it down, despite a request from Hogan’s lawyer. He sued. In March 2016 a Florida jury awarded him $140 million for invasion of privacy. Currently, Gawker is appealing the lawsuit for their own reasons.
In May 2016 it was revealed that Peter Thiel is helping to fund Hogan’s legal defense. Thiel was outed as a gay man by Gawker in 2007; the article author later claimed it was “homophobic” for Thiel to stay in the closet. Thiel was understandably upset and Gawker continued to fire insults at him for it. And now, in 2016, he’s getting revenge on the media company through the Hulk Hogan lawsuit.
There are conflicting opinions. Is this good or bad?