Event name:
"Not Exactly Lying: Fake News and Fake Journalism in American History"
Event time and place:
Online and a part of the "National Capital Area Skeptics (NCAS)" series. Accessed December 2 2024
View Online Presentation
Summary of Presentation
In the presentation titled “Not Exactly Lying: Fake News and Fake Journalism in American History”, Professor Andie Tucher talks about the history of fake news and fake journalism in America. She explains that while fake news, like harmless or funny stories, has been around for a long time, fake journalism is more dangerous. Fake journalism happens when organizations pretend to be real news outlets to spread lies, propaganda, or biased information. Tucher explains that fake news has existed since the early days of newspapers, with examples like the false report about the King of France in the 1700s. Back then, there were no clear rules or fact-checking systems, so newspapers often published false stories without verifying them.
By the 1800s, newspapers began putting disclaimers like “Important - if true” to show readers that some stories might not be accurate. Over time, as newspapers became more important, the idea of spreading the truth became more serious. Tucher also talks about how fake journalism became a big issue in the 20th and 21st centuries, especially when media outlets became more involved in politics. She explains that fake journalism is harmful when it affects big issues like elections or public health. For example, in the Trump era, the term “fake news” was often used to attack real journalism. Tucher warns that it’s important to hold media outlets accountable and make sure they stick to the truth, especially now with social media spreading misinformation so easily.
Evaluation of Presentation
Yes, I found the main points in Professor Andie Tucher's presentation on fake news and fake journalism convincing because she provides a strong historical background and explains how the problem has evolved over time. She makes an important distinction between "fake news," which can be harmless or exaggerated, and "fake journalism," which is much more serious because it involves news outlets pretending to be legitimate while spreading false information on purpose. This is a good way to show that the issue is bigger than just random fake stories and is now deeply connected to politics and public trust in the media.
One of the strongest parts of her argument is when she talks about the history of fake news. Tucher traces misinformation back to the earliest days of American journalism, showing that fake news isn’t a new issue. She talks about a false story from the 1700s, for example, when a newspaper lied about the King of France. This historical context is helpful because it shows that fake news has always existed, but it was less harmful before journalism became more organized and professional. She also points out that newspapers in the early years didn’t have strict rules or fact-checking, which allowed fake news to spread more easily. This gives a lot of context to the way the media works today.
Another convincing point she makes is how fake journalism became a bigger issue in the 20th and 21st centuries, especially during the Trump era. Tucher explains that fake journalism is not just about spreading false facts, but also about how it can shape what people believe, especially when it is used for political reasons. She brings up how the term “fake news” was used to discredit real news during Trump’s presidency, which shows how dangerous this kind of fake journalism can be. This idea is really important today, when social media makes it easier to spread both true and false stories quickly.
However, there are some areas where I think Tucher could have expanded her argument. For example, she focuses a lot on how conservative media outlets like Fox News contribute to fake journalism, but doesn’t mention how other media sources, like liberal or independent outlets, might also be guilty of spreading misinformation. It would have been more balanced if she talked about how both sides of the political spectrum contribute to the problem.
Also, while she talks about holding journalists accountable, she doesn’t really discuss the challenges modern journalists face. With the rise of social media and the 24/7 news cycle, it’s harder for journalists to fact-check stories before publishing, and this leads to the spread of unverified information. Tucher briefly mentions the role of journalists holding each other accountable, but she doesn’t go into how tough it is for journalists to get things right in today’s fast-paced media world.
Overall, Tucher's presentation is convincing because she explains the history of fake news and fake journalism, showing how it has become more of a problem in modern times, especially with politics. However, I think she could have expanded her discussion to include more examples of how different types of media contribute to fake journalism and the struggles journalists face today.
Event name:
"Chicken Litter: The Sky is Falling"
Event time and place:
Online and a part of the:"Chesapeake Bay Foundation." Accessed December 2 2024
Watch Online Presentation
Summary of Presentation
The presentation "Chicken Litter: The Sky is Falling" by Dr. Beth McGee, Dr. Joe Wood, and Jay Ford focuses on pollution in the Chesapeake Bay, particularly the environmental impact of the poultry industry. The three main pollutants affecting the bay are nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment, all of which enter the water through four primary sources: stormwater runoff, wastewater, air pollution, and agriculture. Agriculture, especially the poultry industry, is the largest source of these pollutants.
Jay Ford provides an overview of the problem, explaining that poultry farming, particularly broilers (chickens), has a major economic impact in the region, generating around $918 million. He also discusses how the poultry industry’s supply chain, including vertical integration, affects the environment. Poultry manure, when used correctly, can be a useful fertilizer, but too much can lead to phosphorus buildup, which eventually washes into the bay. Ford highlights a phosphorus management tool to better control the amount of phosphorus in the soil.
Dr. Joe Wood talks about the regulations around poultry litter, stating that farms with more than 20,000 chickens or 11,000 turkeys must have permits for protective storage and land application of manure. However, he points out that the permits do not address ammonia emissions, which is a significant concern.
Dr. McGee focuses on ammonia, a nitrogen-based gas released from poultry operations, which contributes to 1/6 of the nitrogen pollution in the bay. She explains that ammonia is increasing in the Chesapeake Bay and shares findings from a study that identified ammonia "hot spots" in Maryland, with 11% of ammonia emissions reaching the bay’s tidal waters. The presentation ends with a question and answering session.
Evaluation of Presentation
Yes, I do find the main points in this presentation convincing. The speakers did a good job of explaining the different ways the poultry industry is contributing to pollution in the Chesapeake Bay. They made it clear that the three main pollutants—nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment—are entering the bay through agriculture, particularly poultry farming. The fact that agriculture is the largest contributor to these pollutants is a key point that helps explain why the industry is such a major factor in this environmental issue.
One of the reasons I find the points convincing is that the presenters provided detailed information and backed it up with statistics and examples. For instance, Jay Ford explained how the poultry industry has a huge economic impact in the region, with broilers bringing in $918 million. This helps show that the industry is important, but it also has a responsibility to address its environmental impact. He also talked about how poultry manure can be good for the land if used properly, but too much of it causes phosphorus to build up, which eventually ends up in the water. This makes sense because too much of anything is bad, even if it starts out helpful.
Dr. Joe Wood’s explanation of the permit system was also convincing. He pointed out that farmers with large poultry operations are required to have permits for handling manure and ensuring that it doesn’t harm the environment. However, the fact that these permits don’t cover ammonia emissions is a major issue. I found this especially important because ammonia is a nitrogen-based gas that is released from poultry litter, and it can wash into the water, contributing to pollution. Dr. Wood also discussed the problems with the permit system, like the lack of reporting requirements for end users and whether temporary stockpiles should be covered. This added more depth to the issue, showing that the current system isn’t enough to solve the problem.
Dr. McGee’s focus on ammonia was also very convincing. She explained that ammonia contributes to about one-sixth of the nitrogen pollution in the bay. She shared data from a study conducted at NC State that identified hotspots where ammonia emissions are particularly high, and how much of that ammonia ends up in the tidal waters of the bay. This research makes it clear that ammonia is a serious issue that needs more attention, and I found it convincing because it’s based on actual data from a study.
In addition to the information they presented, I agree with the presenters’ suggestions that the permit system should be improved. Since ammonia isn’t currently addressed in the permits, it makes sense to push for changes that would require better management of this pollutant. I also think that having farmers report their waste management practices rather than just keeping records would make the system more effective. The presentation was thorough, and they gave clear examples of how the poultry industry needs to take more responsibility for its environmental impact.
Overall, the presentation was convincing because it gave a detailed explanation of how poultry farming affects the Chesapeake Bay, using facts and research to support the claims. The issues with the permit system, the role of ammonia, and the importance of better management of phosphorus all seem like problems that need to be addressed if we want to protect the bay.
