Is it hard to be curious?

Ben Hoffman was on the May 30 Alison Rosen Is Your New Best Friend podcast, to talk about his country music performer alter-ego, Wheeler Walker Jr.

What struck me was the part (approximately 46 minutes in) where Hoffman talks about being slammed by a journalist who was offended by his use of the word "bitch" but didn't bother to get to page 2 of a Google search to realize that Wheeler wasn't an actual person.

I thought of "Administration sources said under condition of anonymity." I thought of Monte Teo's non-existent girlfriend.

I thought of journalists that don't have a curious mind. Who take whatever is brought to them at face value, and report it. Wheeler has a record out, so Wheeler is a person. Just as Saddam had WMDs.

And I'm not even asking journalists to be skeptics. Just to be curious. Just to say, "Oh, what an interesting person! What an interesting story! What is the background to this?"

Deadspin didn't try to debunk Monte Teo's girlfriend story. That was just the result of natural curiosity.

And I find it strange. Why be a journalist if you're just going to repeat what's already been told? Isn't the joy in finding the story behind the story?

It doesn't have to be debunking. It doesn't have to be critical. But can't it just find out, to the best of personal ability, who what where and why?

Thune's bullying of Facebook far worse than anything Facebook did

Imagine that Democrats ran Congress and investigated the Fox News "fair and balanced" claim. They'd say they're protecting you from false advertising.  

But nobody would believe it. We'd grasp the truth instantly: the Democrats are bullying and harassing a news outlet just because it has a right-wing slant. 

Supporters of the First Amendment, whether left, right, or libertarian, would condemn such an attack on free speech. Even if they hate Fox. 

Fortunately, that's all hypothetical. 

This, however, isn't: Senate Republicans are questioning Facebook for how it provides news. Commerce Committee Chairman John Thune said, "It's a matter of transparency and honesty and there shouldn’t be any attempt to mislead the American public." 

How did Facebook "mislead" the public?  

According to Gizmodo, Facebook uses algorithms to determine content for its "trending news" section. Humans oversaw the process to avoid duplication, promote breaking news, and ensure the news sources are mainstream.  

So there was bias in preferring non-ideological news sites to ideological ones.  And the human overseers  had their own conscious and unconscious biases.

That's the scandal: Facebook might be biased because it's run by humans. As if that's unusual. 

But Conservatives who like to feel persecuted for their beliefs are predictably feeling persecuted. Thune's investigation is his way of throwing them red meat in an election year. 

But worse than that, Thune wants to bully, harass, and possibly punish a private business for the way it provides news to its users. Apparently, if there isn't "equal time" for right-wing coverage, they're not doing it right. 

Perhaps Facebook isn't as unbiased as advertised, just as  Fox may not be fair and balanced. 

But are their boasts really deceptive? Who's being deceived? 

And who's the victim? 

That's the question we must ask before we demand the government to investigate anything, especially the practices of a free press.  

Reading something you don't like doesn't make you a victim. Neither are you a victim if a particular site fails to provide you news that you can find elsewhere. 

I'm glad for Gizmodo's story on Facebook's alleged biases. More information is always helpful to the consumer. You are free to view it as so important that you want to quit using Facebook. Or you might think it's no big deal. 

What's important is that YOU decide. And we should all stand against Thune and all who believe Congress should investigate journalistic outlets who don't present the "right" kind of news the "right" way.  

If we tolerate this inquisition, no news outlet is safe from Congressional bullying. No journalist is safe. 

And you're not safe.

When Headlines Lie

One big pet peeve is headlines that lie. I don't mind sensationalized headlines. But I hate it when the story says the opposite of the headline.

For instance... "Patriots fans blast Robert Kraft, Tom Brady over Donald Trump endorsement."

I knew that Brady talked of his friendship with Trump last football season and wore a "Make America Great Again" cap, but retracted his "endorsement" a couple of days later. I also knew that Kraft had made at least one cameo on Trump's Celebrity Apprentice. 

But I didn't hear of a new, official endorsement from either. I clicked to read the story.

Turns out, "neither Brady nor Kraft officially endorsed Trump."

The linked story of Kraft's relationship with Trump even has the sub-headline, "Don't call it an endorsement, but Robert Kraft really likes Donald Trump." The story goes on to say that Kraft doesn't like to discuss politics but was very appreciative of Trump's support when his wife died.

So...

• Kraft and Brady are friends with Trump. That's not news. Rich and famous people have rich and famous friends. No reasonable person would hold the mere friendship against them.
• Neither has formally endorsed Trump.
• Fox Sports writes about voter reaction to Brady's and Kraft's endorsements of Trump, which they never made.

I understand trivial, filler news pieces. I understand biased news.

But dishonest headlines to attract readers is unacceptable.