If President Trump comes out and prematurely claims victory on Election Night, what will television networks and social media websites do?
The scenario -- undemocratic and unthinkable in the past but a very real possibility with Trump seeking to stay in power -- is causing media and tech executives to debate potential responses.
For the major television networks, one question is paramount: Will they carry Trump live if he is giving a speech and making completely specious claims? The short answer is yes.
Though network executives are reluctant to talk publicly about such a hypothetical and disturbing scenario, five people at various networks said on condition of anonymity that they fully expect the President's Election Night remarks to be shown live virtually wall to wall.
However, any premature claims by the President -- or by Joe Biden, for that matter, though there is no equivalent fear of that happening -- will be wrapped in televised context, with vigorous corrections and visual proof that the race is too close to call.
One plan publicly described by NBC News president Noah Oppenheim has been echoed by leaders at other networks, including CNN.
"We are prepared to aggressively fact-check any effort by anyone to mischaracterize the status of the race or the results of the race prematurely," Oppenheim told The Hollywood Reporter.
But is that enough? The Trump era has prompted unusual questions about the ethics of broadcasting and repeating egregious political lies.
"I think there's a very tough decision for the networks about taking Trump live on election night, particularly if you know he is going to come out and lie and sow dangerous disinformation about the election," MSNBC host Chris Hayes tweeted on Sunday amid news reports about the possibility of a premature victory claim.
On Monday an MSNBC spokesman declined to comment on how it might handle such a scenario.
The question at hand: Should the networks act as gatekeepers and decline to broadcast Trump's claims, unfiltered, to tens of millions of Americans, or is their role to show news as it happens?
Many liberals believe American networks are guilty of airing far too many Trump falsehoods far too often. Conversely, many conservatives believe networks other than Fox News exercise too much restraint already.
Inside newsrooms, one common response to this predicament is, simply, "he's the president." The belief that an elected leader's words are inherently newsworthy, even when wrong, and must be heard, then fact-checked if necessary.
ABC News chief anchor George Stephanopoulos alluded to this view in an interview with The New York Times about Election Night: "I don't think we can censor the candidates," he said. "But we have to be vigilant about putting whatever comments are made in context, with everything we know about where the race stands, where the law stands, where the votes are."
That seems to be the consensus view within the major networks, although some staffers are agitating for a harder line on Trump, given his history of lie-filled speeches.
One industry source, on condition of anonymity, did sketch out a possible scenario in which networks opt out of carrying Trump live: If there is widespread violence and newsroom leaders have reason to believe that Trump will pour gasoline on the proverbial fire.
In response to questions about possible premature claims of victory, a spokeswoman for CBS News said, "we will report a candidate's claims, however, we will only make projections based on our Decision Desk's data and statistical models."
On CNN's "Reliable Sources" Sunday morning, CNN Washington bureau chief Sam Feist said election coverage will be data-driven.
"Once you start counting and reporting the votes, the spin and the time for spin is over," he said.
"On election night, we're going to talk a lot about numbers. We're going to look in great detail at the numbers, where the votes are coming from, how many of them are mail-in ballots early, in-person Election Day ballots," he added. "But we're not going to spend a lot of time paying attention to spin. We're really going to focus on the data."
Feist and other experts have emphasized that election projections may take longer this year due to the pandemic and the huge surge in mail-in ballots. "Just because it takes longer doesn't mean that anything is wrong. And we have to all remember that," he said.
But there are widespread fears that Trump will seize on possible delays in order to shape public opinion -- and claim he has been re-elected.
Social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter say they will take their cues from the major networks and The Associated Press. Twitter and Facebook both said Monday that they will rely on the decision desk projections made by major networks and The Associated Press.
Twitter said that it may apply a warning label to tweets by candidates, campaigns and other highly visible accounts that attempt to claim victory before official results have been declared.
"Beginning on election night through the inauguration, we will label some Tweets that make claims about election results," Twitter said in a blog post. "We will be prioritizing the presidential election and other highly contested races where there may be significant issues with misleading information based on the below criteria."
Facebook said that "if a presidential candidate or party declares premature victory before the race is called by major media outlets above," the platform will "add more specific information in the labels on candidate posts" and "add more specific information in the top-of-feed notifications."
This article was originally published by Common Dreams. You can read it here.
Why do some folks use social media but don't engage?
Psychologist says people who never comment on social media share these 5 positive traits
For over 20 years, social media has developed into a staple in many people’s day-to-day lives. Whether it’s to keep in communication with friends and family, following the thoughts of celebrities, or watching cat videos while sipping your morning coffee, there seem to be two types of social media users: commenters and lurkers.
The term “lurker” sounds equally mysterious and insidious, with some social media users writing them off as non-participants at best or voyeurs at worst. However, mindfulness expert Lachlan Brown believes these non-commenters have some very psychologically positive and healthy traits. Let’s take a look at how each one of these traits could be beneficial and see how fruitful lurking might be even though it can drive content creators crazy.
1. Cautious about vulnerability
Consciously or not, making a post online or commenting on one puts you and your words out there. It’s a statement that everyone can see, even if it’s as simple as clicking “like.” Doing so opens yourself up to judgment, with all the good, bad, and potential misinterpretation that comes with it. Non-commenters would rather not open themselves up to that.
These silent users are connected to a concept of self-protection by simply not engaging. By just scrolling past posts or just reading/watching them without commentary, they’re preventing themselves from any downsides of sharing an opinion such as rejection, misunderstanding, or embarrassment. They also have more control on how much of themselves they’re willing to reveal to the general public, and tend to be more open face-to-face or during one-on-one/one-on-few private chats or DMs. This can be seen as a healthy boundary and prevents unnecessary exposure.
Considering many comment sections, especially involving political topics, are meant to stir negative emotional responses to increase engagement, being extra mindful about where, when, and what you comment might not be a bad idea. They might not even take the engagement bait at all. Or if they see a friend of theirs post something vulnerable, they feel more motivated to engage with them personally one-on-one rather than use social media to publicly check in on them.
2. Analytical and reflective mindset
How many times have you gone onto Reddit, YouTube, or any other site and just skimmed past comments that are just different versions of “yes, and,” “no, but,” or “yes, but”? Or the ever insightful, formerly popular comment “First!” in a thread? These silent browsers lean against adding to such noise unless they have some valid and thoughtful contribution (if they bother to comment period).
These non-posters are likely wired on reflective thinking rather than their initial intuition. Not to say that all those who comment aren’t thoughtful, but many tend to react quickly and comment based on their initial feelings rather than absorbing the information, thinking it over, researching or testing their belief, and then posting it. For "lurkers," it could by their very nature to just do all of that and not post it at all, or share their thoughts and findings privately with a friend. All in all, it’s a preference of substance over speed.
3. High sense of self-awareness
Carried over from the first two listed traits, these silent social media users incorporate their concern over their vulnerability and their reflective mindset into digital self-awareness. They know what triggers responses out of them and what causes them to engage in impulsive behavior. It could be that they have engaged with a troll in the past and felt foolish. Or that they just felt sad after a post or got into an unnecessary argument that impacted them offline. By knowing themselves and seeing what’s being discussed, they choose to weigh their words carefully or just not participate at all. It’s a form of self-preservation through restraint.
4. Prefer to observe rather than perform
Some folks treat social media as information, entertainment, or a mix of both, and commenting can feel like they’re yelling at the TV, clapping alone in a movie theater when the credits roll, or yelling “That’s not true!” to a news anchor that will never hear them. But contrary to that, social media is a place where those yells, claps, and accusations can be seen and get a response. By its design, social media is considered by experts and the media as performative, regardless of whether it is positive or negative. Taking all of the previously mentioned traits into account, one can see why they would prefer to “observe the play” rather than get up on the stage of Facebook or X.
On top of that, these non-commenters could be using social media differently than those who choose to fully engage with it. Using this type of navigation, there may be nothing for them to comment about. Some commenters are even vying for this for their mental health. There are articles about how to better curate your social media feeds and manipulate algorithms to create a better social media experience to avoid unnecessary conflict or mentally tiring debate.
If you go on a blocking spree on all of your accounts and just follow the posters that boost you, it could turn your social media into a nice part of your routine as you mainly engage with others face-to-face or privately. In terms of commenting, if your curated Instagram is just following cute dogs and all you have to offer for a comment is “cute dog,” you might just enjoy the picture and then move on with your day rather than join in the noise. These non-commenters aren’t in the show and they’re fine with it.
5. Less motivated by social validation
The last trait that Brown showcases is that social media users who browse without posting tend to be independent from external validation, at least online. Social media is built to grow through feedback loops such as awarding likes, shares, and reposts of your content along with notifications letting you know that a new person follows you or wants to connect. This can lead many people to connect their activity on social media with their sense of self worth, especially with adolescents who are still figuring out their place in the world and have still-developing brains.
Engaging in social media via likes, shares, comments, and posts rewards our brains by having them release dopamine, which makes us feel good and can easily become addictive. For whatever reason, non-commenters don’t rely on social media as a means to gauge their social capital or self worth. This doesn’t make them better than those who do. While some non-commenters could have healthier ways to boost their self worth or release dopamine into their systems, many get that validation from equally unhealthy sources offline. That said, many non-commenters’ silence could be a display of independence and self confidence.
Whether you frequently comment online or don’t, it’s good to understand why you do or don’t. Analyzing your habits can help you determine whether your online engagement is healthy, or needs to be tweaked. With that information, you can then create a healthy social media experience that works for you.