AI translation is a boon for the Vineyard’s newspapers, but there are limitations as well

Martha’s Vineyard. Photo (cc) 2012 by David Berkowitz.

The two independent weekly newspapers that cover Martha’s Vineyard are using AI-powered translation software to provide the island’s growing Brazilian population with Portuguese-language articles, Aidan Ryan reports in The Boston Globe.

But though the service is surely a step forward, stronger coverage of the Brazilian community still depends on the human touch, MV Times publisher Charles Sennott and Vineyard Gazette publisher Monica Brady-Meyerov acknowledge. Ryan writes:

While these initiatives can reflect a sincere effort to serve the public with reliable information, they also often highlight the limitations of technology and gaps in staff diversity for many traditional English-language newsrooms.

Reliable automated translation can be a boon. The English-language New Haven Independent, for example, relies on people power to provide one translated article each week to run in La Voz Hispana de Connecticut, a weekly Spanish-language paper with which it shares a newsroom. A translated cartoon from La Voz runs in the Independent’s newsletter. (Both projects are featured in our book, “What Works in Community News.”)

AI could provide readers of both publications with much more than they’re getting now.

The nuances of Biden’s 8% statement show why he was right — and why PolitiFact was wrong

Earlier this week I wrote that PolitiFact got it wrong on a claim by President Biden that billionaires pay just 8% of their income on federal taxes. PolitiFact said Biden’s assertion was “false,” and I disagreed. I got some pushback from several readers. On second thought, I decided I was incorrect. But on third thought, I’ve concluded that I was right.

Here is what Biden said Monday night:

And folks, you know we have 1,000 billionaires in America. You know what their average tax rate is? 8.2%. If we just increase their taxes, as we proposed, to 25%, which isn’t even the highest tax rate, it would raise $500 billion new dollars over 10 years.

The issue is complicated. Biden was basing his claim on the fact that unrealized stock market gains are not taxed. It’s only after you sell that you’re subject to the capital gains tax, which is 20% if your income is higher than about $500,000 (the actual income levels vary depending on marital status and how long you held the stock).

Since you can’t spend money that isn’t in your possession, and since you do actually pay taxes once you sell, then it might seem that PolitiFact was right and Biden was wrong. But not so fast.

First, the wealthy, and billionaires in particular, have multiple ways of lowering or even avoiding taxes on capital gains. Whizy Kim, writing for Vox in March of this year, put it this way:

How much tax a wealthy person owes in a given year is a complex tapestry threaded with exemptions, deductions, credits, and obscure loopholes you’ve never heard of. The ideal is to owe zilch. If that sounds impossible to achieve, just look at the leaked tax returns of the wealthiest Americans that nonprofit news site ProPublica analyzed in 2021: Over several years, billionaires Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, and Michael Bloomberg, among others, paid no federal income taxes at all.

Her story, headlined “The billionaire’s guide to doing taxes,” outlines a number of tax-avoidance schemes, and obviously those options are not available to middle-class Americans. As James Royal writes for Bankrate: “While it can be easy to overlook, the IRS has clearly laid out how you can qualify for a 0 percent capital gains tax rate, and it’s not that difficult for most Americans to achieve.”

Second, Biden has actually proposed taxing unrealized capital gains, and Kamala Harris has endorsed that idea as well. So when Biden talks about billionaires paying 8%, he has something very specific in mind, and something that he would change if he had the opportunity. PolitiFact argues that the very fact that this is a proposal rather than the current reality makes Biden’s assertion false, but I think it’s just the opposite. In effect, he’s saying: Billionaires are paying a tax rate of just 8% on their income. Vice President Harris and I want to change that.

The second sentence doesn’t negate the first, entirely true sentence. In reporting on Biden’s proposal for MarketWatch, Victor Reklaitis writes:

Treasury officials offered their rationale for the proposed change, saying the country’s current approach with unrealized capital gains “disproportionately benefits high-wealth taxpayers and provides many high-wealth taxpayers with a lower effective tax rate than many low- and middle-income taxpayers.” They also said the current approach “exacerbates income and wealth disparities” and “produces an incentive for taxpayers to inefficiently lock in portfolios of assets and hold them primarily for the purpose of avoiding capital gains tax on the appreciation, rather than reinvesting the capital in more economically productive investments.”

You can agree with the Biden-Harris tax proposal or disagree with it, but it doesn’t change the reality that billionaires are paying about 8% of their income on federal taxes. (A White House report cited by PolitiFact says that 8% — to be more precise, 8.2% — is an estimate, and that the actual rate could be somewhere between 6% and 12%. The report also says the data pertain to the 400 wealthiest families. Biden cited 1,000 individuals, so maybe that amounts to the same thing.)

For Biden, it was a talking point — he didn’t take the time to define what he meant by income, and we shouldn’t expect that in political speeches. But by any measure of truth and accuracy, he was right and PolitiFact was wrong.

Who are you calling a liberal? A taxonomy of the Democratic Party.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Photo (cc) 2019 by nrkbeta.

I’m thinking through what it means to say that Kamala Harris has united the Democratic Party’s disputatious factions. The media tend to refer to those on the left as “liberals” and “progressives” as though the terms are interchangeable. They’re not.

I’m not going to try to tease out the various positions that define the factions. Instead, I’ll take a shot at who’s in what camp. This is unscientific to say the least, but:

• Liberals. Also known as the center-left. This is where the bulk of the party is today, and where it’s been most of the time since FDR. Leading exemplars: Kamala Harris and Joe Biden.

• Progressives. The left, which I’ll arbitrarily define by citing Elizabeth Warren and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Bernie Sanders would be in here if he were actually a Democrat.

• Centrists. Now this is slippery. Bill Clinton for sure. Joe Manchin*? Does anyone know if he’s still a Democrat? It’s tempting to say that he’s a conservative, but he votes with President Biden most of the time. Barack Obama governed as a centrist, but I’m not sure whether that was his preference or if he was just playing the hand he was dealt.

What unites them all, incredibly, is not just support for Harris but genuine enthusiasm and excitement.

*Note: Manchin used to be a Democrat, but he’s now an independent.

Harris’ memorable acceptance speech embraces mainstream values and muscular liberalism

Thirty-two days ago, President Biden ended his campaign and endorsed his vice president, Kamala Harris. It seems like a lifetime ago, doesn’t it? Biden seemed destined to lose; this morning, Harris is up by an average of 3.6% in the national polls, which is in the range of what a Democratic candidate needs to overcome the Republicans’ inherent advantage in the Electoral College.

On Thursday night, Harris delivered her acceptance speech, and it was memorable, mixing her personal story, her dedication to improving life for the middle class, her deep sense of patriotism, and the authoritarian threat posed by Donald Trump. Although words alone are not substance, she also did a better job than Biden of expressing support for Israel and horror at the humanitarian toll of the war in Gaza.

Although Trump’s menacing incoherence can’t really be described in policy terms, Harris made it clear that she’s running to his left on domestic issues and to his right on foreign policy. “I will not cozy up to tyrants and dictators like Kim Jong-un, who are rooting for Trump,” she said, adding:

And as president, I will never waver in defense of America’s security and ideals, because in the enduring struggle between democracy and tyranny, I know where I stand and I know where the United States belongs.

This is muscular liberalism in the tradition of Harry Truman, John F. Kennedy and, well, Joe Biden. Traditionally, the views she expressed Thursday night have defined what it means to be a mainstream, patriotic American.

Harris also called the 2024 election “not only the most important of our lives, it is one of the most important in the life of our nation.” Elections shouldn’t be that important. In a healthy democracy, every election would be Barack Obama versus Mitt Romney, or Bill Clinton against Bob Dole. The fate of the country shouldn’t depend on Harris’ defeating Trump and then overcoming the legal and extra-legal chaos that is sure to follow.

But that’s where we find ourselves. Trumpism has got to be defeated once and for all. This week helped move us closer to that goal.

Bonfire of the fact-checkers; plus, Dems embrace the night, and Walz’s heartland appeal

Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz

The media fact-checkers have not distinguished themselves this week, torturing the language to find fault with statements by Democrats that, in some cases, are actually true.

Now, I’m going to confess that I was not following the fact-checkers during the Republican National Convention. But what I have found going back a number of years — as I wrote for HuffPost way back in 2011 — is that organizations like PolitiFact often twist themselves into knots to find negative observations to make about Democrats so they can achieve some sort of balance with Republicans, who were often untethered from the truth even before the rise of Donald Trump.

Fact-checkers for The New York Times and The Washington Post have both come under fire during this week’s Democratic National Convention. But I want to focus on PolitiFact, a Pulitzer Prize-winning project, which has produced some fact-checks that make you scratch your head. I’ve been following PolitiFact on Threads. Here are a few examples:

• On Tuesday, PolitiFact gave President Biden a “false” on its Truth-O-Meter for claiming that billionaires pay an average tax rate of 8.2%. The post linked back to a PolitFact story from last January that said:

The White House report found that if you include unrealized gains in the income calculations of the 400 richest U.S. families, then their taxes paid would account for just 8.2% of their income.

Economists and policymakers have long debated whether the government should tax unrealized gains. But Biden made it sound as if 8% was the standard rate today, not what would happen under a potential future proposal.

In other words, Biden was correct under PolitiFact’s own analysis.

• On Wednesday, PolitiFact slapped J.B. Pritzker on the wrist: “Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker said Trump told ‘us to inject bleach’ during the pandemic. That’s Mostly False. Trump’s 2020 comments about treatments were criticized, but he didn’t tell people to inject or ‘take a shot’ of anything.”

Pritzker’s statement was labeled as “mostly false.” Yet here’s a BBC report from 2020 that quotes Trump’s exact words: “And then I see the disinfectant where it knocks it out in a minute. One minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning?”

Pritzker was right on the facts, the nuance and the context. Full stop.

• Two more from Biden: PolitiFact said the president’s assertions that Trump wants to cut Medicare and Social Security were “mostly false” because — God help us — “When he was president, Trump released annual budgets that proposed cutting Medicare but he has repeatedly pledged throughout the 2024 presidential campaign that he will not cut the program” and “Trump has said in the past that he’s open to cutting Social Security, but this isn’t his current position.”

I’m sorry, but that’s just embarrassing.

The late show

A number of observers, me included, have been puzzled by the DNC’s schedule, which has resulted in the main speaker of the night taking the podium after 11 p.m. The swing states of Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Georgia and most of Michigan are all in the Eastern time zone, and presumably you don’t want soft supporters and undecided voters to go to bed before hearing from the Obamas, Tim Walz and, tonight, Kamala Harris.

But it may not have made much difference. According to Craig Harrington of  the liberal organization Media Matters for America, the audience for President Biden fell off only 2%. “Not ideal, but not disastrous either,” he wrote on Twitter/X.

I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that no one is going to invest a couple of hours tonight and then tune out just before Harris comes on. Still, it strikes me that it would have been a good idea to wrap up each night’s proceedings before viewers decide they’ve had enough.

Walz from the heart

Tim Walz’s short, punchy address and Oprah Winfrey’s speech were pitch-perfect.

Those who thought that Harris should have picked Josh Shapiro as her running mate may have changed their minds Wednesday night, as Shapiro delivered a perfectly serviceable but rather generic address. Walz, by contrast, was folksy and empathetic, speaking to the heartland in a way that the Democrats haven’t done in many years. You had to love his former football players taking the stage, too.

What can I say about Bill Clinton? It was interesting to see that some women  I follow on Threads were tuning out. Given his history, I couldn’t believe that he glommed onto the dick joke President Obama indulged in — funny coming from Obama, creepy from Clinton.

Clinton also spoke way too long and just sort of rambled. I know that some viewers loved it, and I’ve heard from a few. I also understand that a former president can’t be denied his place at the podium. But I was glad when it was over.

California’s proposed deal with Google to support local news comes under criticism

The California state capitol in Sacramento. Photo (cc) 2006 by David Monniaux.

A proposal that would have required Google to pay California news outlets for the journalism that it repurposes has instead been replaced with a proposed deal that is already coming under criticism. Jeanne Kuang of CalMatters writes:

California lawmakers are abandoning an ambitious proposal to force Google to pay news companies for using their content, opting instead for a deal in which the tech giant has agreed to pay $172 million to support local media outlets and start an artificial intelligence program.

The money would be spread over five years and would be supplemented with $70 million from the state over that same time period. Google would continue paying $10 million a year to newsrooms under existing programs.

The deal apparently does not require legislative approval, though the annual appropriations that it specifies would be subject to a vote.

Gov. Gavin Newsom voiced his approval in a statement, saying: “This agreement represents a major breakthrough in ensuring the survival of newsrooms and bolstering local journalism across California — leveraging substantial tech industry resources without imposing new taxes on Californians.”

But Kuang continued:

The Media Guild of the West, which represents reporters in Southern California, slammed the agreement and accused publishers and lawmakers of folding to Google’s threats.

“Google won, a monopoly won,” said Matt Pearce, the group’s president. “This is dramatically worse than what Australia and Canada got … I don’t know of any journalist that asked for this.”

According to Los Angeles Times reporter Lauren Rosenhall’s account of the deal, agreement was struck after a drawn-out battle over a bill, AB 886, that would have extracted much more money from the tech giant:

Google threatened to remove California news content from its platform if the bill passed, and then ran ads saying the legislation would reduce Californians’ access to news.

Lobbying over the bill grew intense, with a trade association Google belongs to launching an ad campaign aimed at lawmakers that cast the legislation as a giveaway to large media corporations. Records show the Computer and Communications Industry Assn. spent $5 million on ads against AB 886 over the last two years as the bill made its way through the Legislature.

The role of government in boosting journalism through measures such as tax credits and mandates that would force Google and Facebook to hand over some of their advertising revenues has moved to the center of the ongoing discussion of what to do about the ailing local news business.

Though federal legislation has stalled repeatedly, proposals in New York and Illinois to provide tax credits to news publishers that create or retain newsroom jobs have become law.

And in Massachusetts, a proposal to revive a state commission that would study the problem and make some recommendations was the subject of a legislative hearing earlier this summer (I was among those who testified) appears to be on track.

Michelle Obama’s rhetoric soared while the former president focused on the mission

Barack and Michelle Obama in 2008. Photo (cc) by Luke Vargas.

Twenty years ago, when the Democratic National Convention gathered in Boston, a young senator named Barack Obama delivered the speech that launched him to the presidency.

I was covering the convention for The Boston Phoenix, but I wasn’t in the hall. No regrets — I reported from four national conventions, and I thought the best way I could serve our audience was to spend as little time in the building as possible, focusing instead on alternative events, protests, what the media were up to and the like. Still, that was a big one to miss.

I didn’t miss Barack Obama’s speech last night, nor Michelle Obama’s, even if it was from the comfort of our TV room. Wow. Observers are trying to decide who delivered the better of what were two magnificent addresses. I thought hers was a superior piece of pure oratory but that his did more to advance the cause of getting Kamala Harris and Tim Walz elected. The two addresses complemented each other perfectly.

And soaring though their rhetoric was, it was pretty amusing to see the former president go there for what I believe was the first time since Marco Rubio made some awkward remarks about the size of Donald Trump’s, uh,  hands.

Doug Emhoff’s speech was folksy and effective. All in all, it was another strong night for the Democrats.

Biden coverage underscores the decline of print; plus, a couple of DNC media tidbits

The New York Times: No Joe zone

Early print deadlines meant that three of our national newspapers, The New York Times, The Washington Post and USA Today, have no coverage of President Biden’s keynote address. All of them, needless to say, go big with Biden’s speech online. It makes you wonder who’s still bothering with the legacy press’ shrinking print editions.

A fourth national paper, the business-focused Wall Street Journal, did manage to get Biden’s speech on page one, though it’s not the lead. Locally, The Boston Globe leads with the president as well. I have to assume that’s a late edition.

Biden was supposed to go on at about 10:30 p.m., but the Democrats veered off schedule and he didn’t start for another hour. They’d better fix that — the last thing the party wants is for Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz’s acceptance speech on Wednesday and Vice President Kamala Harris’ on Thursday to get pushed out of prime time.

Stop talking at me

God bless C-SPAN. We tuned in around 9 p.m. and chose PBS, figuring the “NewsHour” crew would strike a good balance between carrying the speeches and offering a little bit of commentary and analysis. We were wrong. We missed Texas Rep. Jasmine Crockett’s speech entirely. And when we finally switched over, we discovered that PBS had cut away from Georgia Sen. Raphael Warnock, a major figure in the party.

At least PBS carried New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, whose fiery populism was probably the highlight of the evening, though Hillary Clinton’s address conjured up all sorts of emotions. Yes, it should have been her.

I’m not going to try to assess Biden’s speech except to agree with other observers that I respect his successful presidency and am grateful that his deep sense of patriotism led him to step aside, even though it was evident that he’s still angry he was forced to make that move.

New Haven crew hits Chicago

Normally I like to see local news organizations stay mission-focused when big national events occur. But I’ll cut the New Haven Independent some slack. After all, founder Paul Bass is no longer the editor, and he’s as knowledgeable about politics as anyone I know.

Bass and staff reporter Nora Grace-Flood are in Chicago while Babz Rawls Ivy, the morning host at the Independent-affiliated radio station, WNHH-LP, is back in New Haven offering some commentary. Oakland-based cartoonist Fred Noland of the Independent Review Crew is in Chicago as well, though he hasn’t started drawing yet.

And it’s not all national. Here’s a funny story, with video and photos, about Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar squaring off with New Haven Democrats about the virtues of New Haven apizza versus Chicago-style deep-dish pizza.

The Washington Post: The early print bird misses the keynote
USA Today: Protests but no convention coverage above the fold
The Wall Street Journal: Biden’s speech, yes, but wow, Edgar Bronfman!
The Boston Globe: The president makes page one

GBH News will partner with other public media outlets to offer statewide coverage

GBH headquarters in Allston. Photo (cc) 2011 by WGBH.

At a time when public media operations are cutting back, GBH News is leveraging partnerships with other stations in order to bolster its statewide coverage. It strikes me as a smart way of doing more with less following cutbacks at both of Boston’s news-focused public radio stations, GBH and WBUR, and at public broadcasters across the country. (I should note that CAI is actually part of GBH.) Below is a press release from GBH.

GBH News Joins with CAI: The Cape & Islands NPR station and New England Public Media to Expand Coverage Statewide

GBH News, CAI and New England Public Media (NEPM) today announced a partnership to report and expand news coverage statewide, reaching listeners from Springfield to Provincetown and points between. Connecting the Commonwealth, the first initiative of its kind in Massachusetts, will build upon a longstanding relationship between the three public media outlets, as well as GBH News bureaus in Worcester, at the State House, and in Boston.

Coverage will focus on the stories that matter to audiences locally and statewide, including education to the environment, the economy and inequality. From breaking news to in-depth human interest stories, Connecting the Commonwealth will weave regional and local enterprise reporting through radio and digital storytelling daily across all three media outlets’ digital and broadcast platforms.  Jennifer Moore, GBH’s first Statewide and Features Editor, will lead the collaboration.

“There’s an immense need for local journalism on issues that matter to Massachusetts residents. Through our relationships with NEPM and CAI, we’ll partner to create content of interest to all of the state’s 7 million residents, something few media outlets in Massachusetts can do,” said Dan Lothian, editor-in-chief of GBH News and The World. “Jennifer Moore will lead our collaborate efforts, creating new content and sharing reports from all of our newsrooms, allowing us cover more breaking news and enterprise features that shape the conversation.”

“NEPM is excited to strengthen our partnership with GBH and CAI to deliver even more timely and comprehensive coverage of the news and issues facing residents of western Massachusetts,” said John Sutton, VP of content and audience strategy for NEPM. “This collaboration will help us to better report on topics of statewide importance and to build the type of community connections that lead to a healthier commonwealth.”

“Having a statewide editor overseeing the efforts of all three newsrooms will allow us to bring these important stories to our listeners in a timely manner,” said CAI Managing Director of Editorial and Host and Producer of The Point, Mindy Todd. “We look forward to working closely with GBH and NEPM to cover even more local and regional stories.”

Moore was previously features editor at GBH News. Earlier in her career, she served as the news director and content coordinator at the NPR & PBS stations in Springfield, Missouri. As a freelancer, she’s reported for The New York Times and NPR, including from the Middle East.

“Each Massachusetts community is unique. At the same time, they all need news and information about many of the same issues, whether that’s education, the environment, the economy or our elections. We believe Connecting the Commonwealth will be a trusted destination for news from across the state,” said Moore. “I look forward to hearing from our audiences about what matters most to them and reaffirming our commitment to impactful daily journalism.”

Connecting the Commonwealth reporting will appear across multiple platforms at each organization, including GBH 89.7FM, gbhnews.org, and the GBH News YouTube channel; 88.5 NEPM and nepm.org; CAI 90.1 FM, 91.1 FM, and 94.3 FM and online at capeandislands.org.