The Real Lesson To Take From Russia's Meddling

Russia’s attempt to influence the recent presidential election has dominated public attention since late 2016 when it was officially recognized.  This reaction is understandable and to some degree appropriate, although the actual impact of Russian interference has likely been overstated.  There is a danger, however, we will miss the real lesson to be learned from this unsavory episode:  today’s American media, both traditional and social, invites surreptitious meddling in our electoral processes.

Most Americans are surprised and vexed by the success Russian bots and cyborgs enjoyed in 2016 feeding stories into our political processes.  No matter what their objective---to elect Donald Trump president or to just stir discord in our political system---the extent of their activities and their accomplishments has been shocking. 

 

The same vulnerabilities the Russians have taken advantage of, however, are available to cyber outlaws based in other countries and those working for some domestic organizations.  In recent years extraordinary sums of money have been spent on media ads and disinformation campaigns funded by American entities created under section 501©(4)  of the IRS tax code.  These social welfare organizations are tax exempt and do not have to identify their donors. 

How have these circumstances arisen?

The deregulation passion that has seized the US in the past forty years has had a major impact on communications.  When I began work as a young television journalist some fifty years ago, the “fairness doctrine” reigned supreme.  Broadcasters were required to provide coverage of significant news stories and to do so in a balanced manner, laying aside personal political biases, and since the airways were considered to be owned by the public, the operating license of a station was subject to periodic review by the Federal Communications Commission.

Television advertising was tightly limited at the time, the result of a voluntary agreement among the three major networks that dominated the industry.  The limitations seem almost blissful today---no more than one product could be advertised in each 30-second spot; no more than five consecutive spots; and no more than 8 ½ advertising minutes in an hour.

First to go were the advertising limits. President Carter’s Justice Department filed an anti-trust suit in July 1979 against the three major networks arguing the voluntary code represented restraint of trade.  A settlement of the suit reached in November 1982, wiped out the aforementioned limits.

Another shoe fell in 1987 when the FCC suspended the “fairness doctrine,” citing the rapid development of cable television as justification.  The assumption was that competition among the growing number of broadcast outlets would guarantee coverage of key issues and insure access to the airways for all points of view.  

Things have not worked out as predicted.  The quest for advertising dollars has diminished serious news coverage, and where “news” has prospered it is on programs leaning perceptibly right or left---such as Fox News on the right and MSNBC on the left.  Unfortunately, ratings of such programs appear to depend on reinforcing prejudices, making the programs potential targets for tailored messaging whether from foreign or domestic sources.    

The Internet made possible the explosion of social media. Democratic and Republican administrations have both been reluctant to impede this growth with regulations.  Russian meddling has revealed the shortcomings of this restraint.

Editorial responsibility is virtually nonexistent in social media.  In addition, platforms are structured to encourage resharing of content rapidly---“going viral.”  Democracy advocates in the emerging world view this latter capability enthusiastically, citing the role social media played in 2011 enabling the Arab Spring.  However, these circumstances also facilitate the impact of bots and cyborgs, the primary instruments of Russian interlopers. 

The desire to monetize social media platforms opens the door for further abuse.  Online ads on social media websites are aggressively encouraged.  Ads could even be invited to this blog, and efforts to determine the accuracy or appropriate content of ads seems limited.

Nearly all social media platforms collect personal data from their users for marketing purposes.  Some of that information may be relevant to political research as well, but careful management of such data has not been a priority.  Facebook has just been severely rebuked for allowing personal data to fall in the hands of Cambridge Analytica, a data mining and data analysis company which provided support for the Trump campaign and a key US Senate race in NC.

Condemnation of Russian meddling and their hacking activities is essential. This behavior is unacceptable.  Even though the Trump administration claims the ongoing investigation is a witch hunt, it admits Russian hackers are capable of penetrating key sectors of our infrastructure, including energy, water, and transportation.  While the US may have countervailing capabilities, tit-for-tat on such a scale is not a comforting prospect.     

Whatever the US decides is the appropriate response to Russia, it will not diminish the need to encourage better management of our media resources and control of access.  An effective democracy requires information sources that its citizens are able to trust.