SpaceX: A New Monopoly, Great Opportunity

      On Monday night, December 21st, 2015, SpaceX made history again. The private space rocket firm launched 11 satellites into orbit for ORBCOMM, but that has become the norm for them. What was impressive was the achievement of their secondary objective: successfully landing the primary stage rocket on land. That has never been done before, by anyone, and it is a big deal.

      The biggest problem for space travel, tourism, research, and really anything involving putting stuff into orbit is costs. Making a rocket is very, very expensive. It is made even more expensive by the fact that they are not reusable. Upon launch, the rockets and fuel chambers, which cost millions of dollars to develop and build, are jettisoned into the ocean, or burn up on reentry.

      To understand the immense waste this causes, think about a commercial airplane. A Boeing 747 costs hundreds of millions of dollars, and seats less than 700 people. If the plane were to be built, carry 700 people across the country, and then immediately be dumped into the ocean, that would be something like what space travel is currently like. To make a profit, each passenger would have to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for one plane ticket. The result: very few people, if at all anyone, would fly. That is the current state of space travel: only big governments and corporations have the money to even think about going to space. Several months ago, SpaceX's website listed the cost of one flight on their Falcon 9 rocket as over $60 million dollars. Their larger Falcon Heavy model was over $90 million per flight. At the time, however, that was the cheapest anyone could get.

      The significance of SpaceX landing the rocket in one piece is that now it is reusable. Now that we are no longer dumping multi-million rockets into the ocean after one use, the cost of building a rocket can, like the cost of building a plane, be spread out over many flights, making each individual flight much, much cheaper. As of today the prices on SpaceX's website have been taken down, and not yet replaced: likely while they recalculate the new cost of space travel. This raises the question: exactly how cheap will such a future be?

      SpaceX now has the closest thing to a monopoly possible in today's space age. Already the cheapest way to transport goods to space, no one can now compete with them on price. Traditional basic monopolist theory would suggest that they would artificially keep the price high to boost profits. This would be a shame. Fortunately, basic monopolist theory assumes that the producer is pursuing profit, and SpaceX is not. Elon Musk has made it his goal to drastically reduce the cost of space travel, with the eventual goal of sending humans to Mars in large numbers to establish a colony. This means that the price of space travel is likely to fall dramatically.

      The changes of reusable spacecraft, and thus cheap space travel, cannot be understated. Commercial aircraft have revolutionized the world, accelerating globalization, and connecting us across continents. How much easier it is to travel to Europe by plane rather than boat. A cheap way into orbit and beyond will mean many more satellites, which could, say, give internet access to everyone in the world. It will drastically reduce the cost of research, and allow much more accurate weather and climate tracking networks. Already there has been talk of sending fleets of nano-satellites into orbit, and even plans for asteroid mining. All these plans and more have just become much more feasible.

      There will likely be many more changes brought about by this revolutionary feat: the future is coming, and it really doesn't look so grim.

By: Jonathan Wood

Carbon Taxes

      With the ongoing Paris talks, many ideas are being floated to combat changing climates. Many are complicated and technical, others involve quotas and strict regulation. A straightforward way to address consequences caused by human actions would be to change those human actions. Economics shows that generally, when an activity becomes more costly, it is done less. Thus, to reduce the burning of fossil fuels and the emission of carbon, tax carbon, a lot. Small taxes on carbon emissions, and activities that promote it, such as Mexico's $1 per ton, would be nice efforts to raise a little cash for governments. To effect real change, much larger rates must be implemented, particularly given the currently low base prices of oil and gas.

      The effects of taxing carbon would be straightforward. Higher costs of crude oil, coal, and natural gas would reduce consumption of gasoline and electricity. It would make renewables more attractive for many people, and spur investment in alternative forms of energy, as well as in more efficient appliances and products. Even for those whom a carbon tax does not make renewables profitable, taxing emissions would encourage many firms to switch from coal fired plants to gas fired ones, which produce far fewer emissions. This would have a huge impact, since coal fired plants make up such a large portion of electricity generation world wide, while China burned 3.8 billion tons in 2011, and is expected to grow. BP has estimated that switching 1% of the world's coal fired plants to gas fired would cause an equivalent carbon emission decrease to increasing the amount of renewables by 11%. A carbon tax would certainly help nudge energy companies in that direction.

      Beyond merely reducing global warming and hopefully keeping temperature low, there are other reasons for adopting a carbon tax. Air pollution is harmful to human health, as emissions release tons of particulates, tiny particles that clog the lungs and cause a number of ailments, and a variety of harmful chemicals that humans inhale. In India, research done by Greenpeace, the Conservation Action Trust, and Urban Emissions recons that coal emissions kill at least 80,000 people, and result in heal care costs of at least $3.3 billion. The health benefits alone of reduced emissions would, some argue, justify a carbon tax of $30 per ton. Of course, due to different needs, local costs, or economic conditions, using a tax to establish a world carbon tax may be very unsustainable. More likely, prices will remain different between region or countries.

      To be sure, such a high tax would not be without costs. Higher prices in the short run will hurt consumer demand for many goods, reducing consumption. However, the case is easy to make that the long run benefits of moving quickly to a cleaner and more energy efficient society will outweigh the short term pains of change.

By: Jonathan Wood

TPP: Environmental Protection

      Chapter 20 of the Trans Pacific Partnership deals with Environmental regulation among the 12 member Parties (countries). Generally, there are calls for greater information sharing and publication of programs and activities relating to such environmental assets as the ozone layer. The agreement also encourages nations to enact regulations to preserve a variety of areas, from wild fauna to marine life. Importantly, Article 20.3.6 clearly states that no exceptions to environmental laws are to be made merely to attract or encourage trade with a preferred partner. This will help to ensure that environmental regulations are implemented fairly and equally from country to country.

      Of course, the matter of establishing regulations leads to the question of what to do if one is broken. To establish a violation of some of these steps to protection, a Party must show that the failure impacted their trade. For example, Article 20.6.1 calls upon each Party to “take measures to prevent the pollution of the marine environment from ships”. To establish a violation of this clause, another Party must “demonstrate that the [first] Party has failed to take measures to prevent the pollution of the marine environment from ships in a manner affecting trade or investment between the Parties.” So, once a Party demonstrates that another Party’s actions failed to protect the marine environment, and that the failure affected their trade, what penalties are available? Sadly, that question is not sufficiently answered in the current TPP.

      If a violation is detected, there is nothing specifying what penalties may be enacted. In Chapter 20, it does state that “sanctions, penalties, or other effective measures” may be taken in order to deter harmful trade, specifically relating to illegal trade in wild fauna and flora. However, even here, no specific actions are spelled out. This is one of the places in which the TPP acts not as a regulation, but as a framework for future coordination between its Parties for enacting specific legislation as the specific situations between each Party requires.

      The reasons for this can be many. The TPP, already making great reforms in pharmaceuticals and tariffs, cannot be the tool by which every interaction between its members are measured. Indeed, within Chapter 20, as within other chapters, the TPP relies on outside treaties and agreements, referencing previous deals such as 1993 FAO and 2001 IUU Fishing Plan of Action. This lack of substance in the framework that the current TPP agreement sets up is a stark reminder that this agreement is not meant to stand alone, and is the first step in greater cooperation among its members. That was, after all, one of America’s goals in these negotiations: to set the agenda for future dialogue among Pacific nations, and to secure its place at the table for future talks, which will decide much about the nature of Pacific nations’ interactions with one another, and not simply in trade. In short, while the TPP marks great change in many areas of international relations, it also marks the start of closer cooperation between its members.

You can read more about these and other environmental regulations in Chapter 20 of the TPP.

By: Jonathan Wood

TPP: Pharmaceutical Patents

      In the US, patents on medications allow pharmaceuticals exclusive rights to market and sell a drug for the first 20 years. Many have hoped that the TPP would substantially reduce or eliminate this period. Since the US's patent duration is among the longest in the TPP, reductions were expected as all nations' patent systems are brought more in line with each others'. Pharmaceuticals, however, wanted to implement a relatively long patent period (some rumored this to be about 12 years). This would have delayed the introduction of cheap generics, and pharmaceuticals would be able to maintain their monopolies for longer. This makes medicine expensive. However, the period of monopoly is important. Producing, developing, and researching new drugs is extraordinarily expensive, time consuming, and risky. To incentive such activities, which provide society with new and superior medicine, a brief period of monopoly is needed to ensure profit. If patents were completely eliminated, there would be too little incentive to spend billions developing new drugs. So the TPP struck a middle (read: unpopular) ground. Pharmaceuticals dislike the deal because their patents will be shortened, and others dislike it because they still have patents.

      The TPP restricts new firms from marketing the same or similar pharmaceuticals within at least 5 or 8 years of the first company being allowed to do so. This reduction in patent duration upsets Pharmaceuticals because it cuts into their profits. For the duration of their patents, the company has a monopoly on that drug, which allows them to charge whatever price they like. For drugs that do not have substitutes, people suffering from the disease it treats must choose to buy the extremely expensive drug, or go without. For those with terminal or extreme illness, the later option is all but unthinkable. Thus, for the duration of the patent, companies have extraordinary pricing power, as can be witnessed by recent price hikes for many prescriptions. Since it is more expensive per pill the more you make, past a certain point, and since it is more difficult to produce a million pills in a day than a thousand, monopolistic companies also tend to restrict output, in addition to raising prices, to maximize profit. In fact, limiting the number of pills they produce is the simplest way of raising prices, because a more scarce product is more valuable. This means that not only are drugs expensive, but there often aren't enough of them. This is not to say that Big Pharma is conspiring to let millions die by withholding drugs. However, many drugs become much more widely available once generics are allowed to compete, because more companies expand production and the competition lowers the price. Thus, any measures that reduce the duration of the pharmaceutical companies' monopolies benefits consumers, as long as the period is not so short as to stop companies from researching new medicine altogether. Hence the reduction, but not elimination, of the length of the patents.

      Naturally, their are many caveats to the eight year protection period. The treaty states that a company's right to market a drug exclusively must be protected in two ways. They must do so as described in Article 18.50.1 and Article 18.50.3 either for at least 8 years or at least 5 years. If the drug is completely new, they get an 8 year period, and they get 5 years if the drug is new, but similar to existing drugs. These measures provide pharmaceutical companies with a period of monopoly to ensure that they recover their investment from developing new medicine, but allow generics to be introduced to compete with them across all member countries and drive the price down in a more reasonable amount of time.

The full text is available here, in downloadable PDF format.

By: Jonathan Wood

TPP: Official Release

      The full, final, official text of the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement were released on November 6th. Including Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the United States, and Vietnam, the text will be reviewed by each of the 12 member country's governments and will not take effect until all countries have approved it. This agreement, if approved, will be one of the largest trade agreements in history, with its current members comprising 40% of world trade. Further, the Agreement includes the possibility for additional countries to join, as South Korea is rumored to be considering, which means that its significance could grow to impact the majority of international trade.

      The goal of the TPP, broadly, is to facilitate freer trade between the member countries. Firstly, it is aimed at reducing tariffs, quotas, and other Non-Tariff Barriers (NTBs) among the participating countries. Additionally, the TPP aims to promote clear and transparent standards across the member countries in areas such as Intellectual Property rights, Import and Export Licensing, and other aspects of trade. On the topic of Intellectual Property, perhaps the most covered topic is the duration of patents for pharmaceuticals. This has been set at a shorter term than the current one in the United States.

      Another major clause implements great restrictions on the levying of customs duties. The vast majority of existing customs duties that are applied to members of the Agreement are going to be phased out, and none can be raised or created (except for anti-dumping and countervailing purposes). However, these duties will not disappear overnight. When all participants have ratified the Agreement, then it will come into force, triggering large reductions in the duties, as well as other NTBs. Then, over a period of several years (varying by type of duty and country), the fees will be phased out based on a minimum time table laid out in the Agreement. Countries can choose to accelerate it for themselves either unilaterally or through future agreements.

      Furthermore, all customs duties on certain goods will be indiscriminately removed. These include fees on physical ads (pamphlets, posters, etc.), temporary goods not to be used for profit (sports gear for events, cameras for new reports), and any goods worth less than US$1. Customs duties are also not to be levied on goods shipped to a country for the purpose of repair or minor alteration (such as if a recalled car needs a replacement part). These reductions represent significant steps to reducing the costs of transporting goods across these international boarders, promoting freer and fairer trade.

      There is a great deal more in the TPP, and so over the coming weeks this article will be followed by others that summarize various sections of the Agreement and analyze its potential effects on member countries and select industries that are particularly exposed to international trade.

The full text is available here, in downloadable PDF format.

By: Jonathan Wood

The Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement

What It Means For Global Trade

"Imports create competition and keep domestic industry more responsive to consumers."
-- Senator Chuck Grassley, IA (R)
The one thing almost any economist will agree to is that free trade is nearly always a net benefit, and almost never creates net losses. When nations remove tariff and non-tariff barriers (NTBs), such as quotas, it allows resources to be used more efficiently across those countries and increases competition. Firms gain because now they can sell their products to much larger markets. Consumers gain because they have a greater variety of goods and services to choose from. As companies merge or out compete inefficient rivals, economies of scale allow them to more efficiently (ie more cheaply) use resources which lowers prices for consumers. As some industries contract from competition, their capital and workers are absorbed into the expanding industries. Importantly, while their are losers and winners, the gains by the winners will outweigh the losses to the losers, and on net the countries involve in opening up trade will benefit.
Because there are losers in large scale free trade agreements, there tends to be vocal opposition to such deals, usually fueled by the interest groups that stand to loose. One common argument that has been raised around the Trans Pacific Partnership, or TPP, is that it is a "corporate power grab". In essence, runs the argument, large companies are forging new laws behind closed doors that will boost their profits at the expense of domestic jobs and the common man.
This argument has two flaws. Firstly, corporate bodies are not involved in the negotiations, and in fact have no more information or access than the general public. Secondly, corporations are among the loudest opponents to the TPP. Big pharmaceutical companies in America fear it will reduce the duration of their patents, allowing generics to enter the marketplace and drastically lower the prices of medications sooner. Dairy farmers in Canada fear that foreign firms will be able to outcompete them, luring away customers with cheaper milk and cheese. Free trade means greater competition for many industries, leading to lower prices. That is bad news for corporate profit margins, but an exciting prospect for the average consumer, both in America and abroad.
Another major complaint is that the negotiations took place in secret, and only the final deal is being released to the public and legislature for approval; thus, it must certainly be undemocratic. This overlooks the fact that if the negotiations were public, the citizens, companies, and interest groups of every one of the participating countries will holler and scream at every single development, and nothing would progress. With the current situation, each nation had representatives negotiating on their behalf, and the final version will be publicly released. The US people will still be able to become informed, lobby their congressional representatives, and put the TPP through the democratic process before we decide whether or not to adopt it. This way, none but a select few, and that excludes any mega-corporations, have access to details before everyone else; and the negotiations can progress in relative peace and quiet.
The TPP has the potential to become one of the largest trade agreements ever created, and its exact effects will not be known for some time. On October 7th, it was announced that the exact, full text of the final agreement will be released within 30 days to the general public. Each nation will have to ratify the treaty independently, and the US Congress will have until early 2016 to do so. Over the weeks following the release of the full text, this department will publish articles of the TPP's potential effects on the 12 member countries, looking and the potential impacts of specific policies.

By: Jonathan Wood

The Fate of the Euro

By Jack Nugent

    Since the New Year began, the American dollar has increased in value dramatically, up 5.7%. Sadly, this might not be the case for much longer. This is the 5th week in a row that the dollar has depreciated in value, compared to the euro. Once almost equivalent in value, the exchange is now .87 euros for 1 dollar, and declining.

           In the months of February and March, hopeful US economists were predicting the domination of the dollar for the good part of 2015. Unfortunately- the truth is- such a trend is not only unlikely, but also without any real basis. Historically, the euro has picked itself up against the dollar, and the US government’s failure to take quick initiative and stabilize this growth is seldom seen when looking at past economic policy.

           While it remains true that the second-quarter rebound that the dollar and the US market usually enjoys was in no way as great as expected, the euro has a strength that the dollar will always lack: it is a truly fluid currency.

           Since its conception, the Eurozone has been based off of the following principles; an economy controlled by the people, completely reliant on the actions of both other nations, and an intergovernmental organization. Europe’s roots in these ideals lead all the way back into the 60’s with the ECM (European Common Market). These founding principles are what cause the euro to fall, but ultimately lead to its success.

           Now, the situation in Greece is sticky.  It is a country riddled with pre-existing economic issues, now handled by a prime minister who practically embraces debt with open arms. Recently, Tsipras admitted that he would probably not be able to pay back IMF loans, which could lead to the euro’s demise. And the situation is not exclusive to Greece: in fact, Greece epitomizes the region-wide trend toward Euro-skepticism. But- like the rise of the dollar- this is a short-term trend.

           Because of the fluidity of the Euro, there will be a comeback of Euro-fanatics, and a rise in the value. We may well be seeing this now. The Euro will be back, and stronger than ever.

           The Euro is the representation of the modern day boom and bust. But if this is the worst the bust gets (with the exception of ’08), Europe could be experiencing some serious boom.

           Now what does this mean to us in the states, especially those of you reading in DC? This means that there will undoubtedly be a conflict of interest between Euro and dollar. And with the rise of China, now might not be the best time for that. So, the US and the EU need to set aside the differences create a far more symbiotic relationship, and we, the people, will reap the benefits.

Maybe Chipotle Going GMO-Free Really Does Matter?

            On Monday, the fastest growing fast-food chain of this decade – Chipotle, announced that they would no longer serve food that featured genetically modified organisms (GMO’s). The announcement brought on widespread criticism from the scientific community as both the Food and Drug Administration and World Health Organization have deemed GMOs perfectly suitable for human consumption in recent years. Several media outlets around the country were quick to hail this change as a baseless PR stunt that only worked to help boost Chipotle’s image as a cheap and conveniently healthy alternative to other ‘fast-casual’ chains. National headlines have labeled the announcement as the restaurant’s way of promoting a “global propaganda campaign^[1]” that has no true scientific backing.

When looking at the response to this change it appears as though we are missing out on one of the key ramifications of the change, how will this improve or hurt farmers around the world?

            The scientific community has come to a clear consensus on the whole GMO matter: they do not have immediate effects on anyone’s health (long term research is still not fully conclusive as pointed out by Chipotle in their press release) and are safe for human consumption. The farming community has not had the same cohesiveness when it comes to a clear outlook, and the opinion on GMOs depends majorly on what country you are farming in.

Countries like India and the Philippines have gone as far as to adopt harsh anti-GMO policies that often ban many types of GM seeds from being used in that country. Currently 26 countries have specific policies that ban the use of a GMO seed – and more are looking to follow suit every day.

Why are so many nations banning farmers from using genetically modified crops? The path to these laws can be traced most clearly along the journey of genetically modified crops in India. In India, a large percentage of the population operate in agricultural professions – 27% according to the last 2011 census. This is a large percentage for the second most populous country in the world; the United States only recorded 2% of the American workforce as farmers or in the agro-business in the most recent 2010 census. A majority of that 27% are small farmers – who have been forced by the introduction of genetically modified crops in the industry to completely transform every aspect of  their operation.

Truth be told these small farmers can simply not keep up with many other mass producing farmers across the country that hold secretive and lucrative deals with GMO companies such as Monsanto. Unfortunately small farmers inability to compete in this new market has led to a tragic growth in suicide rates for farmers all over India.

The Center for Human Rights and Global Justice recently released a report that estimated that in 2009 alone 17,638 Indian farmers committed suicide, or one suicide every 30 minutes. In the last decade the number of suicide rates has toppled well over 100,000^[2] and doesn’t seem to be slowing down anytime soon. This issue is mostly widely seen where genetically modified cotton crop produced by the now infamous GMO Company Monsanto, are grown. The cotton crop that large scale biotech farms use to produce higher yields is critically impacting small scale farmers in India who are unable to compete with these larger farms. Small scale farms are unable to compete in the industry which has placed an ever growing emphasis on GM crops.

Unfortunately this is just one of the many effects of Monsanto’s GMO monopoly on small farmers around the world. Just a few months back, Monsanto paid out over 2.4 million dollars to American farmers over a failed 2013 wheat crop that stalled the wheat industry completely for several weeks. Monsanto continues to deny their culpability in any of these cases and remains committed to the spread of GM crops.

            Chipotle’s announcement on Monday is a relevant indication of the changing attitude toward companies like Monsanto and the products they represent. When only focusing on the scientific aspect of the GMO argument, human lives in the agricultural profession are ignored. Maybe Chipotle is promoting a “global propaganda campaign”, but why can’t that be seen in a positive light? When massive companies like Chipotle promote revolutionary policies, it is easy to only side on the side of the critic. But, the effects of this change are much farther reaching than we can imagine. This announcement could encourage the agricultural industry to make a bigger effort to look behind the GMO curtain and examine their effects on not just large scale farmers but the small family owned farming businesses in India and the Philippines that are struggling to stay alive in this rapidly changing food machine.

---

^[1] "Chipotle's GMO Gimmick Is Hard to Swallow." Washington Post. The Washington Post, n.d. Web. 04 May 2015.

^[2] "How Many Farmers Does India Really Have?" Http://www.hindustantimes.com/. N.p., n.d. Web. 04 May 2015.

To Test or Not to Test?

 Like thousands of other high school students across the country, my younger sister will begin another long awaited week of PARCC testing – or Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers exam in a few weeks. The exam, which has been met with controversy and criticism in virtually every state it's been introduced in, has been a topic at school constantly recently. What is the test for? What does it measure? Why did we switch over from the District of Columbia Comprehensive Assessment System exam (DC-CAS)?  These are questions that are being asked in schools not only in DC but around the country.

    In 2014, District of Columbia Public Schools (DCPS) replaced the almost decade old DC-CAS exam with PARCC.  The switch from DC-CAS was anticipated by many as the exam had been met with mounting criticism from both educators and parents in the last few years. Although many at first encouraged the switch in the District, there has still been significant criticism towards the new test. This negative response has not only been seen in DC but all over the country.

    The uproar across the country towards the exam has been increasingly prevalent as thousands of educators, parents and students have begun to stage mass protests in cities across the country - especially in strong teacher union cities like Chicago. In New York City alone, 175,000 students have chosen to opt out of the PARCC test with many more expected to follow behind as the testing date nears. These numbers are significantly higher than those seen in previous years, and have brought on an even more of critical analysis towards the role of testing in schools. The PARCC exam is just one of the many additions to the several mandated tests and exams that students are put through every year. DCPS in particular has seen constant change in standardized testing recently and has been host to three different types of standardized exams in the last five years.

Standardized testing is an attribute of the American educational system that is constantly under heavy critique. Despite the amount of standardized exams students throughout the country  go through every year the ranking of American students internationally has not increased significantly in decades. Many have identified ‘over testing’ as the reason as to why American students are falling so far behind, which has opened a new debate as to whether or not testing helps or hurts students.

    Unlike the United States, many nations have followed a decreasing trend when it comes to the number of standardized tests students take each year. In nations like Finland, who scored in the highest percentiles for both reading and writing on the 2012 Program for International Student Assessment, or PISA (a test used to track educational trends around the world) have adopted strong ‘anti-standardized’ policies in recent years.

Schools in Finland promote creative thinking over memorization and emphasize a culture that is focused more on how you interpret over how much you know. Finland has one of the strongest policies towards standardized tests--the small Northern European country has banned standardized tests for all students in recent years. This model has worked extremely well for the country and their students and the educational trends in Finland have been on an upward track for the last few years.

While completely eliminating standardized tests in American schools might be far away from where we as a country are at education wise, it is still worth examining. It is clear that standardized testing in America is a broken system. As a country, we have to reevaluate how much these tests effectively change and impact our educational standards and ability. When looking at how we compete internationally - a nation heavy on standardized testing - with a nation like Finland who has banned standardized testing a clear message can be deciphered.  The United States will continue to follow a downward trend in terms of education if we do not wake up and smell the flowers, and realize that a change has to be made.

The Dangers of Ideological News (Part 2 of 2)

By Nathan Ausubel

The danger of ideological news goes well beyond the reporting of “no-go-zones.” According to many experts, Fox News and MSNBC not only report faulty information but also influence the political process. In the weeks leading up to an election, TV channels are known to favor one party’s candidate above the other candidate, so much so that they impact actual voting habits. When he was running for reelection, Obama only received 6% of positive coverage from Fox News, whereas 46% of coverage was negative.  From the liberal MSNBC, Obama received the opposite treatment: 39% of positive coverage versus 15% of negative coverage.¹ Mitt Romney received a similarly biased treatment as Obama’s competitor. Fox gave him 28% of positive coverage and only 12% of negative coverage. MSNBC, once again, proved to be its mirror image, as it gave Romney only 3% of positive coverage and a staggering 71% of negative coverage.¹ Fox News and MSNBC claim that they are committed to balanced coverage of the news, but rather than giving both parties an equal chance to win over voters, they are instead letting ideology get in the way of fair reporting.

Fox News is so biased when reporting elections that it actually influences voting patterns. In 2007, professors Stefano DellaVigna and Ethan Kaplan found that Fox News has a “significant impact on voting for Republican candidates.”² Even after controlling for confounding variables such as town characteristics, the researchers had ample evidence to show that Fox News encourages voter turnout and the conversion of moderate Democrats into Republicans.  They were able to reach such conclusions by comparing voting patterns in 9,256 towns before and after the introduction of Fox News.²

Rupert Murdoch’s TV network has been particularly effective in galvanizing opposition to the Obama administration. For example, the Fox News hosts have given a powerful voice to the critics of the Affordable Care Act, even those with wild conspiracy theories.  The network has also gone so far as to encourage “tea parties” that protest Obama’s tax policies.³ The Obama administration has long since realized that Fox News is not an impartial news source giving balanced coverage of the president. Anita Dunn, the White House communications direction has said that the administration will treat Fox News “the way that we would treat an opponent,” and she accused the network of “undertaking a war against Barack Obama and the White House.”³ While the Obama administration battles with the network, Fox News will continue will continue to promote the interests of the Tea Party and to alienate conservatives from a president once accused of having “a deep-seated hatred for white people.”³ This treatment of the president is, unfortunately, typical of news agencies that find inspiration in ideology instead of in proper news. Rather than informing viewers about Obama’s performance, Fox News is instead spinning a conservative narrative that is encouraging political opposition to the current administration.

Partisan news is a clear danger to this country. It misinforms viewers about events happening around the world, undermines the principles of journalism, and influences the voting process. Unfortunately, the owners of Fox News and MSNBC have rigorously denied that they deliver an ideology rather than a quality product. For example, Rupert Murdoch once said, “I challenge anyone to show me an example of bias in Fox News Channel.”⁴ Obviously, he is far from the truth, and in fact, the public thinks that press accuracy is at its lowest ranking in over two decades.⁵ Still, Fox News and MSNBC remain troublingly popular news agencies, even as they come under scrutiny for biased reporting. TV networks need to shift away from ideologically driven stories, or else they will continue to place unhealthy influence on the American public. Otherwise, the future of journalism is at stake.

~~~

¹ Holcomb, Jesse. “5 facts about Fox.” Pew Research Center. Pew Research Center, 14 Jan. 2014. Web. 1 Feb. 2015.

² DellaVigna, Stefano and Ethan Kaplan. “The Fox News Effect: Media Bias and Voting.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 122.3 (2007): 1187-1234. Web. 1 Feb. 2015.

³ Carr, David. “The Battle Between the White House and Fox News.” The New York Times. The New York Times Company, 17 Oct. 2009. Web. 1 Feb. 2015.

⁴ Shah, Anup. “Media in the United States.” Global Issues. Global Issues, 28 Jan. 2012. Web. 1 Feb. 2015.

⁵ “Press Accuracy Rating Hits Two Decade Low: Public Evaluations of the News Media: 1985-2009.” Pew Research Center. Pew Research Center, 13 Sep. 2009. Web. 1 Feb. 2015.

The Dangers of Ideological News (Part 1 of 2)

By Nathan Ausubel

Fox News has never had a reputation for impartial reporting. For years, liberals had criticized the news channel for delivering a conservative, politically driven message that has misinformed viewers about events happening around the world. However, until recently, Fox News made few steps to correct the damage, until a controversy broke out last month.

In mid-January, Fox came under scrutiny for releasing a fictitious story about “no-go-zones” in Europe. According to Fox anchors, countries such as England and France were filled with regions that were off limit to non-Muslims and operated under Shari’a law. The story was obviously false, but Fox insisted on selling the story of Steve Emerson, a “self-described expert on Islamist terrorism.”¹ However, once the story was under scrutiny, Fox surprised many people by taking blame for the sloppy journalism. “To be clear,” said Fox host Julie Banderas, “there is no formal designation of these zones in either country and no credible information to support the assertion that there are specific areas in these countries that exclude individuals based solely on their religion.”¹

This apology was much overdue. For obvious reasons, Fox News should never have published a story that veered so far from the truth. Fox made the right decision to apologize for its mistake, but it needs to realize that a single apology will not make up for years of unreliable reporting. In its mission statement, Fox claims that it stands for “tolerance, open debate, civil discourse, and balanced coverage of the news,” but clearly Fox is not upholding its mission statement.² Instead, it is delivering a partisan message and a conservative agenda.

To be fair, Fox News is not the only news agency known for its biased coverage of events. MSNBC is arguably just as biased, but it lies on the liberal end of the spectrum. In their defense, partisan news sources are not necessarily inherently bad, as long as they deliver high-quality news and tell all sides of an issue.

Unfortunately, Fox News and MSNBC are not living up to these ideals of journalism. In fact, the basic objectivity of journalism is in danger as long as news agencies prioritize ideology above quality news. According to PunditFact, a fact-checking project of the Tampa Bay Times and Poynter Institute, 60% of the statements made on Fox News are at best “mostly false.” MSNBC does not rank much better, as 46% of the statements made on NBC/MSNBC are false. In comparison, 82% of the information told on CNN is at least “half true.”³ The reason that CNN performs so well is that it lies at the center of the ideological spectrum and makes a serious effort to eliminate political biases. In comparison, Fox News and MSNBC are much more likely to invite self-proclaimed experts and pundits with extreme political views to speak on their talk shows.

All across the country, TV channels are cutting back on the amount of quality news and replacing them with ideological opinion pieces that are easily mistaken for hard fact. By embracing this new style of journalism, Fox News and MSNBC demonstrate that they are no longer committed to journalistic excellence but rather to selling an ideology to a mass audience. Fox News was suffering from this corrupting influence when it released a story about fictitious “no-go-zones” in Europe; it was so concerned with its conservative, anti-foreigner agenda that it forgot to fact-check its sources.

~~~

¹ Mackey, Robert. “Fox News Apologizes for False Claims of Muslim-Only Areas in England and France.” The New York Times. The New York Times Company, 18 Jan. 2015. Web. 1 Feb. 2015.

² “Statement of Purpose.” Fox Nation. Fox News Network, 2015. Web. 1 Feb. 2015.

³ Wemple, Erik. “PunditFact ‘scorecards’ show false statements on Fox News, NBC/MSNBC.” The Washington Post. Nash Holdings, LLC, 8 July 2014. Web. 1 Feb. 2015.

The Best Medicine: Why Comedy Matters in Politics

An Editorial and Reflection by Brian Contreras

Politics at home and abroad so often make people emotional, whether because of the content itself or the strong opinions people have about it, that making jokes seems to rarely be an appropriate response. All too often people will argue that it isn't the time or the place for being comedic, and that doing so diminishes the importance of the event or issue being made light of in the first place. And frequently, this is true; current events are overflowing with stories that, if not deserving of empathy, are at the very least worthy of being taken seriously.

Yet all too often, people's knee-jerk reaction to a joke being made about a pertinent issue is to call out the speaker as insensitive or untimely. And to be fair, this is generally an accurate assessment of the situation. Most would-be "comedians" are just using tragedy or conflict to satisfy a need for attention, without fulfilling the most basic requirement for being a comic - which is to say, actually being funny. Yet the problem here is the tastelessness of the attempt at humor, not the fact that an attempt was made. Because comedy is not only a basic way that humans deal with pain, but also (if done right) an erudite yet accessible format of art. Just as Pablo Picasso's Guernica or Terry George's Hotel Rwanda dealt with tragedies or social issues in a respectful but still personal manner, modern comedians have the ability to use their own unique method of communication to draw attention to issues, illustrate flaws in society, and perhaps most importantly, make people happy when they have no other reason to be.

One particularly salient illustration of the key role humor plays in the modern world is that of Hannibal Buress and his use of stand-up comedy to publicize the accusations of rape against Bill Cosby (which had been largely ignored for many years up to that point). During one of his sets Buress called out not only the older comedian and alleged rapist, but also the society that allowed him to remain unconvicted for so many years following the first victim stepping forwards. Almost immediately following the routine, websites and publications across the nation were publishing articles detailing the many accounts of sexual assault up to that point, which in turn led more women to come forwards and say that they, too, had been victimized by Cosby. The fact that it took a male comedian to make this a public issue, rather than the victims themselves, is problematic to the extreme; however, at the same time, it exemplifies the power comedy has to influence social systems.

Another recent event exemplary of this potential power is the strange tale of Seth Rogen and James Franco's stoner comedy The Interview, which openly mocked Kim Jong-un and his North Korean dictatorship. Franco and Rogen, famous for works like Freaks and Geeks and This is the End, may not seem like the likeliest candidates to cause an international cyber-terrorism crisis; but then again, you're not the Supreme Leader of the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea. Following the announcement of the film's release by Sony Pictures, Jong-un's administration threatened retaliation; soon after, massive amounts of Sony documents and data were leaked online, and the film was eventually pulled from widespread release following the threat of further attacks, possibly physical in nature. Regardless of the actual quality of the comedy (which has received middling reviews since then), it's power to intimidate or humiliate world leaders to the point of large-scale hacking attacks against major world superpowers is astounding, and indicative of the political leverage comedy and satire can have if used under the right circumstances.

Also in the news cycle over the last few weeks has been the finale of perchance the most famous work of political satire of this century - Comedy Central's iconic The Colbert Report, a mocking news show that poked fun at conservative politics, foreign crises, and all manner of timely issues. Following his introduction through The Daily Show with John Stewart (a similar albeit less satirically-tilted program), the eponymous Stephen Colbert adopted an uber-Republican persona while discussing each day's news items. Yet the character and the man alike extended far beyond the confines of the show, with events like Colbert's biting speech at the 2006 White House Correspondents Dinner, his massive DC-based "Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear", or his sharp take on campaign finance reform through the Super PAC "Americans for a Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow" demonstrating his commitment to character, comedy, and criticism. Such an expansion of the brand made him as important to the American political scene as nearly any other pundit or policy maker, and ironically enough, a man who lived behind a satirical facade became one of the most honest voices in the mass media. The loss of his irreplaceable insight and humor will be sorely missed from American televisions, all the more so because of the degree to which his comedy mattered not just as humor but as a force for social change.

But likely the most striking example of the power of humor in the world, and certainly the most fresh in our minds, is that of Charlie Hebdo - the satirical French publication that, after publishing a controversial portrayal of Muhammad, was attacked by two Islamist terrorists in what led to the direct death of twelve victims (as well as that of five more in subsequent acts of violence). Much has been said about the relative merits of the Hebdo cartoon and whether it was satirical or simply offensive in nature; this forum is not the place for such discussions. All that can be said is that the events were tragic, and the needless deaths deeply saddening. The idea that comedy (even of the offensive sort) would be cause for murder is unthinkable.

For better or worse, comedy is an immensely powerful tool, as the Charlie Hebdo staff proved through their publications that both led to and reflected on the attacks; whether one agrees with or rejects the specific stance of them or any other comedian is besides the point. To limit the freedom to make jokes (whether through law, intimidation, or violence) is to limit the human capacity for self-expression. This is not to say that there aren't limits in humor, but rather that the limits must be based on the preservation of safety and well being rather than the avoidance of offense. After all, truly powerful, world-changing art will always offend someone; that art being comedic in nature makes it no less important.

A Meditation on the Past 72 Hours in France

“I may not agree with you, but I will defend to the death your right to make an ass of yourself.”

-Oscar Wilde

All that can be said has been said. As an independent publication, free speech to us is the most important, sacred aspect of our daily lives. We would not exist, we would not deliver, and, arguably, as truth-fighters, we would have less of a reason to exist if not for this inalienable right. Nothing like the freedom to express - even if that means inviting others to insult - binds this civilization so strongly. Nothing can atone for this multiethnic bloodbath that attempted to nip at our strongest principal. Nothing will erase the pain felt across many groups. France, we are with you.

(The pictures say: 'I am Charlie' (after the Charlie Hebdo attacks), 'I am Ahmed' (after the heinously killed Muslim police officer in the attack), and 'I am Jew' (after the subsequent attack on a predominantly Jewish supermarket in Vincennes).

I Scream, You Scream.... Because of ISIS (Affirmation - Nathan Ausubel)

In his opening remarks, my opponent (Max Segal) raises some interesting points about the long-term goals of the US airstrikes against ISIS. He claims that United States’ objective “isn’t to obliterate ISIS” but “to secure Iraq.” My opponent also argues that airstrikes are the best option that the United States has against a borderless entity such as the Islamic State, and that the Kurds’ ground forces are performing surprisingly well against the terrorists.

Unfortunately, events in Iraq have not played out nearly as well as my opponent claims. The United States has launched airstrikes against the Islamic State for nearly half a year, and still ISIS troops are on the verge of taking over Kobani and other Kurdish cities situated on the border of Turkey. According to The Guardian, ISIS now controls “a 400-mile strip from Aleppo in Syria to Falluja in Iraq,” despite the frequent airstrikes and the efforts of the US-led coalition. To this day, ISIS remains one of the best funded terrorist organizations in the world, allowing it “to use social media to broadcast the attractions of a revived caliphate.” The United States will need to do more – much more – to drive ISIS from its current position of influence.

A good start would be getting the leader of ISIS, Abu Bakar, to change his lightbulbs sometimes...            

 My opponent argues that the Kurds have scored significant victories against ISIS. However, I see little evidence that Kurdish forces are actually driving back ISIS. Instead, the two sides seem to be locked in a stalemate. In October, we heard stories of ISIS troops fighting the Kurds within two kilometers of the center of Kobani, and we had reason to be worried, since Kobani is located only a couple miles away from the Turkish border. However, we expected – perhaps in vain – the US airstrikes to inflict some damage on ISIS. Two months later, Kobani is unfortunately still a warzone, and the Kurds have not managed to take back their city. In other parts of Iraq and Syria, especially in the Anbar province of western Iraq, ISIS has actually managed to gain land, instead of losing it to the US-led coalition.

               In light of recent events in the Middle East, we should be asking ourselves exactly what we hope to accomplish with repeated airstrikes. Is my opponent correct in his assessment that the US objective is not to obliterate ISIS but simply to secure Iraq? We need to look no further than Barack Obama to answer this question. Let me repeat what Obama said to the American people on September 10^th in his primetime address: “Our objective is clear: We will degrade, and ultimately destroy, ISIL.” According to ABC News, the president has repeated this same exact message – verbatim – over a dozen times. Obama has made himself quite clear: the United States will secure Iraq but doing so will require the destruction of ISIS, despite what my opponent has claimed.

 Nice job plugging me, Ausubel. Not that my words weren't just blanket speeches, but hey...

My opponent has also asserted that airstrikes are the best option to use against the Islamic State. However, in an op-ed published in the New York Times, Secretary of State John Kerry admitted that “airstrikes alone won’t defeat this enemy.” Airstrikes might be an appealing option on paper, but they only work when used in conjunction with an effective offensive on the ground. Unfortunately, Kurdish forces are not strong enough to overpower the Islamic State, and neither is the “dysfunctional Iraqi army.” Meanwhile, US plans to train Syrian rebels are going nowhere. The United States needs to focus its attention on building an effective ground force, or else US airstrikes will be incapable of driving ISIS from its new territory.

 

The paragon of charity of the US with regards to Syria...

The US strategy against ISIS is not returning Iraq to more stable times, as my opponent claims. If that was true, then why would most of the Anbar Province, the largest territory of Iraq, be in the hands of the Islamic State? US airstrikes are even more of a disaster in Syria. Rather than strengthening rebel forces, the United States is instead propping up the unpopular regime of President Bashar al-Assad. Assad, who is guilty of killing more of his people than even the Islamic State, is clearly no friend of ours. However, as long as the United States is distracted fighting ISIS, Assad has a prime opportunity to win back land from rebel forces. Despite the US intervention, Syria is increasingly turning into a war zone between the Islamic State and the equally troubling figure of Assad.

Obviously, I am not eager for the United States to enter another prolonged war in the Middle East. However, until Obama realizes that he cannot win the war by airstrikes alone, the Islamic State will have a distinct advantage that cannot be overcome by Kurdish, Iraqi, and Syrian forces alone. The US strategy against ISIS is ineffective as it stands now, and it will need to focus increasingly on ground offensives if the United States hopes to defeat the Islamic State.