In Between Times 1-19-2024
Data and the circular economy, The "danger" of primaries, Billionaires stumble in media, No Labels alleges criminal conspiracy
We believe in civil discussion. Help us be part of the solution!
In a time when other organizations are content to engage in polarizing rhetoric, in appealing to the worst in us for the sake of gaining partisan points and your contributions, we appeal to you because we believe there is another, better, more humane way to explore the issues of the day.
We believe in the power of humanity, and in this country, and in the idea that we are truly IN THIS TOGETHER.
But we need your help.
Please consider contributing either by buying a FULL PAID subscription to In Between Times…
…Or by going directly to our In This Together DONATION PAGE AT THE BRIDGE FOUNDATION.
Thank You!
Can carbon capture solve desalination’s waste problem?
Oh we hope so. Desalinization is energy intensive and creates significant waste. But it is also needed and will likely be needed more in the years to come.
(From Grist)
…a new startup called Capture6 claims it can solve desalination’s controversial brine problem with another controversial climate technology: carbon capture. The company announced new plans this week to build a carbon-capture facility in South Korea that will work in tandem with a nearby desalination plant, sucking carbon dioxide out of the air and storing it in desalination brine, which it will import from the plant. But that’s not all. Capture6 also claims it can wring newfresh water out of the brine, bolstering the company’s sustainability claims — and its potential profit — even further.
If it works, this facility will deliver a triple benefit. It will decrease the concentration of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, create a new source of fresh water, and limit the polluting effects of desalination. But that’s still a very big “if.”
Click here for the article.
The Future of automotive is not just electric, but circular – and Ford is leading the charge with car parts made from coffee beans and olive tree waste
Turning product data into a currency for the circular economy
Do some liberal electoral reformers now lament the more “democratic” primary system they birthed?
The attached article has a very solid left bias, but regardless the long piece is an interesting exploration of what some people (we wouldn’t necessarily) call the “danger of democratization”.
Two generations ago, almost three now, a group of liberal reformers sought to take power from the party bosses gathered in their “smoke filled rooms” and sought to bring the nomination process into the light. People power!
Now some wonder if this was the best idea.
(From Politico)
The idea was simple and seemed to be, at the time, an unalloyed good: To make America’s elections more fair and open by handing the nomination to the candidate who won the most votes in state primaries and caucuses. Aided by liberal celebrities of the day such as Paul Newman, Arthur Miller and William Styron, Cowan and his confederates fought the party establishment and won. And to his mind, a lot of good things ultimately did come out of the sidelining of the bosses, including fresh faces in the Oval Office like Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter and even, arguably, Ronald Reagan. Many Republicans today lionize Reagan as the father of the modern GOP, forgetting that it was partly his popularity among Republican primary voters that helped him overcome party elders’ concerns about his age — he was all of 69 — in 1980.
But other downstream effects emerged as well — the slow capture of the political parties by their extreme wings as the country became more politically polarized, the disengagement of more and more moderate, centrist and independent voters from primary elections, and the ossification of a nomination process that decides many months before party conventions, and more than half a year before the actual election, just who the presidential candidates will be.
Click here for the article.
Billionaires are losing a fortune in legacy media
We have long followed Warren Buffett and one of the smartest things he probably ever did, and he has a long list of smart moves, was unloading The Washington Post to Jeff Bezos.
Bezos bought it for different reasons than Buffett who saw The Post when he bought it as a trusted brand, with serious barriers to entry for competitors.
When Warren Buffett sold The Post the brand was less bright than it had been (through no fault of Buffett’s that we can see) and the secure position the paper had enjoyed with a solid revenue stream had largely disappeared.
Buffett was shrewd. Bezos may have let his ego get the better of him.
There is much more competition in the news business these days. There are dozens of excellent news sources accessible with the tap of a finger. (In Between Times for instance.) The legacy media is no longer the only game in town and it is also saddled with very 20th century legacy costs.
Consider that The Washington Post’s main product, even 10 years ago, was literally a newspaper that one picked up off of one’s driveway or bought at a newsstand. That sounds like another century, but it was just a decade ago. And Jeff Bezos should have been hip to the change. He after all, like Mr. Buffett, has made some excellent choices over the years. Whether The Post turns out to be one in the end is very much in the air.
(From DNYUZ)
…it increasingly looks like the billionaires are struggling just like nearly everyone else. Time, The Washington Post and The Los Angeles Times all lost millions of dollars last year, people with knowledge of the companies’ finances have said, after considerable investment from their owners and intensive efforts to drum up new revenue streams.
“Wealth doesn’t insulate an owner from the serious challenges plaguing many media companies, and it turns out being a billionaire isn’t a predictor for solving those problems,” said Ann Marie Lipinski, the curator of the Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard University. “We’ve seen a lot of naïve hope attached to these owners, often from employees.”
Click here for the article.
AllSides asks: Is CNN fake news?
We think it is interesting that All Sides, a news source for which we have the utmost respect is asking this question. This story dovetails nicely with the story immediately above.
In addition to a change in technology and a change in culture generally, much of the old media has wasted a lot of good faith with the public over the years.
CNN used to hold to a significantly higher standard than now. CNN’s “The Cold War” docuseries”, now 25 years old (!) is a great example of the network at its very best. Unfortunately the outlet is increasingly a shadow of what it once was.
Obviously CNN isn’t wall to wall fake news and it still does some excellent work, but the outlet knows that it must pander to a fairly narrow audience these days to just survive and that means that the content tends to be more polarized.
CNN aside, we encourage everyone to read the attached article because it goes into what “fake news” actually is. As always AllSides’ analysis is even handed and fair.
(From AllSides)
There is broad disagreement as to what ought to be referred to as “fake news” in general. Many left-leaning mainstream media outlets, including CNN, MSNBC, and The New York Times, often use a more narrow, literal definition of “fake news” — referring to purely fictional, made-up information.
However, media outlets and people on the right and the progressive left often use a broader definition of “fake news” to describe media coverage that may include some factual information but is overly biased, deceptive, or manipulative. They believe that established media powers are employing bias, misrepresenting facts, failing to do good-faith research, focusing on the wrong things, and/or lacking credibility — amounting to “fake news.” For those using this definition, they may see CNN as fake news.
Click here for the article.
No Labels alleges criminal conspiracy against 2024 presidential effort
No Labels has lots of enemies. This election cycle it appears that the most ardent opponents are coming from the Democratic Party. There is the fear that a moderate candidate with wide ballot access could derail Biden. We think there are arguments that it would hurt GOP chances too however.
(From Axios)
No Labels, the nonpartisan group preparing to run a third-party presidential ticket, has asked the Department of Justice to investigate whether Democratic and Republican strategists are engaged in an "unlawful conspiracy to subvert Americans' voting rights," the group announced today.
The organization, which has come under intense criticism from centrist Democrats and Never Trump Republicans, is opening up a new legal front to make its broader political point that voters deserve better a better alternative to a Biden-Trump rematch.
"All we are doing is offering a choice," said Ryan Clancy, the chief strategists for No Labels.
"There is a clear and coordinated effort, that we have reported to the Department of Justice, to undermine people's choices in this election."
Interesting that the name Nikki Haley is being floated with No Labels.
Click here for the article.
Event
January 25 @ 7:00 pm - 8:00 pm EST
How to find local news you can trust
Location: Online
How can we determine whether news sources are credible? Local news outlets help us make informed decisions as engaged citizens in a democracy, but the process of creating the news isn’t transparent. During National News Literacy Week 2024, this free webinar will provide an overview of the news literacy concepts and skills that people need to be reliably informed, with a spotlight on local news. We will pull the curtain back on how quality, ethical journalism is done and how it seeks to inform us fairly and accurately.