BuzzFeed Introduces ‘Outside Your Bubble’ to Provide Alternate Viewpoints on News

BuzzFeed News has introduced a new feature titled “Outside Your Bubble” that purportedly offers readers alternative viewpoints on BuzzFeed News articles.

BuzzFeed Edit0r-In-Chief Ben Smith posted an article to the website today titled “Helping You See Outside Your Bubble.” The feature aims to show BuzzFeed writers’ differing viewpoints on subjects from across multiple sources on social media. BuzzFeed states that this is an attempt to prevent people from only listening to opinions or thoughts in their specific political bubble.

“The Outside Your Bubble feature will appear as a module at the bottom of some widely shared news articles and will pull in what people are saying about the piece on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, the web, and other platforms,” Smith wrote. “It’s a response to the reality that often the same story will have two or three distinct and siloed conversations taking place around it on social media, where people talk to the like-minded without even being aware of other perspectives on the same reporting.”

Smith says the aim of the feature is to provide readers with a sense of the different conversations relating to an article: “We view it in part as a way to amplify the work of BuzzFeed News reporters, and to add for readers a sense of the context in which news lives now.” BuzzFeed also asked for feedback from viewers on the sources that are included in the Outside Your Bubble features.

NY Times: Being a Sanctuary City ‘Not Enough’

In a New York Times op-ed piece, “sanctuary” cities are called out for not doing “enough” to protect illegal aliens.

The piece, written by Shakeer Rahman and Robin Steinberg, slams New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio for not going far enough when it comes to obstructing federal immigration officers from deporting illegal aliens:

The abruptness of the raids provoked criticism from local officials, including Mayor Bill de Blasio of New York, who vowed to stand with immigrant communities. But mass deportation under President Trump will also happen through a more routine policy that is in the mayor’s control: endless, unnecessary arrests for low-level offenses, which end up feeding immigrants into the federal government’s deportation machine.

It’s not enough for cities like New York to declare themselves “sanctuaries,” which simply means that the local police won’t detain noncitizens on the federal government’s behalf. If cities really want to protect immigrants, they must also end the quota-driven style of policing that makes immigrants the victims of unnecessary arrests and disproportionate punishment.

Many of these unnecessary arrests stem from the discredited idea that a draconian crackdown on the most minor offenses — littering, selling loose cigarettes, biking on the sidewalk — will prevent more serious crimes. This model of policing, known as broken windows or zero tolerance, helped to drive mass incarceration. Its next cost could be mass deportation.

The op-ed then decries the idea that illegal aliens can be deported for “minor offenses like simple marijuana possession” or any “crime involving moral turpitude,” despite that policy seeming to have not changed at least over the last decade.

ICE agents were also attacked in the op-ed, with Rahman and Steinberg writing, “Even if cities stop sharing arrest information, Immigration and Customs Enforcement has been known to send plainclothes agents to local courts, where they wait for immigrants to appear for misdemeanor charges.”

The op-ed goes on to say that Trump’s deportation effort of illegal immigrants, specifically those who have committed crimes, “can’t happen without boots on the ground,” though ICE has long used agents to investigate, arrest and deport criminals.

“Until cities reject the failed thinking that led to mass incarceration, local police and prosecutors will be doing the legwork for mass deportation,” the op-ed concludes.

HuffPo CEO: ‘Google Search Essentially Opened Up the Internet’ for Digital Publishers

Jared Grusd, the CEO of The Huffington Post, spoke at the Dublin Tech summit this week discussing the future of digital content and technology.

Appearing alongside former CNN anchor Gina London, Grusd discussed the development of HuffPo as a brand, how digital content creators develop, and the future of technology. Discussing the Huffington Post brand development, Grusd said, “I think one thing to think about is the human experience. All of us are people, but when you run a company or run product you start ascribing labels: audience, consumers, customers. And all of a sudden you start referring to actual living, breathing human beings in these generic terms, and the truth is all of us as people have multiple interests.”

“I can be serious and I can have fun; I can be funny, my wife says not enough, but my daughters think enough,” he elaborated. “I think it’s really important to have that balance, and one of the things that I think the best digital publishers have done over the past ten years has been to think about the way in which they publish content differently than historically.”

“What we’ve heard all day in many forms,” continued Grusd, “is the power of data, to understand your audiences, and I think the best publishers really look at the data of what their people, their audience, their consumers are actually doing on their properties and are learning from that, adapting from that. What you realize is that if you’re serious all the time, at some point it’s too much; if you’re funny all the time then you’re not serious, and so getting that blend is really part of the magic and math that’s required to be successful.”

When asked about the Huffington Post’s success, Grusd said, “I think in every era in the history of media there have been giant waves that have formed, and I think that like all good surfers you have to sort of understand the break, get your board, paddle, and surf it just at the right time. And to Arianna Huffington’s credit, who is the founder and obviously the namesake of the Huffington Post, what she realized is there were few trends that were all converging at the same time.”

“The first is that there was a huge change in media landscape that was really produced by Google, because Google search essentially opened up the Internet, the world wide web, to all of us to then go discover stuff and in that process of discovery, very sophisticated content producers could actually create content that Google’s algorithms and spiders would crawl to serve us that content,” he noted. “And one of the things that I think we did really well was create content that was very Google friendly.”

Palestinian Authority TV Slams Arab Daily For Using ‘Poisonous’ Term ‘Wailing Wall’

JERUSALEM – A Palestinian newspaper was attacked on the Palestinian Authority’s official television network for using the “poisonous” term “Wailing Wall” in reference to the outer wall of Judaism’s holiest site instead of the Arabic “al-Buraq Wall.”

The host of the TV show “Palestine This Morning” slammed Palestinian daily Al-Ayyam last month for not referring to the guidelines issued by the Palestinian Authority Ministry of Information that stipulate which terms are to be substituted for the “poisoned terms disseminated by Israel and the U.S.”

“I don’t know how Al-Ayyam can write ‘Wailing Wall’ on its front page, and not even put quotation marks,” the host said in a translation provided by Israeli NGO Palestinian Media Watch.

The guidelines issued by the Palestinian Authority Ministry of Information forbid any terms that highlight either Jewish tradition or Jewish historical ties to Israel. “The Promised Land” should be substituted for “The Land of Palestine,” “The Six-Pointed Star” should be used instead of “The Star of David,” and “The Temple Mount” – referring to the site of both Jewish temples – should be replaced with “The Noble Sanctuary of Jerusalem.”

In addition, terms which have come to reflect badly on Palestinian society should not be used, according to the ministry. The phrase “suicide-bomber” should be replaced “martyrdom-seeking operation,” the term “terror” should be supplanted by the more palatable term “resistance,” and anyone who has been killed – especially terrorists by Israeli forces – should be referred to as a “martyr.”

7 Conservative Classics Every American Should Read

As the populist-conservative movement continues to grow and expand in the Age of President Trump, a new generation of energized voters and young people will do well to arm themselves with the intellectual firepower of the giants upon whose shoulders today’s movement rests.

Here, then, are seven conservative classics that should be on every American’s bookshelf:

1. Ideas Have Consequences by Richard Weaver

Originally published in 1948, Ideas Have Consequences foresaw the corrosive influences of moral and cultural relativism decades before the Left harnessed those forces to undermine Western civilization. One of America’s greatest conservative intellectuals and an esteemed twentieth-century rhetorical scholar, Richard Weaver erected an intellectual fortress around Absolute Truth long before progressives mounted their frontal assault on notions of right versus wrong, good versus evil.

2. The Road to Serfdom by F.A. Hayek

In the age of Bernie Sanders, today’s young generation of would-be socialists would do well to read Friedrich Hayek’s 1944 classic broadside against socialism, The Road to SerfdomA member of the Austrian School of economics and a winner of the Nobel Prize in economics, Hayek warned of the totalitarian realities of socialism’s conceits. As he put it elsewhere: “A claim for equality of material position can be met only by a government with totalitarian powers.”

3. The Closing of the American Mind by Allan Bloom

Long before anti-MILO rioters sparked violence at UC Berkeley, a University of Chicago professor named Allan Bloom lit academia ablaze with this 1987 classic taking the professoriate to task for eroding higher education curriculum with progressive pablum. A staunch defender of the classical “canon” of great works every thinking person must read, Bloom explained how the intellectual corruption of the humanities and arts led to an erasure of students’ understanding of the proper moral order that undergirds Western Civilization.

4. A Choice Not an Echo by Phyllis Schlafly

The late great matriarch of modern conservatism, Phyllis Schlafly, did more to advance and win the battle of ideas than many young conservatives understand. The tip of her intellectual spear, A Choice Not an Echo, reshaped the contours of American conservatism and has sold an astounding three million copies since its release over a half-century ago. The original anti-establishment crusader, Schlafly’s book argued that conservatives must be willing to fight for a voice within the Republican Party’s establishment leadership and helped pave a path for Barry Goldwater’s nomination.

5. Capitalism and Freedom by Milton Friedman

Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman redefined the field of economics. In addition to being an intellectual titan, he was a sterling writer with a knack for distilling complex topics with wit and clarity. Any Nobel Prize winner who can string together a sentence like this deserves to be read: “If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there’d be a shortage of sand.”

6. A Conflict of Visions by Thomas Sowell

There are no “bad” Thomas Sowell books, so we could have easily recommended many of his other classics. But A Conflict of Visions crystalizes the stakes involved in the clash between conservative and progressive ideologies—and how radically different outcomes are when one side prevails over the other. One of America’s most lucid conservative economists, Sowell’s book draws upon everything from Rousseau to Hobbes to Adam Smith to illustrate the intellectual impulses that drive conservatives and progressives to think and act the way they do.

7. Gulag Archipelago by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

Hailed as one of the greatest nonfiction books of the twentieth century, Gulag Archipelagois the first-person account of Soviet dissident Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s eight years spent as a prisoner inside the Russian gulags for criticizing Stalin and the Soviet Communist system in his private letters. A winner of the Nobel Prize in literature, Solzhenitsyn’s ability to combine lyrical prose with piercing reportage of communism’s moral horrors are virtually without equal.

Emily Ratajkowski: New York Times Reporter Called Melania Trump ‘A Hooker’

UPDATE: Jacob Bernstein of the New York Times apologized on Twitter Tuesday afternoon, stating that he is the individual who made this remark to Ratajkowski.

The original story begins below:

Emily Ratajkowski tore into a New York Times reporter who had reportedly called First Lady Melania Trump “a hooker.”

The 25-year-old Sports Illustrated swimsuit model, who supported Bernie Sanders in the 2016 presidential election, went off on the unnamed reporter in series of posts on Twitter for “slut-shaming” the First Lady.

“Sat next to a journalist from the NYT last night who told me ‘Melania is a hooker.’ Whatever your politics it’s crucial to call this out for what it is: slut shaming. I don’t care about her nudes or sexual history and no one should,” Ratajkowski wrote.

“Gender specific attacks are disgusting sexist bullshit,” she continued.

Ratajkowski declined to release the journalist’s identity but later said he was a man.

She was spotted in New York instead of the Grammy Awards in Los Angeles Sunday night.

Melania filed a defamation lawsuit against the Daily Mail and Maryland blogger Webster Griffin Tarpley over stories that claimed she worked as an escort before becoming First Lady.

Delingpole: Tommy Robinson’s Critics Are Disgusting Apologists for Radical Islam

Whenever there’s another terrorist atrocity like the one in Stockholm last week, and the one in Alexandria on Palm Sunday, and the one in St Petersburg a few days before, and the one in London the week before that, we often ask ourselves despairingly what on earth we can do to make a difference.

Well, I’ll tell you exactly what we can do. It occurred to me after interviewing this week’s Delingpole podcast guest – the founder of the English Defence League, Tommy Robinson.

The interview itself was fascinating. I urge you to listen if you haven’t already: whatever preconceptions you may have about Robinson, I think you’ll be appalled by the way he has been scapegoated and maltreated by the British authorities, charmed by his honesty, and bowled over by his courage in the face of extreme danger.

But what I found even more illuminating was the response from all those people out there who wanted to tell me that Tommy Robinson was a disgusting individual whom I should never have interviewed (either for Breitbart or for a separate piece I wrote in the Spectator) and that my decision to do so made me a despicable fascist.

Here are some examples:

Douglas Lloyd is a barrister and lecturer on crime, regulatory law and human rights.

Majority of Americans Support Cities Constructing Their Own Broadband Networks

According to a survey by the Pew Research Center, most Americans would agree with having local governments build and operate their own internet services if providers in their area were not up to standard.

The Verge reports that the Pew Research Center surveyed over 4000 Americans by telephone last summer to question their views relating to broadband infrastructure and access. Pew found that 70 percent of the people surveyed agreed that local governments should be allowed to create their own broadband networks if the services offered by current providers are, “too expensive or not good enough.”

This seems to show a massive level of support for municipal broadband, however, in recent times as many as 20 states have passed laws banning local government from developing their own broadband services. Some cities are not bound by these laws, such as Chattanooga, Tennessee, where mayor Andy Berke credited his city’s municipal broadband network with the revitalization of the town.

In 2015, the FCC attempted to allow municipalities to ignore laws relating to the banning of local broadband service construction but some states fought the FCC and ultimately won. The debate around municipal networks is quite an old one with the topic introduced to the House nearly a decade ago with both Republican and Democrat sponsors, further confirming the theory that it was a bipartisan issue.

Although municipal broadband may be supported by the majority of Americans, less were willing to agree with broadband subsidies for low-income households. Only 44 percent of Americans agreed with subsidies while the rest of those surveyed believed that current internet services were “affordable enough.”

NYT: CA Murder-Suicide Proves Foolishness of Permitless Carry in South Carolina

New York Times editorial suggests the April 10 murder-suicide in California shines a light on the danger of a “laissez-faire” bill that would allow law-abiding South Carolinians to carry guns for self-defense without a permit.

Think about the NYT’s logic–The fact that a husband shot and killed his wife, then himself, in a state where it is extremely difficult to carry a gun for self-defense proves it is dangerous to make it easier to carry guns for self-defense in South Carolina. The argument is not congruent.

On April 6 Breitbart News reported the South Carolina House passed legislation to abolish the concealed carry permit requirement in that state. The NYT editorial addressed the legislation by suggesting South Carolina lawmakers “yielded once more to the National Rifle Association’s agenda to freely arm the public.”

NYT reminded everyone of the June 17, 2015 attack on innocents at Charleston’s Emmanuel A.M.E. Church, but did not mention that the churchgoers were unarmed nor did it explain why making it easier for law-abiding citizens to be armed for self-defense is misguided.

Then the NYT referenced the April 10 California murder-suicide, saying, “The toll the proliferation of guns makes on the nation was made clear yet again on Monday when gunfire broke out at an elementary school in San Bernardino, Calif., leaving two adults dead and one child dead and one student critically injured.”

Think about it–California has universal background checks, firearm registration, firearm confiscation laws, an “assault weapons” ban, a 10-day waiting period on gun purchases, and a “good cause” requirement for issuance of a concealed carry permit. The “good cause” requirement means law-abiding Californians are not allowed to carry guns for self-defense by birthright. Rather, they have to prove they have a good reason to carry a gun. This requirement has enabled anti-gun California politicians to keep the number of permits issued at about 80,000.

That means only about 80,000 out of a population of more than 39 million Californians can legally carry a gun for self-defense. South Carolina does not want to end up in a similar situation, where the vast majority of law-abiding residents are not allowed to be armed in public for defense of themselves and their families.

Unemployment Makes Men Unattractive and Crazy

Job losses are more than just an economic drag. They are literally depressing.

New research shows that “severe depressive symptoms” are partly a consequence of the loss of employment and subsequent “economic inactivity.” The longer the period of unemployment, the greater the incidence of depression, according to a study of Australian labor market data by Deborah A. Cobb-Clark School of the University of Sydney.

Cobb-Clark’s study shows that joblessness weighs on men more than women. Men’s mental health starts to deteriorate as soon as they exit the labor market. Women are apparently made of sterner stuff: their mental health only worsens after they’ve been out of the labor force for a period of time.

Unemployment can lead to self-perpetuating downward spiral. The research also finds that severe depressive symptoms lead to economic inactivity.

“Individuals are less likely to be labor force participants or employed if they experience severe depressive symptoms. Men’s probability of being unemployed rises dramatically with the onset of depressive symptoms; women’s unemployment is increased by protracted depressive symptoms,” Cobb-Clark writes.

In other words, unemployment leads to depression and depression leads to unemployment.

This may offer a possible hint to the findings of a separate investigation recently undertaken by researchers at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Analyzing consumer survey data collected by the Fed over the last few years, the research found that it is far harder to get a job when you are unemployed than when you are employed.

“[E]ven though unemployed workers search about seven times as hard as the employed, they only generate about twice the number of offers. Thus, searching while unemployed is much less effective in generating offers than searching while on the job,” they write.

Of course, if the job-searchers are suffering from depression and other signs of deteriorating mental health, it would make sense that employers are less likely to hire them. Compared to their employed peers, the unemployed would simply be less attractive hires.

And, of course, it’s probably harder for unemployed men to find romantic success since one-in-five women say they won’t date a man who earns less than they do.

So an unemployed man would be unattractive to both potential employers and mates. No wonder that is depressing.