Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

We influence one another, period

propagana and media

Whether you get your information from the internet, your peer group, or a kid with a megaphone, someone is having influence on you, writes Molineaux.

RichVintage/Getty Images

Molineaux is co-publisher of The Fulcrum and president/CEO of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.

Much of our day-to-day lives is spent protecting ourselves and loved ones from the negative influence or impacts of others. And another portion of our lives is spent trying to make a positive difference in our own life and the lives of others. If we are fortunate, we may be able to extend our positive influence to our community, nation and the world.

To be human is to live in the exchange of influence and impact.

Vehemently disagree with someone? They have influenced you. The impact may be to further entrench you in your own ideas. Or it may be to open your heart and mind to new ideas. Either way, influence has happened.


As Russia’s war in Ukraine dominates the headlines, many of my friends have turned away from the news, feeling an array of emotions that include anxiety, rage, anger, guilt and helplessness. Other friends watching intently via news channels and social media are witnessing the horrors of war. Some are experiencing trauma remotely, or reliving their own similar events.

Recently, I was listening to a woman who is “incandescently angered” by the gaslighting happening in Russia. She experienced a similar tragedy as a Serbian refugee from the former Yugoslavia. At 15, she made it to the U.S. with her family. Her grandmother stayed behind, believing in the propaganda of the regime that Serbia was fighting Nazis, dying with this belief. We know there were atrocities being committed by the Serbs because of these lies. But her grandmother’s beliefs were captured by the influence and impact of propaganda.

This is the source of her rage: how reasonable people can be fooled by propaganda delivered through the media as “news.” We are witnessing the same propaganda being used to motivate Russians to be brutal to their Ukrainian neighbors. The woman journalist who held up a sign behind a news anchor/reader in Russia used her position of influence to break through the delusion of Russian propaganda that the military is fighting Nazis in Ukraine.

Closer to home, many personal friends in the U.S. believe that our mainstream media is corporate propaganda, since six corporations own 90 percent of our media outlets. This has led to the proliferation of citizen journalists and propagandists who can have equal time on the internet. And once an audience is developed, it has influence in ways that impact us all. We only need to remember our feelings of shock and horror (or support) on Jan. 6, 2021, when people influenced by disinformation stormed the Capitol to disrupt our election.

Stories, real or fictional, influence our thinking and impact our lives. Propaganda (fictional stories) is a tool of dictators, manipulators and con artists. It works because we (all of us) want to believe it. We need a better way to verify facts rather than believing our friends or random people on the internet.

Our recent question on “Your Take” asked about journalistic objectivity as a standard. The majority of responses noted that objectivity for humans is impossible. A little bias will always slip in, you told us. I agree. Our bias is always at play. Perhaps we need to closely examine our bias when watching any news to more clearly understand our willingness to believe one story and disbelieve another. This would help our critical thinking to discern fact from fiction.

“We should not expect individuals to produce good, open-minded, truth-seeking reasoning, particularly when self-interest or reputational concerns are in play. But if you put individuals together in the right way, such that some individuals can use their reasoning powers to disconfirm the claims of others, and all individuals feel some common bond or shared fate that allows them to interact civilly, you can create a group that ends up producing good reasoning as an emergent property of the social system. This is why it’s so important to have intellectual and ideological diversity within any group or institution whose goal is to find truth (such as an intelligence agency or a community of scientists) or to produce good public policy (such as a legislature or advisory board).” -Jonathan Haidt

For example, many people are turning away from corporate-owned news; they are more willing to believe a person on the ground, reporting from the scene, regardless of journalistic ethics being followed or not. This bias is based in a belief that good reporting cannot come from a corporation without a pro-corporate bias. So they dismiss corporate media outlets, en masse, as untrustworthy. I would ask people with anti-corporate bias to identify the biases of the citizen journalists and livestreamers. Are the biases declared transparently? Or covered in broad statements like, “I’m just telling you the facts, you decide what they mean.” This is a linguistic tool used by many propagandists when they take something out of context to make a point, which would demonstrate their bias.

For my friends who dismiss every citizen journalist, I would ask them to consider the stories not being covered by mainstream (and corporate-owned) media. While there is financial support and a code of ethics mainstream journalists follow, I’ve also witnessed that each day, the cable news channels seem to pick a theme, which they cover relentlessly. Why would they not cover other stories? Repetition is another tool of propagandists; it crowds out other worthy news stories, trivializing them by non-attention. This is why so many Americans have been surprised by the Black Lives Matter movement.

We cannot help but influence and impact one another. It is my hope that we start to examine our own biases and so we may be better informed of exactly what that means in our day-to-day lives.


Read More

AI - Its Use, Misuse, and Regulation
Glowing ai chip on a circuit board.
Photo by Immo Wegmann on Unsplash

AI - Its Use, Misuse, and Regulation

There has been no shortage of articles hailing the opportunity of AI and ones forecasting disaster from AI. I understand the good uses to which AI could be put, but I am also well aware of the ways in which AI is dangerous or will denigrate our lives as thinking human beings.

First, the good uses. There is no question that AI can outthink human beings, regardless of how famous or knowledgeable, because of the amount of information it can process in a short amount of time. The most powerful accounts I've read have been in the field of medical research: doctors have fed facts into AI, asking for a diagnosis or a possible remedy, and AI has come up with remarkable answers beyond the human mind's capability.

Keep ReadingShow less
Overbroad AI Export Controls Risk Forfeiting the AI Race
a black keyboard with a blue button on it

Overbroad AI Export Controls Risk Forfeiting the AI Race

The nation that wins the global AI race will hold decisive military and economic advantages. That’s why President Trump’s January 2025 AI Action Plan declared: “It is the policy of the United States to sustain and enhance America’s global AI dominance in order to promote human flourishing, economic competitiveness, and national security.”

However, AI global dominance does not just mean producing the best AI systems. It also means that the American “AI Stack” – the layered collection of tools, technologies, and frameworks that organizations use to build, train, deploy, and manage artificial intelligence applications – will become the international standard for this world-changing technology. As such, advancing a commonsense export policy for American AI chips will play a decisive role in determining whether the United States remains embedded at the core of global AI development or is gradually displaced by rival systems.

Keep ReadingShow less
Digital generated image of green semi transparent AI word on white circuit board visualizing smart technology.

What can the success of SEMATECH teach us about winning the AI race? Explore how a bold U.S. public-private partnership revived the semiconductor industry—and why a similar model could be key to advancing AI innovation today.

Getty Images, Andriy Onufriyenko

A Proven Playbook for AI Leadership: Lessons from America’s Chip Comeback

Imagine waking up to this paragraph in your favorite newspaper:

The willingness of the U.S. government to eschew partisanship and undertake a bold experiment -- an experiment based on cooperation as opposed to traditional procurement, and with accountability standards rooted in trust instead of elaborate regulations -- has led the U.S. to a position of preeminence in an industry which is vital to our nation's security and economic well-being.

Keep ReadingShow less
A large group of people is depicted while invisible systems actively scan and analyze individuals within the crowd

Anthropic’s lawsuit against the Trump administration over a Pentagon “supply-chain risk” label raises major constitutional questions about AI policy, corporate speech, and political retaliation.

Getty Images, Flavio Coelho

Anthropic Sues Trump Over ‘Unlawful’ AI Retaliation

Anthropic’s dispute with the Trump administration is no longer just about AI policy; it has escalated into a constitutional test of whether American companies can uphold their values against political retaliation. After the administration labeled Anthropic a “supply‑chain risk”, a designation historically reserved for foreign adversaries, and ordered federal agencies to cease using its technology, the company did not yield. Instead, Anthropic filed two lawsuits: one in the Northern District of California and another in the D.C. Circuit, each challenging different aspects of the government’s actions and calling them “unprecedented and unlawful.”

The Pentagon has now formally issued the supply‑chain risk designation, triggering immediate cancellations of federal contracts and jeopardizing “hundreds of millions of dollars” in near‑term revenue. Anthropic’s filings describe the losses as “unrecoverable,” with reputational damage compounding the financial harm. Yet even as the government blacklists the company, the Pentagon continues using Claude in classified systems because the model is deeply embedded in wartime workflows. This contradiction underscores the political nature of the designation: a tool deemed too “dangerous” to be used by federal agencies is simultaneously indispensable in active military operations.

Keep ReadingShow less