Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Ugly campaign ads and car wrecks: Why we can't turn away

Person being overloaded with messaging

Political ads are expected to increase by 25 percent over 2020.

AndreyPopov

Klug served in the House of Representatives from 1991 to 1999. He hosts the political podcast “ Lost in the Middle: America’s Political Orphans.”

If you live in a battleground state, here’s a little nugget to ruin your week.

Reuters says political advertising in the upcoming campaigns will be up more than 25 percent from 2020 and will likely exceed $13 billion. The radio, TV and internet bombardment is just around the corner for swing state voters.


They are already heading for the air raid shelters inErie, Pa., as the barrage rains down from the skies in the bellwether county. Since 2008 there have been 25 statewide elections in Pennsylvania, and this northwestern corner has picked the winner 92 percent of the time.

Mary Buchert, an Erie swing voter, is one of the “political orphans” featured in my podcast, “Lost in the Middle.” She freely admits she hates the ads but finds herself staring at them. “It’s like rubbernecking at an accident, “she said.

In 2022, Pennsylvania Democrats launched a new dangerous strategy that was soon deployed nationwide. During the gubernatorial primary race that year, they spent millions against the moderate Republican campaigning – in order to ensure their candidate would run against a Trump acolyte in the general election.

When they used the same tactics to beat a moderate Michigan Republican who voted to impeach Donald Trump, a cadre of prominent Democrats wrote to the national Democratic Party saying it was a very risky gamble.

Former Indiana Rep. Tim Roemer was a leader of the pushback. “To me it’s wrong on so many levels. Why would we risk promoting an election denier? Keep playing this game and you will eventually lose.”

But his warnings went unheeded this spring when the Democrats played the same cards to help a Trumper win the Republican Senate primary in Ohio.

Erie businessman Tim Wachter is delighted he won’t see all of the negative ads this cycle. Once very active in politics, the 2022 election drove him to cancel his cable.

“Once you extract yourself from all of it, it’s really quite liberating,” he said.

Ugly campaign ads and car wrecks: Why we can't turn away by Scott Klug

Read on Substack

Read More

Meta Undermining Trust but Verify through Paid Links
Facebook launches voting resource tool
Facebook launches voting resource tool

Meta Undermining Trust but Verify through Paid Links

Facebook is testing limits on shared external links, which would become a paid feature through their Meta Verified program, which costs $14.99 per month.

This change solidifies that verification badges are now meaningless signifiers. Yet it wasn’t always so; the verified internet was built to support participation and trust. Beginning with Twitter’s verification program launched in 2009, a checkmark next to a username indicated that an account had been verified to represent a notable person or official account for a business. We could believe that an elected official or a brand name was who they said they were online. When Twitter Blue, and later X Premium, began to support paid blue checkmarks in November of 2022, the visual identification of verification became deceptive. Think Fake Eli Lilly accounts posting about free insulin and impersonation accounts for Elon Musk himself.

This week’s move by Meta echoes changes at Twitter/X, despite the significant evidence that it leaves information quality and user experience in a worse place than before. Despite what Facebook says, all this tells anyone is that you paid.

Keep ReadingShow less
artificial intelligence

Rather than blame AI for young Americans struggling to find work, we need to build: build new educational institutions, new retraining and upskilling programs, and, most importantly, new firms.

Surasak Suwanmake/Getty Images

Blame AI or Build With AI? Only One Approach Creates Jobs

We’re failing young Americans. Many of them are struggling to find work. Unemployment among 16- to 24-year-olds topped 10.5% in August. Even among those who do find a job, many of them are settling for lower-paying roles. More than 50% of college grads are underemployed. To make matters worse, the path forward to a more stable, lucrative career is seemingly up in the air. High school grads in their twenties find jobs at nearly the same rate as those with four-year degrees.

We have two options: blame or build. The first involves blaming AI, as if this new technology is entirely to blame for the current economic malaise facing Gen Z. This course of action involves slowing or even stopping AI adoption. For example, there’s so-called robot taxes. The thinking goes that by placing financial penalties on firms that lean into AI, there will be more roles left to Gen Z and workers in general. Then there’s the idea of banning or limiting the use of AI in hiring and firing decisions. Applicants who have struggled to find work suggest that increased use of AI may be partially at fault. Others have called for providing workers with a greater say in whether and to what extent their firm uses AI. This may help firms find ways to integrate AI in a way that augments workers rather than replace them.

Keep ReadingShow less
Parv Mehta Is Leading the Fight Against AI Misinformation

A visual representation of deep fake and disinformation concepts, featuring various related keywords in green on a dark background, symbolizing the spread of false information and the impact of artificial intelligence.

Getty Images

Parv Mehta Is Leading the Fight Against AI Misinformation

At a moment when the country is grappling with the civic consequences of rapidly advancing technology, Parv Mehta stands out as one of the most forward‑thinking young leaders of his generation. Recognized as one of the 500 Gen Zers named to the 2025 Carnegie Young Leaders for Civic Preparedness cohort, Mehta represents the kind of grounded, community‑rooted innovator the program was designed to elevate.

A high school student from Washington state, Parv has emerged as a leading youth voice on the dangers of artificial intelligence and deepfakes. He recognized early that his generation would inherit a world where misinformation spreads faster than truth—and where young people are often the most vulnerable targets. Motivated by years of computer science classes and a growing awareness of AI’s risks, he launched a project to educate students across Washington about deepfake technology, media literacy, and digital safety.

Keep ReadingShow less
child holding smartphone

As Australia bans social media for kids under 16, U.S. parents face a harder truth: online safety isn’t an individual choice; it’s a collective responsibility.

Getty Images/Keiko Iwabuchi

Parents Must Quit Infighting to Keep Kids Safe Online

Last week, Australia’s social media ban for children under age 16 officially took effect. It remains to be seen how this law will shape families' behavior; however, it’s at least a stand against the tech takeover of childhood. Here in the U.S., however, we're in a different boat — a consensus on what's best for kids feels much harder to come by among both lawmakers and parents.

In order to make true progress on this issue, we must resist the fallacy of parental individualism – that what you choose for your own child is up to you alone. That it’s a personal, or family, decision to allow smartphones, or certain apps, or social media. But it’s not a personal decision. The choice you make for your family and your kids affects them and their friends, their friends' siblings, their classmates, and so on. If there is no general consensus around parenting decisions when it comes to tech, all kids are affected.

Keep ReadingShow less