In an era of increasing social isolation, platforms like Facebook and Twitter are among the most important tools we have to understand each other. However, social media can also lead to polarization and misunderstanding as author Chris Bail discusses in this episode of Democracy Works.
A model of an internet cable that is laid along the seabed to transmit high-voltage electricity and the Internet via fiberglass.
Your internet access is dependent on the security and resiliency of garden-hose-sized underwater cables. More than 800,000 miles of these cables criss-cross the oceans and seas. When just one of these cables breaks, which occurs about every other day, you may not notice much of a change to your internet speed. When several break, which is increasingly possible, the resulting delay in internet connectivity can disrupt a nation’s economy, news and government.
If there were ever a bipartisan issue it’s this: protecting our undersea cable system.
Nearly all internet traffic goes through this cable system. The fiber optic glass at the core of the cables allows the internet to operate at incredible speeds. The alternative — relying on satellites — is nearly five times slower. That’s why protecting these cables is essential, especially for countries with fewer cables.
The hundreds of cable systems around the world are not equally distributed. Whereas the United States has dozens and dozens of cables on both coasts, some countries have less than a handful, or none at all. Those latter countries are especially vulnerable to diminished internet upon a cable break. Take, for example, Japan in 2011. The tsunami that struck the island nation caused seven of its 12 transpacific cables to break. If one more cable had been severed, internet traffic between Japan and the U.S. may have come to a halt.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
Reducing the vulnerability of this system is not easy. It’s not a matter of governments simply laying more cables. For lack of a better phrase, governments are not in the cable laying business. Nearly all undersea cables are privately owned. Microsoft, Meta, Google and Amazon are the ones laying cables at a historically unprecedented rate.
It’s also not as simple as sending out more repair ships. There’s only a couple dozen ships outfitted to repair cables. This small fleet is made up of a small, aging labor force.
Finally, it’s not as straightforward as hiding cables from bad actors who might want to intentionally break them. Making cables harder to find might actually increase the number of breaks. The plurality of breaks are caused by fishers accidentally dropping nets, anchors and other equipment on cables. If fishing boats do not know where cables are laid, they may cause breaks on an even more frequent basis.
All potential ways to make the undersea cable system more resilient come with tradeoffs. New Zealand and Australia, for example, have developed cable protection zones, in which all cables must fall. These zones decrease the odds of unintentional breaks by making more actors aware of cable locations. Yet, by concentrating cables in a single area, the odds of a single storm or bad actor causing several breaks increase. Cables made of more resilient material may withstand more severe storms, but upon a break may be even harder to repair. This is just a short list of proposals that come with pros and cons but merit more investigation.
While the next best step to protecting undersea cables is unclear, what’s obvious is that the status quo cannot persist. The public must make this an issue. Elected officials on both sides of the aisle ought to prioritize this critical infrastructure. And, cable owners like Google should embrace the public service they are performing by making the cable laying and repair process more transparent and participatory. That’s a tall order for each set of actors; it’s also one that should inspire and motivate us all to rally in defense of the undersea cable system.
Frazier is an assistant professor at the Crump College of Law at St. Thomas University and a Tarbell fellow.
Scott Klug was a 32-year Democratic member of Congress from Wisconsin. Despite winning his four elections by an average of 63 percent, he stayed true to his term limit pledge and retired.
During his time in Congress, Klug had the third most independent voting record of any Wisconsin lawmaker in the last 50 years. In September 2023, he launched a podcast, “Lost in the Middle,” to shine a spotlight on the oft ignored political center.
“The podcast was born,” Klug told Madison Magazine, “out of the sentiment that a wide swath of the American public, myself included, can’t figure out how in the hell we got to this place. And more importantly, is there a way for us out of it.”
And now with the election upon us, Klug and The Fulcrum present a series of podcasts titled “Election Countdown.”
Today we offer the third episode, featuring veteran political journalist and podcaster Issac Saul. Nobody does better work than Saul’s Tangle News. In this episode we get his insights on the state of the election and the mutual concerns about America’s mainstream press that he shares with Klug.
Sixty percent of Americans say they are worn out by so much coverage of the 2024 presidential election, according to the Pew Research Center. And then there are the nagging questions of fairness, when only 7 percent of journalists identify as Republicans.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
Enjoy this episode:
The mission of “Lost in the Middle” is serious — finding a way to something resembling common ground as a country — but it’s not solemn.
“I’m having fun,” Klug said. “I spent 14 years on TV. It’s telling stories. Getting out there and talking to people. Aside from my personal commitment to the issue, it’s just a lot of fun. I enjoy listening to people and telling stories.”
CNN and other media outlets need to explain the process, not just predict the winner on election night.
Johnson is the executive director of the Election Reformers Network. Penniman is the founder and CEO of Issue One and author of “Nation on the Take: How Big Money Corrupts Our Democracy and What We Can Do About It.”
Watching election night on cable or network news is a great national tradition. Memorable moments arise as the networks announce their projections in key states. Anchors and commentators demonstrate extraordinary understanding of the unique politics of hundreds of cities and counties across the country. As the results of the most consequential election on the planet unfold, there’s a powerful sense of shared witness.
But our polarized politics has revealed a serious flaw in election night coverage. As disinformation abounds, it is increasingly important for voters to know how the actual, legally certain election results are determined. And right now, voters are not seeing enough of that information on their screens on election night.
Projections by CNN, Fox and other outlets serve an important function. They give voters a statistically based prediction of who the actual winner will likely be once states complete their careful processes in the weeks after Election Day. But these projections have no official status, and news anchors typically don’t do enough to make that clear. News programs also need to include segments that explain how the actual results are verified and certified.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
Four years after November 2020, we still have a dangerous level of disagreement and uncertainty across America about the critical fact of who won that presidential election. By far the main reason for this uncertainty is the unwillingness of Donald Trump to accept his defeat, a defeat confirmed by multiple audits and recounts and by the outcome of more than 60 court challenges across the swing states.
But we should acknowledge that uncertainty arises in part because America has a very complicated presidential election system that can be hard for citizens to really understand. Different rules in every state create differences in how Americans vote and how and when vote counts are verified and certified. Court cases play a critical role in the legal certainty of results but are hard for voters to learn about and understand. And the election happens in two phases — the vote of the people and then the vote of the electors the people have selected — and that combination creates confusion.
There is a risk that network projections on election night can add more uncertainty. Something called a “projection” inherently implies uncertainty, since it could possibly be reversed. And projections suggest subjectivity, since different news outlets reach different conclusions about whether a state is ready or still too close to call.
We cannot let who won the presidency be a subjective question, a matter of opinion — it must be understood as a matter of fact and law. For that to happen, we need to help Americans see and understand the legal processes that do in fact render a certain answer to the big question of who won.
These are the reasons we have cosigned, with a broad, bipartisan array of organizations, an open letter to election reporters and election news anchors. The letter is an initiative of the Election Reformers Network developed with bipartisan support from The Carter Center, the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Foundation Issue One and other organizations.
The letter asks that news organization use some version of the following phrasing every time a state result is projected:
The letter also urges reporters to reassure voters that accuracy matters more than speed, by using a phrase such as:
Lastly, the letter encourages election night programs to include brief segments that explain the upcoming post-election verification and certification phases in the key swing states. Such segments could also provide brief explanations of the reason behind the timing of release of results so that delays do not cause creating concerns. Pennsylvania law, for example, does not allow election officials to pre-process absentee ballots before Election Day, as other states do, and for this reason results may be delayed there and networks likely will not be able to project a winner in Pennsylvania on election night.
There is of course a serious risk that the 2024 election could result in the same division in public opinion that plagued 2020, with one side refusing to accept the legally validated outcome. But even if that happens, how reporters and news networks talk about the real results process could have a significant impact on reducing susceptibility to ungrounded claims.
Americans learn a lot about our country on election night, as anchors zoom in on the political details of pivotal swing counties across the states. This year it’s time for Americans to also learn a lot about America’s election process on election night.
The media has held Kamala Harris to a different standard than Donald Trump.
Rikleen is executive director of Lawyers Defending American Democracy and the editor of “Her Honor – Stories of Challenge and Triumph from Women Judges.”
As we near the end of a tumultuous election season, too many traditional media outlets are inexplicably continuing their practice of covering candidates who meet standards of normalcy differently than the candidate who has long defied them.
By claiming to take the high road of neutrality in their reporting, these major outlets are committing grave harm. First, they are failing to address what is in plain sight. Second, through those continued omissions, the media has abdicated its primary responsibility of contributing to an informed electorate.
The New York Times, for example, has been wandering the campaign wasteland as though its historic influence can override its present abdication of fairness and objective logic. Its coverage of Joe Biden’s age as a major re-election issue went on for years, including the 2022 headline “At 79, Biden Is Testing the Boundaries of Age and the Presidency,” rich in irony in light of Donald Trump’s age. The relentless scrutiny of Biden’s age continued with sharp coverage of any lapse or stumble and reached a fever pitch following Biden’s poor debate performance in June. The so-called paper of record continued its focus on whether Biden was mentally fit to be president until he withdrew from the race.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
In the past months, a different dynamic has been taking place as Trump has demonstrated difficulties articulating coherent thoughts, canceled interviews, failed to directly answer questions in those interviews he has done, increased his threats against opponents, amplified violent rhetoric and sharply intensified his use of profanity. These are behaviors that should cause any legitimate journalist to raise significant questions about the state of his mental health, now mere weeks before the election. Instead, sanitizing has been the order of the day.
At a weekend rally in Pennsylvania, the former presidentopened his remarks by spending approximately 10 minutes discussing golf legend Arnold Palmer and his penis size, and proceeded to then excoriate the current administration with profanity. The New York Times referenced Trump’s descent into a new level of “vulgarity” with the sub-headline: “The G.O.P. nominee repeated crude insults, and his supporters relished each moment.”
The article did not raise questions about whether the former president’s lewd comments addressing another man’s penis size in front of a family audience might have been a sign of declining mental health or possible dementia. Rather, it mused about whether the behavior was either an “expression of his frustration” or his “reflexive desire to entertain his crowds,” and then noted that it set “a curious tone.” Now imagine what the media reaction would be if any other public figure opened a speech with similar comments.
The Hill is a publication thatdescribes itself as reporting on the “intersection of politics and business,” offering “objective and in-depth coverage” that is read by opinion leaders, including in government and the corporate sector. But it is difficult to square that descriptor with its own headlines.
The Hill’s article on Trump’s Arnold Palmer comments began with aheadline stating that his “ribald remarks” drew “scrutiny.”Dictionary examples of the word “ribald” are associated with humor and “racy innuendo.” In the context of a campaign rally, this headline is a textbook exemplar of sane-washing.In an interview with the Independent, the golfer’s daughter, in measured understatement, referred to the comments as “an unfortunate way to remember” her dad.
Other Hill headlines from the same day noted that Vice President Kamala Harris hasstepped up negative attacks and that she was making a “last-ditch appeal to disenchanted Republicans.” Both articles described campaign tactics in a vacuum that would be unimaginable in the coverage of past presidential campaigns. As with so many of The Hill’s headlines this election season, the campaign coverage normalizes one party’s irrational behavior while scrutinizing the other’s actions.
And after a week of revelations from retired Gen. John Kelly, who served as Trump's chief of staff, about the former president's fascist tendencies and praise of Hitler, The Hill headlines on Friday touted that Trump’s campaign exudes confidence as it enters the homestretch. It’s the same day the headline for a Harris story highlighted that she sees troubling signs in the latest New York Times/Sienna poll. The referenced poll showed the candidates deadlocked, and the articles did not quote any campaign sources, anonymously or otherwise, to indicate that she was troubled by it.
These examples are only the latest in coverage that has long normalized the former president’s behaviors and abandoned objective standards. But asking questions and insisting that statements threatening the norms and principles of democracy and the rule of law must be reported differently than positions on taxes and tariffs does not demonstrate bias or partisanship.
Journalists have an ethical obligation to accurately and impartially report the truth. Instead, by sanitizing a candidate’s abnormal words and actions, traditional media outlets have created their own biased coverage.
The public not only deserves better — it needs the media to meet this moment and engage in the fight for truth and the accurate reporting of actual facts. Doing so is not partisan engagement; it is the highest calling for journalists.
