What does the internet do for a business? Make it more efficient.

Fox and hate

For our study, we analyzed 1,088 program transcripts from the two ideologically branded channels – right-wing Fox and left-wing MSNBC – between 6 p.m. and 10:59 p.m.

Because polarized media diets contribute to partisan conflict, our quantitative analysis identified terms indicating antipathy or resentment, such as "dislike," "despise," "can't stand" and "hate."

We expected to find that both of the strongly ideological networks made use of such words, perhaps in different ways. Instead, we found that Fox used antipathy words five times more often than MSNBC. "Hate" really stood out: It appeared 647 times on Fox, compared to 118 on MSNBC.

Fox usually pairs certain words alongside "hate." The most notable was "they" – as in, "they hate." Fox used this phrase 101 times between January and May. MSNBC used it just five times.

To put these findings in historic context, we then used the GDELT Television database to search for occurrences of the phrase "they hate" on both networks going back to 2009. We included CNN for an additional comparison.

We found Fox's usage of "they hate" has increased over time, with a clear spike around the polarizing 2016 Trump-Clinton election. But Fox's use of "hate" really took off when Trump's presidency began. Beginning in January 2017, the mean usage of "they hate" on the network doubled.

Fox says 'they hate' way more than CNN or MSNBC

Since 2011 all three major cable news channels used the phrase "they hate" in their evening newscasts (between 6 and 11 p.m.). But starting with the 2016 Clinton-Trump race, FOX News has done so far more often than CNN and MSNBC.

'Us' versus 'them'

So who is doing all this hating – and why – according to Fox News?

Mainly, it's Democrats, liberals, political elites and the media. Though these groups do not actually have the same interests, ideology or job description, our analysis finds Fox lumps them together as the "they" in "they hate."

When Fox News anchors say "they hate..."

Quantitative analysis shows Fox News' used the phrase "they hate" frequently on its evening programing between January and May 2020, most commonly referring to Democrats (29% of the time) or to a non-specific group like "political elites" (24% of the time). Many of these terms were used interchangeably, as if they were one group unified in their hatred.

As for the object of all this hatred, Sean Hannity, Tucker Carlson and other Fox hosts most often name Trump. Anchors also identify their audience – "you," "Christians" and "us" – as the target of animosity. Only 13 instances of "they hate" also cited a reason. Examples included "they can't accept the fact that he won" or "because we voted for [Trump]."

Who's being hated, according to Fox News

Thirty-six percent of times that Fox News anchors said "they hate" between January and May 2020, Trump was the alleged target of that hatred. A smattering of other targets were also named ("you," "me," "Christians," etc.). Rarely did Fox anchors offer a reason for this animosity.

Citing liberal hate as a fact that needs no explanation serves to dismiss criticism of specific policies or events. It paints criticism or moral outrage directed at Trump as inherently irrational.

For loyal Fox viewers, these language patterns construct a coherent but potentially dangerous narrative about the world.

Our data show intensely partisan hosts like Hannity and Carlson are more likely than other Fox anchors to use "they hate" in this way. Nevertheless, the phrase permeates Fox's evening programming, uttered by hosts, interviewees and Republican sources, all painting Trump critics not as legitimate opponents but hateful enemies working in bad faith.

By repeatedly telling its viewers they are bound together as objects of the contempt of a powerful and hateful left-leaning "elite," Fox has constructed two imagined communities. On the one side: Trump along with good folks under siege. On the other: nefarious Democrats, liberals, the left and mainstream media.

Research confirms that repeated exposure to polarized media messages can lead news consumers to form firm opinions and can foster what's called an "in-group" identity. The us-versus-them mentality, in turn, deepens feelings of antipathy toward the perceived "out-group."

The Pew Research Center reports an increasing tendency, especially among Republicans, to view members of the other party as immoral and unpatriotic. Pew also finds Republicans trust Fox News more than any other media outlet.

Americans' divergent media sources – and specifically Fox's "hate"-filled rhetoric – aren't solely to blame here. Cable news is part of a larger picture of heightened polarization, intense partisanship and paralysis in Congress.

Good business

Leaning into intense partisanship has been good for Fox News, though. In summer 2020 it was the country's most watched network. But using hate to explain the news is a dangerous business plan when shared crises demand Americans' empathy, negotiation and compromise.

Fox's talk of hate undermines democratic values like tolerance and reduces Americans' trust of their fellow citizens.

This fraying of social ties helps explain America's failures in managing the pandemic – and bodes badly for its handling of what seems likely to be a chaotic, divisive presidential election. In pitting its viewers against the rest of the country, Fox News works against potential solutions to the the very crises it covers.

Curd Knüpfer is an Assistant Professor of Political Science at Freie Universität Berlin.

Robert Mathew Entman is J.B. and M.C. Shapiro Professor Emeritus of Media and Public Affairs at George Washington University.

This article first appeared on The Conversation. You can read it here.

That may be the case. The Himba tribe in Namibia has no word for blue.

In an experiment, psychologist Jules Davidoff studied the Himba and concluded that without a word for a color, it is more difficult to differentiate that color from others. So even though our eyes could perceive the color blue, “we may not have noticed it was unique until much later.”

Watch the YouTube video below and learn all about it:

BLUE?

Article originally appeared on 07.22.19.

If pilots could fall asleep during war, you should be able to use it to knock out in the comfort of your bedroom.

Here's how to do it:

Step 1: Relax in your seat

Given the space restraints of a typical plane, the pilots were taught to sleep in a seated position. They put their feet flat on the ground, while relaxing their hands in their laps.

Breathe slow, deep breaths while relaxing every muscle in your face and letting your forehead, cheeks, mouth, tongue, and jaw go limp.

Step 2: Relax your upper body

Let your shoulders drop as low as you can. Allow the muscles in your neck go lifeless.

Starting with your dominant side, let your bicep feel like it's falling off your body. Then move to your forearm, hand, and fingers. If a muscle isn't relaxing, tense it first, then let it go loose.

Slowly exhale your tension.

Step 3: Relax your lower body

Tell your right thigh muscle to sink, then move down your leg, saying the same thing to your calf, ankle, and foot. Your leg should feel like it has sunk into the ground. Then move on to your left leg.

Step 4: Clear your mind

The final step is to clear your mind for ten seconds. You can do this by paying attention to your breath as it moves through your nostrils or holding a static image in your mind.

Once your body is relaxed and your mind quiet, you should slip away into darkness.

For more information on this sleep rechniqe, check out Ackman's Medium blog.

This article originally appeared on 04.11.19

Real things, important things, time-sensitive, urgent things.

At 9:47 a.m., while speaking to a police officer (because yes, when your spouse dies, you must be questioned by the police immediately), one call did make it through. I didn't recognize the number. But in those moments, I knew I should break my normal rule and answer all calls. “He's dead??? Oh my God. Who's with you? Are you OK? Why am I reading this on Facebook? Taya, what the heck is going on?"

Facebook? I was confused. I hadn't been on Facebook since the day before, so I certainly hadn't taken the time in the last 90 minutes to peek at the site.

“I'll call you back", I screamed and hung up. I called my best friend and asked her to search for anything someone might have written and to contact them immediately and demand they delete it. I still hadn't spoken to his best friend, or his godsister, or our godchild's parents, or a million other people! Why would someone post it to Facebook SO FAST?

While I can in no way speak for the entire planet, I certainly feel qualified to propose some suggestions — or, dare I say, rules — for social media grieving.

How many RIPs have you seen floating through your social media stream over the last month? Probably a few. Death is a fate that we will each meet at some point. The Information Age has changed the ways in which we live and communicate daily, yet there are still large voids in universally accepted norms.

This next statement is something that is impossible to understand unless you've been through it:

There is a hierarchy of grief.

Yes, a hierarchy. It's something people either don't understand or understand but don't want to think or talk about — yet we must.

There is a hierarchy of grief.

Hierarchy is defined as:

1. a system or organization in which people or groups are ranked one above the other according to status or authority, and
2. an arrangement or classification of things according to relative importance or inclusiveness.

What does this mean as it relates to grief? Let me explain. When someone dies — whether suddenly or after a prolonged illness, via natural causes or an unnatural fate, a young person in their prime or an elderly person with more memories behind them than ahead — there is one universal truth : The ripples of people who are affected is vast and, at times, largely unknown to all other parties.

A death is always a gut punch with varying degrees of force and a reminder of our own mortality. Most people are moved to express their love for the deceased by showing their support to the family and friends left behind.

In the days before social media, these expressions came in the form of phone calls, voicemail messages, and floral deliveries.

If you were lucky enough to be in close proximity to the family of the newly deceased, there were visits that came wrapped with hugs and tears, and deliveries of food and beverages to feed all the weary souls.

Insert social media. All of those courtesies still occur, but there is a new layer of grief expression — the online tribute in the form of Facebook posts, Instagram photo collages, and short tweets.

What's the problem with that? Shouldn't people be allowed to express their love, care, concern, support, and prayers for the soul of the recently deceased and for their family?

Yes.

And no.

Why? Because there are no established “rules," and people have adopted their own. This isn't breaking news, and you're not trying to scoop TMZ. Listen, I know you're hurt. Guess what? Me too. I know you're shocked. Guess what? Me too. Your social media is an extension of who you are. I get it. You “need" to express your pain, acknowledge your relationship with the deceased, and pray for the family.

Yes.

However...

Please give us a minute.

We are shocked.

We are heartbroken.

Give the immediate family or circle a little time to handle the immediate and time-sensitive “business" related to death. In the minutes and early hours after someone passes away, social media is most likely the last thing on their minds. And even if it does cross their mind, my earlier statement comes into play here.

There is a hierarchy of grief.

Please pause and consider your role and relationship to the newly deceased. Remember, hierarchy refers to your status and your relative importance to the deceased. I caution you to wait and then wait a little longer before posting anything. This may seem trivial, silly, and not worth talking about, but I promise you it isn't.

If the person is married, let the spouse post first.

If the person is “young" and single, let the partner, parents, or siblings post first.

If the person is “old" and single, let the children post first.

If you can't identify the family/inner circle of the person, you probably shouldn't be posting at all.

Do you get where I'm going with this?

In theory, we should never compare grief levels, cast the grief-stricken survivors into roles, or use words like status and importance. But maybe we need to at this moment (and for the next few weeks and months).

The “RIP" posts started hitting my timeline about an hour after my husband's death, and I certainly didn't start them. This created a sense of confusion, fear, anxiety, panic, dread, and shock for the people who knew me, too. What's wrong? Who are we praying for? Did something happen? Did someone pass? Why are there RIPs on your wall and I can't reach you? Call me please! What's going on?

That's a small sample of messages on my voicemail and text inbox. I had to take a minute in the midst of it all to ask a friend to post a status to my Facebook page on my behalf.

Your love and expressions of support are appreciated and needed, but they can also be ill-timed and create unintended additional stress.

The person is no less dead and your sympathy no less heartfelt if your post, photo, or tweet is delayed by a few hours. Honestly, the first couple of hours are shocking, and many things are a blur. Most bereaved people will be able to truly appreciate your love, concern, prayers, and gestures after the first 24 hours.

I've learned this from the inside — twice within the last four years. And I assure you that if we each adopted a little patience and restraint in this area, we would help those who are in the darkest hours of their lives by not adding an unnecessary layer of stress.

A few extra hours could make all the difference.

Here are some hilarious tweets that just about every married couple will understand.

This article originally appeared on 09.06.17

Walken became famous as a serious actor after his breakout roles in “Annie Hall" (1977) and “The Deer Hunter" (1978) so people were pretty shocked in 1981 when he tap-danced in Steve Martin's “Pennies from Heaven."

But Walken actually started his career in entertainment as a dancer. He took his first dance lessons at the age of three. “It was very typical for people—and I mean working-class people—to send their kids to dancing school," he told Interview Magazine. “You'd learn ballet, tap, acrobatics, usually you'd even learn to sing a song," he later explained to Interview magazine.

As a child, he also studied tap dance and toured in musicals. He even danced with a young Liza Minelli. “I'd been around dancers my whole life, having watched my parents make musicals at MGM, and Chris reminded me of so many of the dancers I knew growing up," Minelli said according to Entertainment Weekly. “He's talented in every way."

Craig Zadan, Executive Producer of “Peter Pan Live!," agrees with Minelli. “I think that if he had been around in the heyday of MGM, he would have been a big star of musicals on film," he told Entertainment Weekly.

His dance moves were put center stage in 2001 in Spike Jonze's video for Fatboy Slim's song “Weapon of Choice." Walken says he did it because one day he'll be too old to cut a rug. “You think, 'Well, do it now!' You know, you get too decrepit to dance," he told Entertainment Weekly.

This article originally posted on 06.29.21.

"I gave him his pizza and then I noticed behind him was his girlfriend," Grundl told WITI Milwaukee. "She pointed to a black eye that was quite visible. She mouthed the words, 'Call the police.'"

When Grundl got back to his delivery car, he called the police. When the police arrived at the home, Hoffmann tried to block the door, but eventually let the police into the woman's home.

After seeing the battered woman, Hoffmann was arrested and she was taken to the hospital for her wounds.

Earlier in the day, Hoffman arrived at the house without her permission and tried to convince her to get back into a relationship with him. He then punched her in the face and hog tied her with a vacuum power cord.

"If you love me, you will let me go," she plead, but he reportedly replied, "You know I can't do that." He also threatened to shoot both of them with a .22 caliber firearm he kept in his car. The woman later told authorities that she feared for her life.

A day later, Grundl was seen on TV wearing a hoodie from Taylor Swift's "Reputation Tour" and her fans quickly jumped into action, tagging Swift in photos of the hero. Grundl already had tickets to go to an upcoming Swift concert in Arlington, Wisconsin, but when Swift learned of the story, she arranged to meet Grudl backstage.

"She … she knew who I was," Grundl jokingly tweeted after the concert. "I'm thoroughly convinced Taylor gave me a cold."

"This has been one of the most exciting weeks of my life," Grundl said. "I'm legitimately getting emotional and I almost never get like this. But as the likely most memorable week of my entire life comes to an end … I guess I can really say … I'm doing better than I ever was."

This article originally appeared on 08.19.19

1. Understand the policies and laws that govern police conduct.

If you're alarmed by what you saw in Minneapolis, or other recent incidents of apparent police misconduct, the first step is to find out if the agency in question has a written policy on the use of force. Does the policy dictate when officers should or shouldn't use force? What tactics are they allowed to use? Is there any rule against choking a suspect?

It's important to know if the officers involved were following the policies and procedures that are supposed to guide their behavior. Police actions that strike an onlooker as inappropriate may actually be within a department's rules. It's possible the rules themselves are inconsistent with best practices elsewhere.

Ask the department for its policies on the practices that concern you, like restraining suspects or the use of pepper spray or Tasers. You may also need to request rules set by a county or state authority. Ask for written copies. You may be required to file a formal public records request, which I will describe below. And if there is no existing written policy, that might be something worth questioning itself.

If you're having trouble understanding a policy, try running it by an attorney, academic, elected official or a journalist in your community.

How I did it: I did a deep dive into policies about drug testing after a police captain was killed in a car crash in 2016, and I exposed that he was drunk and on drugs at the time. I spoke to his chief and learned their department didn't have a policy for random drug testing. I wondered why that was the case and looked to the state attorney general's office, which sets many police rules. The rules allowed departments to choose whether they wanted to do random testing, and my reporting identified more than 100 that did not. After our story, the state attorney general mandated random drug testing for cops across the state.

2. You are entitled to public records that can show whether rules are being followed. Get them.

Your tax dollars pay for just about everything a police department does, which includes generating tons of reports, dispatch logs, video recordings and data about what officers do every day. Any citizen is entitled to see those public records to understand how the government works.

The agency may say the public records law does not allow you to have access to some documents — information about confidential informants and medical records, for example. The laws that dictate what's considered public vary by state, so check out the national guide by the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. Information the agency considers off limits may also be redacted, and it may take time to get a response.

Even with the hassles and limitations, public records laws are empowering and I've been surprised by how much I can obtain. My policy is always to ask and make a records clerk explain why I can't have taxpayer-funded records. Follow up to ensure important requests aren't lost or ignored. Assume you should be able to see everything. Your state's public records law may even include a presumption that records are open and exemptions are an exception. You may run into roadblocks that you can't overcome on your own. In some cases, journalism organizations have had to sue to obtain public records. Your budget may not allow for an attorney, but some states have mediators that you can go to if you think your request is being wrongly denied.

It's striking how much information the government collects but then does not review. So you might be the first person to ask for a particular body of records and put them together to identify an important trend which you can share with leaders who weren't paying attention to the issue. Your local journalists may also be very interested in the information you have gathered.

Sometimes it's hard to even know which records exist. That's where documents commonly known as records retention schedules come in handy. Government agencies use these to track which records they keep and how long they hold onto them. Use the schedules to help you see what you might be able to obtain. These are available all over the country. Just for fun, I looked up the city of Los Angeles — they call them records disposition schedules and found them for agencies ranging from the Police Department to the zoo. The agency of interest to you might use a different name for the document, so call them and ask if they have a written guide that shows which records they maintain and for how long.

How I did it: I started investigating police car chases after I saw the government keeps summaries of those incidents, including how many people are arrested or injured. I saw I could add up those figures and see if the benefits of the chases outweighed the risks and harm. I discovered that chases in recent years usually didn't end with an arrest, and that lots of people get hurt, including cops and bystanders.

If you're interested in scrutinizing the type of misconduct we saw in Minneapolis, you could request use of force reports. New Jersey made those public a few years ago, and Newark Star-Ledger journalistsused them to great effect. ProPublica has that data available here for a fee.

If I were investigating a case of violence by the police I'd ask for:

• The use of force reports filed by the officers involved.
• Related incident reports.
• Computer-assisted dispatch reports.
• 911 phone call recordings.
• Body-worn and vehicle-mounted camera recordings.

I might also request policies that dictate how an agency handles complaints against officers. Some states consider substantiated complaints against individual officers to be public records, so you could request them, depending on where you live. WNYC has a helpful breakdown of where that information is public. If you're looking for video from police body cameras, the Reporters Committee has a guide that shows the places where those are considered public. If you want to obtain recordings of 911 calls, they have a guide for those, too.

You could also be more general and ask the relevant department for substantiated internal affairs complaints alleging excessive force in the past year or so, if those are public in your state. Departments might keep summary data on internal affairs complaints, so ask for the most recent copy of that, too.

3. Identify the power players and engage them.

Engaging law enforcement leaders is essential to understanding policing, and their involvement is key to fixing problems. My access and experience as a white man who works for a news organization may be different than someone else's experience. It also depends on who you talk to and their openness to criticism. But I think we stand the best chance of a good outcome if we deal with each other respectfully.

Many policing issues are handled at the local, county or state level. Part of your work will involve figuring out who is responsible for the issue you're concerned about.

"All policing is local," former Milwaukee police Chief Edward A. Flynn told me. Like many cities, Milwaukee is also experiencing unrest and criticism of the police. Flynn, a well-known law enforcement leader, encouraged conversations between citizens and cops, possibly aided by a neutral third party like a local faith leader.

I have found that the police themselves are often open to talking to me about the problems in their profession. Many I have talked to feel bad when things go wrong.

How I did it: I've been amazed at who is willing to talk to me when I simply take the time to ask. As part of my investigation into police car chases, I talked to a former cop who lost her police officer husband when his vehicle was struck during a high-speed pursuit. I was touched by the way she took hours from her busy life to tell me some of her most painful memories and share her insights as a former cop.

I took my findings to the attorney general, the state's largest police union and to lawmakers who vowed action. "It appears to me there's a lot more harm done than good right now," one of them said about the high-speed incidents.

"If the community has an issue either positive or negative with their law enforcement, then they should definitely have a conversation with the mayor, council and police chief," said New Jersey Assemblyman Gordon Johnson, a former cop who has participated in community discussion about police issues.

Contact information for law enforcement leaders is often available online. They may regularly attend meetings that are open to the public.

4. Presenting findings in a fair and persuasive manner is a powerful way to spur reform.

Show police leaders the problem that concerns you, using specific examples and quantifying the damage broadly. Show them the harm. Be careful to be fair. Frame the violations by showing how they go against policies or laws or best practices. Back up what you're saying with the evidence you've acquired.

How I did it: To highlight the dangers of police car chases, I introduced readers to Eric Larson, a young father killed when his car was hit by a motorcyclist fleeing police. Then I quantified the harm based on the records I had obtained: "New Jersey police pursuits killed at least 55 people in the past decade and injured more than 2,500."

Remember that there's always a different view to your perspective. Integrate it into your presentation if it is legitimate. Acknowledging the counterpoints helps you focus and ask tougher questions. In the car chase story, I made sure to also note incidents in which police chased a suspected killer and men wanted in connection to a shooting. Sometimes police chase violent criminals, but is it worthwhile for cops to chase someone for a traffic violation?

Policing is tough work, and there are times when cops use justified force. Differentiate how the issue you identified deviates from what's appropriate.

5. Follow up relentlessly until change is made.

Change is incremental and can take years. You will likely have to repeat yourself and persist in your efforts. But if you've found an issue of serious public importance — like the use of force incidents we've seen lately from the police — there may be ongoing examples you can point to as you make your case to decision-makers.

It may be worthwhile to reach out to local journalists with what you've found. News outlets often have a tip line you can call. Or, find a reporter who covers similar issues and call or email them with what you've found. I take calls like this frequently and look forward to them. Academics who study criminal justice may also be interested. You can look them up at your local college or university. When reaching out to reporters or academics, keep it brief and focus on the facts.

The wave of protests is hitting home for many people, including in my newsroom in New Jersey. On Monday, police arrested my Asbury Park Press colleague Gustavo Martínez Contreras after he filmed officers tackling two minors to the ground in Asbury Park.

I'm continuing to investigate police accountability problems in New Jersey this year in partnership with ProPublica's Local Reporting Network. If you have a tip for me, please share it.

If you have questions about applying the suggestions in this column, please email me at aford3@gannettnj.com. And if you find anything interesting as you start to investigate law enforcement practices, please let me know. I may want to follow up or promote your work online.

This article first appeared on ProPublica. You can read it here.

This article originally appeared on 04.20.21.