Review: Spotlight (2015 movie)

In 2001 investigative reporters working for The Boston Globe uncovered evidence that the Catholic Archdiocese of Boston was moving priests around to conceal rather than adequately address their sexual abuse of minors, a problem the reporters themselves had trouble believing was a large as it proved to be.

When the newspaper finally published a series of articles on the subject in early 2002 it led to other investigations around the United States and in other countries that found many similar cases and worse, most notably in Ireland.

This film dramatizes how the Globe’s “Spotlight” investigative unit gradually discovered the scale of the problem over the course of more than a year. In the main, cast members portray real people, and in most cases the actors worked with the persons they were portraying and even tried to incorporate their physical mannerisms and manner of speaking into the performances. Some of the reporters spent time on set, and The Boston Globe itself was heavily involved in advising the production, so the sets are closely modeled on the newspaper’s real offices and even the credits use the typeface (Miller) that’s the main one used in the Globe.

The close cooperation makes for greater accuracy but also introduces an obvious potential bias. Despite that, the film depicts the reporters and editors not as heroic but as initially far too slow to follow up on leads and as motivated as much by a desire for a blockbuster story as by some abstract journalistic duty. The film should have given more credit to The National Catholic Reporter, which had been covering abuse in the church for 17 years by the time the Globe got around to it. The closest this comes to a mention in Spotlight is when one of the victims asks a Globe reporter if he has read “the book by Jason Berry,” a journalist at The National Catholic Reporter who wrote a lot about the problem.

Whatever its strengths and flaws as a quasi-documentary, Spotlight is an excellent movie that earned multiple awards. Michael Keaton, Liev Schreiber, Mark Ruffalo, Rachel McAdams, et al have been justly praised for their acting, and almost all reviews have been positive, including from Roman Catholic critics. Writing in The National Catholic Reporter Father Peter Daly called Spotlight “a very good movie. It might win the Oscar for best screenplay.” (Which it did, and for best picture as well.) He wrote,

Michael Keaton leads an ensemble cast that is entirely believable. They capture the atmosphere of the newsroom and the atmosphere of the Catholic church in Boston. The real Spotlight team spent more than a year uncovering the child abuse scandal. They won a Pulitzer Prize for their series and they touched off similar investigations worldwide. It has been a scandal that continues to convulse the church.

As a parish priest I found it painful to watch. I was ashamed.

I went to see the movie alone. When the movie was over I sat in stunned silence in the theater and waited for everyone else to leave. I did not want to have to talk. Above all I did not want to run into any parishioners. Our church behaved horribly.

Every seminarian should see this movie. The USCCB [United States Conference of Catholic Bishops] should spend an evening watching it together and discussing it. The only disinfectant that will really lead to cleansing is the bright light of truth. The Archdiocese of Boston would never have reformed without the Globe stories.

(For more about the movie from The National Catholic Reporter, see this link.)


Link: https://youtu.be/EwdCIpbTN5g



Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailby feather

Misinformation voters 2: Making money with fake news

Last month (link) I mentioned the problem of misinformation voters as distinct from low-information voters. Low-information voters just don’t pay a lot of attention to politics, which I admit is completely understandable if a problem for a democracy. But by misinformation voters I mean those who make a serious effort to stay informed but still wind up believing things are are demonstrably not true.

One problem is fake news, which in 2016 proved a profitable business model, notably for a bunch of English-speaking teenagers in Macedonia. A Google search will take you to a bunch of interesting articles on that, including those published by The Washington Post (an 18-year-old makes several times his country’s average wage from fake news), the BBC (thanks to its young people, the city of Veles (population 45,000) has become a profitable fake news capital), NBC, and Buzzfeed (which I think was the piece that first drew attention to the Macedonia connection).

There are Americans in on it as well. In November The Washington Post published an interview with 38-year-old Paul Horner, who has for several years earned a living creating Internet hoaxes. (As John Oliver said in pointing out that Scotland had made the unicorn its national animal: Who knew you could do that?) Horner wrote numerous fake news items designed to appeal to Trump supporters, whom he considered quite gullible.

My sites were picked up by Trump supporters all the time. I think Trump is in the White House because of me. His followers don’t fact-check anything — they’ll post everything, believe anything. His campaign manager posted my story about a protester getting paid $3,500 as fact. Like, I made that up. I posted a fake ad on Craigslist.

Interestingly, Macedonian fake news sites also specialized in news favorable to Trump, apparently in the hope Trump fans would broadcast links to the stories and thereby get fake news sites more page views and hence more ad revenues.



Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailby feather

More about what affects U.S. life expectancy

As I mentioned a few weeks ago (link), overall U.S. life expectancy fell slightly in 2015. We should be careful about reading too much into a small one-year decline (it also fell in 1980 and 1993), but we shouldn’t ignore it either.

In addition, for a couple of decades life expectancy has been stable or declining among subgroups of Americans even as it has continued to advance for others. More surprising, the subgroups in question are mainly subsets of whites, particularly less-educated whites. It’s worth emphasizing that white Americans still tend to live longer (in fact, quite a lot longer) than many nonwhites. But while nonwhites are gradually doing better, whites are not, and some subsets of white Americans are even losing ground. There’s an on-going debate about why this is, and abuse of dangerous drugs such as meth and prescription opioids may be a significant contributing factor but not a full explanation.

For a long while U.S. life expectancy has been lower than in many other developed countries, but that’s more or less a constant. There are a number of reasons for that difference, ranging from universal or near-universal health care coverage in other countries to our relatively higher rates of drug abuse, accidental death, and crime.

As this article from The Dallas Morning News examines, one explanation for the difference is the relative level of gun violence (including suicide by gun) in the Unites States.

No matter what you think about firearms regulations, this article is worth reading.



Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailby feather

The latest on U.S. crime rates

Last week I read an interesting blog post from Kevin Drum based on two sets of U.S. crime data collected two different ways by separate parts of the Justice Department.

Data derived both from large-scale population surveys and from police reports to the FBI show that property crime was down around 6 percent in 2015 relative to the previous year, in keeping with long-term trends since crime peaked in the early 1990s. (Data for 2016 won’t be available for a number of months, so this in the most up-to-date information we have.)

Curiously, however, while survey data showed a drop of over 11 percent in violent crime, police reports indicated an increase of 3 percent. Drum points out that a closer look at the numbers by Rick Nevin (link) suggests that this may reflect a change in how police departments are reporting crime statistics to the FBI rather than an actual increase in criminal violence in 2015 over 2014.

On the other hand, the murder rate did shoot up in 2015, mainly the result of a spike in murders in about a dozen large cities (some other large cities experienced a decline). In percentage terms, the jump in the murder rate from 2014 to 2015 was the largest in 45 years. But the murder rate for 2014 was at a record low, and as Rick Nevin pointed out in the piece mentioned above

The 2015 murder rate increase was the largest percent increase since 1968, but that percent change is relative to the record low in 2014. Larger absolute increases in the murder rate in 1990, 1986, 1980, 1979, 1971, and 1970 look smaller as year-over-year percent changes because the prior year murder rates were much higher than the record low 2014 rate. Even after the 2015 increase, the 2015 murder rate was still lower than it was in 1960, lower than it was in any year from 1964 through 2012, and just about half of the average murder rate from 1969-1995.

Back in the second presidential debate Donald Trump accurately referenced the large percentage increase, but he later started falsely claiming that the murder rate itself was the highest in 45 years, which obviously is not remotely true. This was pointed out by Factcheck.org and The Washington Post‘s Fact Checker among others. Trump also claimed that the murder rate was up in New York City, which was also incorrect.

Of course, it’s likely far more people heard and believed Trump’s false assertions about a record-high murder rate than read the fact checks (let alone this blog post!).

(For what it’s worth, I wrote a similar item about this back in April based on FBI crime statistics through the first half of 2015, full-year data for 2015 not having been available then. The conclusions were basically the same.)



Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailby feather

A few brief reasons for optimism

An article on the Vox website (link) argues that in many ways the world is getting better, vastly so in comparison with 200 years ago. For example:

In 1820 about 90 percent of the world population lived in what we today would consider extreme poverty. Even in 1950 this was true of 3/4 of human beings. But by 1980 it was well under 50 percent, and today it’s under 10 percent. Since 1990, the total number of people in extreme poverty has fallen by an average of 190,000 a day, every day, even as the total world population has increased.

Two hundred years ago only about 10 percent of the world population was literate. Today it’s about 85 percent. Or to put it differently, in 1800 there were 120 million people who could read, and today the number is 6.2 billion. Other measures of education are improving as well. Globally, about 10 percent of adults have at least some college today versus only about 4.7 percent 30 years ago.

In 1800 about 43 percent of children worldwide died before the age of five, and the figure was not much better in rich countries than in impoverished ones. Now the global average is around 4.3 percent.

In 1800 democracies were relatively rare. Now about half of humans live in more or less democratic countries.

Overpopulation is a problem (see for example this previous post) and the world’s population continues to grow. But its rate of growth is slowing, and in about 60 years it’s projected to reach stability.

Here’s a graphic summing this up:

Graphs showing improvements in the human condition over the last 200 years

For more on the good news that often gets overlooked, see these previous posts about surprising positive trends:

2016 December
2016 February
2015 September
2014 January
2013 July

None of this is meant to imply that everything is just great and there are no reasons to worry. Just look at who’s about to become president of the United States. Loss of species is at a level comparable to major extinction events in Earth’s history. There has been some progress on global warming, but not enough. There are still misinformed people not vaccinating their children. And while it’s received relatively little attention in the news media, for some unexpected subsets of the U.S. population life expectancy has stopped growing and even dropped, as noted in these posts from last month and from 2013.



Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailby feather

Colbert’s political guests in review

A lot of politicians from multiple parties showed up on The Late Show with Steven Colbert during its first year on the air, and a lot of them tried to show they had a sense of humor. Some of them even pulled it off, and when they didn’t, it was still sometimes funny to watch. This runs only a bit over three minutes:


Link: https://youtu.be/1flSzZfC8iQ

One of the best bits is at the end: 76-year-old author, Civil Rights hero, and member of Congress John Lewis (D-Georgia) goes crowd surfing over Colbert’s audience.



Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailby feather

The enchained duck

In French class in high school I heard about a popular Paris newspaper called Le Canard Enchainé, the Enchained Duck, a name that’s hard to forget. It turns out that Le Canard turned a hundred in 2016, having been started in 1916 during the worst year of the First World War. National Public Radio’s Eleanor Beardsley had a remarkably interesting report on it yesterday, the text version of which you can read here. (See also the Wikipedia entry.)

Le Canard is basically the French print equivalent of HBO’s The Daily Show with John Oliver: investigative journalism delivered with sarcasm and comedy. The most remarkable thing is that it’s a weekly paper with no advertising, a staff of 30 reporters (plus free-lancers), a weekly circulation in the neighborhood of a half-million copies and a profit in 2015 of about three million dollars. Profits go into a fund to protect the paper from a future financial downturn, so that it won’t fall into the hands of a media corporation or wealthy owner; the assets total over 100 million euros.

American newspaper people must weep bitter tears when they read of this, given the serious problems faced by newspapers here. (For more about that, see this recent post.)

The NPR report errs slightly is saying the paper lacks a website. It does have one, but only a minimal to provide information about the paper: http://www.lecanardenchaine.fr (for an automated translation into English, see this link). It avoids putting much on line because it’s financially dependent on selling the print edition.

If you know French and would like to subscribe, you can do so here.



Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailby feather

Election 2016: the good parts (for real)

NPR, which stands either for National Public Radio or News for Pigs and Rabbits, has managed to find ten things about this year’s election that weren’t awful. The full list is here and includes Bill Clinton playing with balloons, Bernie Sanders having a Cinderella moment with a bird, Ken Bone’s five minutes of fame, and a bunch of other things. My favorite bits were these:

SNL’s parody of Drake’s dancing in his video for the song “Hotline Bling” that features similar dance moves from Martin Short’s Ed Grimley character and from Donald Trump portraying a tax advisor — seriously, for real, no joke — and dancing and singing, or something on that order:


Link: https://youtu.be/cjeORm4LMDk

You think that’s weird, here’s Ted Cruz doing a condense, 1.5-minute one-man re-creation of a scene from The Princess Bride (and again I am not making this up):


Link: https://youtu.be/S_mcie4Nasw

Finally, in case you somehow haven’t seen this, the kid speaking at his eighth-grade graduation in the styles of a selection of 2016 presidential candidates and President Obama. It gets better as it goes along. His Bernie Sanders (starting about 6 minutes and 30 seconds in) is particularly good.


Link: https://youtu.be/lf6w8aYFwwI



Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailby feather

Lost letter

A German postal clerk discovers a lost letter that proves to be an unusual one. (Running time 1 minute and 22 seconds.)

Otto "The Letter" from Ryan Mack on Vimeo.

Link: https://vimeo.com/148808087

The German phrase at the end, “Weihnachten ist in Dir,” means “Christmas is in you.” “An Opa,” means “To Granddad,” “Opa” being a shorted form of “Großpapa” as explained here.



Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailby feather