Today on AirTalk, we discuss the latest on Attorney General William Barr's testimony before congress. We also re-examine the science and research behind implicit bias; analyze Instagram's decision to test hiding users public like counts; and more.
AG Barr testifies before congress, defending his previous decisions about Mueller’s report
Testifying for the first time since releasing Mueller’s report, Attorney General William Barr said he was surprised Mueller did not reach a conclusion on whether President Donald Trump had tried to obstruct justice, and that he felt compelled to step in with his own judgment that the president had committed no crime. Barr also complained that Mueller’s report did not, as requested, clearly flag sensitive material, creating weeks of work for the Justice Department as it moved to redact grand jury material that was not intended for the public.
Barr’s public defense of his actions rebutted complaints by Mueller, expressed in a letter and phone call, that the attorney general had not adequately portrayed the investigation’s findings. The revelation of that letter hours earlier amplified allegations from Democrats that Barr had spun the investigation’s findings in Trump’s favor.
Barr’s appearance Wednesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee gave the attorney general his most extensive opportunity to explain the department’s actions, including his press conference held before the report’s release, and for him to repair a reputation bruised by allegations that he’s the Republican president’s protector.
Barr defended his decision to step in and clear the president of obstruction of justice after Mueller presented evidence on both sides but didn’t reach a conclusion.
We recap the latest from the hearing.
With files from the Associated Press.
Guest:
Anna Edgerton, politics editor at Bloomberg; he tweets
Waze and LA City Council will work together to reduce growing traffic on residential streets
The traffic app Waze is a boon for many Los Angeles drivers looking to detour around the city’s congested freeways since it relies on crowdsourced data to determine what streets are busy and how you can avoid the congestion.
But if you’re a resident of a neighborhood like Silver Lake or Echo Park, where many Waze users have been routed, you might be frustrated that your once quiet residential street is now lined with traffic during rush hour.
The City of Los Angeles, after hearing from residents of impacted neighborhoods for months and even once threatening legal action against Waze, voted yesterday to approve a pilot program to redirect traffic from smaller residential streets. For its part, Waze would restrict the streets where it directs users in exchange for a data agreement between the city and mobile mapping app developers.
If you are a resident of one of these neighborhoods where surface streets have become congested because of traffic from Waze and other mobile apps, or are someone who uses Waze, we want to hear what you think about this pilot program. Call us at 866-893-5722.
Guests:
Paul Krekorian, Los Angeles City Councilmember representing District 2, which stretches from Studio City to Sun Valley; he introduced the motion to study the negative impact of Waze directing traffic in neighborhoods; he tweets
Alexandre M. Bayen, chair and director of the Institute of Transportation Studies at UC Berkeley; he’s an expert on navigation apps and their impact on congestion and traffic; professor of electrical engineering and computer science; he tweets
As California debates bills to address implicit bias, we re-examine the science and research behind it
In California, several bills currently making their way through the California legislature seek to tackle implicit bias among medical professionals, police officers and judges.
One from Los Angeles Democratic Senator Holly Mitchell would set up an unconscious bias training program for perinatal healthcare providers, require the state public health department to collect stronger data on maternal mortality rates, and require hospitals to give patients more information on how to file discrimination complaints. A package of bills from Los Angeles Democratic Assemblywoman Sydney Kamlager-Dove would require medical professionals like doctors and nurses assistants, police officers and court officers to undergo at least eight hours of implicit bias training after getting their licenses and every two years afterward.
An April 2018 incident at a Philadelphia Starbucks in which a store employee called the police on two black men who were waiting for a friend to show up for a business meeting put a spotlight on implicit bias, and the training designed to try and identify it. It also raised questions about the science behind implicit bias and the accuracy and utility of the Implicit Association Test (IAT), the industry standard for measuring implicit bias which takes the speed at which the test-taker links words or images to things that are seen as good or bad and uses it to create a metric for hidden biases.
Starbucks ultimately closed more than 8,000 stores in May 2018 to conduct unconscious bias training, which advocates say is designed to help people identify their own implicit biases so that they might better keep them in check in social situations. But others who have studied it argue the IAT doesn’t achieve traditional scientific standards for validating a particular measure of something, and say that other factors like explicit bias and structural racism contribute more to inequality than implicit bias.
In light of these bills, AirTalk will revisit the discussion over the science behind implicit bias and the evidence for and against whether or not the test used to gauge it is a good predictor of how people will behave in real-life social situations.
Correction: A previous version of this article identified Sydney Kamlager-Dove as a California State Senator. She is a member of the California Assembly. We have updated the article to reflect this change and apologize for the error.
Guests:
Kelly Capatosto, senior research associate at The Ohio State University’s Kirwan Institute for the Study of Race and Ethnicity, where her work focuses on implicit bias
Michèle Lamont, professor of sociology, African-American Studies and European Studies at Harvard University; she tweets
Should some research at universities not be public? The fight is on for public records in academia
The California Public Records Act requires the state or local agency to make records available from public institutions, which includes public secondary education.
But a bill is in the works to limit what can be made public. Assembly Bill 700 was introduced by Assembly Member Friedman in February 2019. The bill would exempt the release of information relating to a researcher and their work in higher education, including California Community Colleges, the California State University, the University of California, and any medical facility or lab affiliated with those public educational institutions.
Opponents of the bill say that AB 700 defines researchers too broad, would allow researchers to release information “on-a-case-by-case basis,” and protects “limited sharing of information” by researchers. Supporters of the bill say that it would allow researchers to continue with their work at the public institution without experiencing “harassment, high legal and processing costs.” Several states already exclude public universities from public records laws. If it passes, California would be the state with the most expensive public post secondary educational system, according to Undark.
Do you think work from researchers at post secondary institutions should be public? Do you think notes, peer-reviewed papers, raw data, etc, should be exempted from public requests? Are you a research who has experienced requests affecting your work? Have you requested documents from public universities relating to research?
Call us at 866-893-5722 or leave a comment down below.
Guests:
Michael Halpern, deputy director of the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists, a sponsor of AB 700; he tweets @halpsci
Kevin Baker, legislative director for the American Civil Liberties Union of California
An influencer’s worst nightmare? Instagram tests hiding public ‘like’ counts
Instagram is testing out a new feature in Canada.
Its newest addition is actually taking something away — public likes. The announcement, which came yesterday at the F8 developer conference, says that Instagram will begin hiding users public like counts on both photos and videos. The likes will only be hidden on the Instagram feed and on users’ profiles, so the account holder will still be able to see who hits “like” on their posts.
Though likes can feel good for the poster, they can also be a source of comparison between users. Instagram says it will move the focus of the platform from likes to the actual content being shared.
So what will this look like? And will this change how users interact with the app? How might it affect what people decide to share or like? Weigh in and call us at 866-893-5722 or leave a comment down below.
Guests:
Ashley Carman, tech reporter for The Verge, who's been following the story; she tweets
Karen North, expert in social media and in psychology and professor of communication at USC Annenberg