CBS News, Jan. 30, 2018
Fact-checking Trump’s first State of the Union address
The president has been making versions of this statement since his campaign. On the claim about illegal immigrants causing the loss of “many” innocent lives, PolitiFact has pointed out that the statement is so vague that sure, it’s bound to be true, but it doesn’t really say much. University of California, Irvine criminology professor Charis Kubrin points out that it’s about as accurate as saying “thousands of Americans have been killed by men.”
Los Angeles Times, Jan. 31, 2018
We’ve weaponized immigration rhetoric, from chain migration to Dreamers
Leo R. Chavez, professor of anthropology at UC Irvine, writes: “A rose by any other name might smell as sweet, but that logic doesn’t apply to immigration-related rhetoric. Political leaders and activists have weaponized specific words in an ongoing battle for the hearts and minds of the American public.” [Subscription required, you can request an electronic copy of the article by sending an email to email@example.com.]
Mashable, Jan. 31, 2018
Court rules Spotify and Apple Music must pay artists more for songs
In fact, UC Irvine media studies professor Peter Krapp told Mashable it would take about 4 million Spotify streams for a songwriter to make minimum wage in California over the course of a month. Krapp thinks the streaming giants will be able to justify a price increase to consumers by proving streaming is the best way to discover new music that you’ll like.
The Globe and Mail, Jan. 31, 2018
Trump’s ‘new American moment’: State of Union speech strikes conciliatory tone, but promotes divisive policies
“To the degree that the speech was presented as trying to build bridges with the Democrats, I don’t think he succeeded in terms of immigration,” said Louis DeSipio, director of the Center for the Study of Democracy at the University of California, Irvine.
BBC, Jan. 31, 2018
‘Chemtrail’ conspiracy theorists: The people who think governments control the weather
A 2016 study by the Carnegie Institute for Science and the University of California Irvine surveyed 77 leading atmospheric scientists and geochemists. “Our goal is not to sway those already convinced that there is a secret, large-scale spraying programme – who often reject counter evidence as further proof of their theories – but rather to establish a source of objective science that can inform public discourse,” the study’s authors wrote.
Previously “In the News”