Daily Interesting News: Daily News

Daily Interesting News Daily news about generic category, long form, long lenght articles, for all read fan. Miscellanous news, general news, amazing news, story, stories, long articles story, internet story.

ADS

Hot

Post Top Ad

Visualizzazione post con etichetta Daily News. Mostra tutti i post
Visualizzazione post con etichetta Daily News. Mostra tutti i post

giovedì 20 aprile 2017

On Island: Journeying to Penal Colonies, from Rikers to Robben

11:29 0

On journeys to Rikers Island in New York City and Robben Island in South Africa, Roohi Choudhry examines issues of incarceration and racism, and envisions a day when the convicted are no longer exiled to penal colonies.

Roohi Choudhry | Longreads | April 2017 | 14 minutes (3,556 words)

The Rikers Island jail complex, built on an island just off the borough of Queens in New York City, has been described as the world’s largest penal colony. It has seen its share of controversies, many of them involving issues of race. Rikers is no exception to the disproportionate and mass incarceration of Black and Latino people in the United States.
Over the past year, an independent commission, led by the former chief judge of New York, has studied the jail, and on April 2nd, it released its recommendation: shut down Rikers. New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio has also backed the recommended course of action, which aims to have the last inmate depart the jail within 10 years.
In place of Rikers, the plan proposes building smaller jails inside New York City’s boroughs to eventually house half its current number of inmates. At the heart of this proposal is the view that people who are sent to jail are from the community, not “other.” This view dictates that they should stay in the community during their jail term. That is, people who have been arrested or convicted should not be cast away on an island, out of sight, mind and empathy.
It’s an idea once espoused by the writer and activist Grace Paley in “Six Days: Some Rememberings,” the story of her time in prison, during which a fellow inmate tells her: “That was a good idea… to have a prison in your own neighborhood, so you could keep in touch, yelling out the window.” It’s also an idea in keeping with racial justice: Black and brown lives matter, and cannot be so easily discarded when they are seen.
In the following essay, originally published in March 2015 on The Butter, I explore these ideas by comparing Rikers to another racially charged penal colony that has already been closed down: Robben Island, off the coast of Cape Town, South Africa. That island was once infamous for imprisoning Apartheid-era political prisoners (including Nelson Mandela), but is now a museum and tourist destination.
By commingling my journeys to both islands in this essay, I question what it means to banish our “unwanted,” whether because of crime, politics or disease, across the sea, far from the safety of our mainland. Is this impulse truly part of our nature? Using my experiences of these two places, I confront questions of nature, both of the land and of people, and how that nature collides with questions of race.
* * *
I am early and alone, and this might have been enough to set me apart from the crowd. Ticket in hand, I am waiting for the collector to open his booth for the first Robben Island tour of the day. In the vaulted-ceiling departure area, all dark wood and slate and frosted glass, Robben Island’s history is sketched as a timeline across three walls. In the 1600s, the Dutch cast their unfit slaves and political prisoners there. In the 1800s, the British used the island as a leper colony and lunatic asylum. In the 1940s, it became a garrison. Only in the 1960s did the South African government build the notorious maximum security prison on Robben Island that housed Mandela, Kathrada, Sisulu and hundreds of political prisoners during the country’s Apartheid era.
Now, the entire island is a museum. A ticketed destination. Behind me, the waiting area is bustling with middle-aged Europeans in khaki bermuda shorts, white t-shirts and pastel cardigans with sleeves folded around their shoulders. A group of Dutch tourists, I think, from the clunks and twists of their words.
This is my first trip to Cape Town in many years. My last visit of any significant length was in 1989, when I was eleven years old and on holiday with my parents from our then-home in Gaborone, Botswana. I remember a few details. The mustard and black polka-dot leggings I’d shivered in for most of the wintry trip. Waves beating in churned-cream fury against the rocks at Neptune’s Dairy beach. A maitre d’ ushering us politely out of the Mount Nelson hotel’s magnificent tea room. I remember the powdery face of an old white woman sipping from her china cup, watching our exile to the hotel’s blustery terrace where Indians and Coloureds and perhaps even Blacks were allowed to sit. Though I cannot be sure I have not invented her since.
Twenty years later, boarding our gleaming white catamaran to Robben Island, I feel keenly that hotel’s proximity, my unwanted shadow cast across tea room sameness. I climb the steel steps to the open deck of the ferry. The white of the seats and the silver beneath my feet are almost blinding under the cloudless day, and the wind whips through my t-shirt mercilessly. But I was first in line, so I find and take the front seat in the front row of the top deck.
As Cape Town recedes, tourists crowd around the prow with their cameras to capture the city. No one needs a flash under this glorious sun. The grey-brick Nelson Mandela gateway fades in the distance as everyone’s gaze rises instead to looming Table Mountain, in whose lap the city is scattered. The cameras are wild in frenzied marveling. But soon, the wind has the tourists beaten back to their seats, and we all clutch at railings for support.
As the island nears, a close warmth gathers in my throat, my thudding chest. I did not expect this reaction, or any emotion at all. Who am I to dread this island? When I was in Cape Town last, the island was still a prison, but I was only a child. My family eventually moved to South Africa in 1992, just as the past was beginning to crumble. And today, I am South African only between the green covers of my passport, and during these annual visits from my home in Brooklyn, New York. Even my tongue has betrayed me; I am a New Yorker even in my speech. So, who am I to fear this place?
* * *
AP Photo/Seth Wenig, File
Across the world, a few weeks later, there are no tickets, cameras, ferries, and hardly the rumor of sunlight. Here, my co-worker and I wait under the shelter of a wooden trailer, just barely shielded from falling snow, for our assigned Corrections Officer of the day. Shivering, I glance regretfully at my Dunkin’ Donuts cup lying in an open trash can a few feet away. The stench from the river was too overwhelming, as always. I could barely keep my breakfast steady in my stomach, much less finish the coffee I brought with me.
We are at the Queens-side “mainland” entrance to the Rikers Island Correctional Facility, the New York City island jail where detainees await trial and sentenced inmates serve out their less-than-a-year time. More than 13,000 inmates are housed here daily. Some call it the world’s largest penal colony. A mile-long bridge over the fetid river separates us from the island.
My co-worker and I are here for our work as researchers, studying the effectiveness of a social program in the men’s jail. The program is designed to help men transition back into their communities once they leave here. Traveling to the jail from our homes in Brooklyn took us close to two hours this morning, and that because we were able to expense a taxi for part of the way. We watch the Q100 bus transporting jail visitors trundle over the bridge and wonder how long that sole public transportation to the jail might take us.
Finally, the officer arrives, jumping out of a blue van, clutching the form permitting us into Rikers for the day. We follow her to the Plexiglas window behind which another officer sits. A few minutes later, we have a pair of plastic numbered badges in exchange for our IDs.
The officer gives us a ride over the river, and we chat about her son, her recent hospital visit, her stylish new handbag. We have some brief sense of her life from these weekly trips. An expanse of ink stretches from either side of the bridge, low planes dip over La Guardia Airport just along the other side of the river. Below us, water choked with weeds and cans breaks against rocks jammed against the banks of the mainland. Then, the concrete and barbed wire of the jail loom against the grey morning and blot out everything else.
Off the bridge, we are “on island” as the officers call it, immersed in this destination’s own ecology of fencing and trucks and men in identical jumpsuits sweeping or picking up trash. The officer smooths our way through two more checkpoints with little asides and insides, other officers peer at our badges as they shoot back their practiced one-liners. It’s surprisingly difficult to get into a jail.
Finally, we pull up to one of the six men’s facilities; this is where we are conducting our study. Inside, the air is so densely acrid, I can taste the metal of each surface. I am just as conscious here as around those tourists in Cape Town of the precise contours of my body, exactly how I might appear to others. But this time, less for color and more for shape, for being a woman in this place.
As at Robben Island, I struggle with my reactions to this island. I am fortunate, have never had to confront the justice system in any country. And yet, I am nervous around the officers, as though I have sneaked past their checkpoints. It’s as though I live on the wrong side of this river. As if I should live inside, on island.
* * *
We are about to dock at Robben Island, and panic will surely burst through my chest. Struggling to stay calm, I repeat: I have no right to these emotions. I did not suffer on this island. But the mantra can’t abate my dismay at nearing it.
The railing is still bracing cold, and its chill seeps through my veins, pulling me into the world. The rifle-fire snaps of a hundred cameras also have this rousing effect; the tourists are taking shots of the approaching jetty. I decide to pull out my own camera. Perhaps, someday, I will need help remembering this, too.
The island stretches far and flat, dotted with red roof and concrete block and stubborn green bush. Black gulls swoop, skimming sunlight off the water. We clamber off the boat and onto a waiting tour bus just off a clutch of grey-brick buildings. I find a seat toward the back this time, glad to have some space to myself.
The tour guide is a wise-cracking Capetonian; he soon has us laughing as we settle in. Do we know where the island’s name comes from? Robben is Afrikaans for seal. The Dutch nod approvingly, yes, this word comes from us. Though few seals are left here. Rabbits have taken over, and penguins–hordes of the flightless birds waddle around the island.
The bus begins a circuitous tour, longer than I had expected. This island’s topography has always consisted, in my mind, of imprisonment. Sightseeing before even getting to the prison, just one part of the tour, seems ludicrous, even offensive. I did not come here to ride around this speck of dirt farther south than the southernmost tip of Africa; an island known only for centuries of misery. The object of our pilgrimage should be singular and sacrosanct. And yet, that object is a symbol of heinous acts. And how can a prison be sacred? Confused, I try to appreciate the view from the bus, the giant cacti and endangered birds and rocky beaches.
We travel through what is still an inhabited city of a grotesque kind. The low earth so close to sea-level, the wardens’ village full of close-packed bungalows, the lepers’ graveyard. A primary school which a handful of children still attend. A church the lepers built, a different church the guards built. And, unexpectedly, a kermit-green dome rising from the dust at one end of the island. The structure is called Moturu Kramat, and is a shrine built to honor one of Cape Town’s first imams who was exiled by the Dutch and died on the island in the eighteenth century.
We pull up to a beach which, the tour guide tells us, is the best place on the island to take pictures of Table Mountain on the mainland. The Dutch crowd around every open space of grey rock around the shore, training their lenses to the smooth pen-and-ink crag of the mountain. The smoky outlines of the city seem a lifetime from this island, forsaken by the continent. I take a few pictures of the celebrated view but tire soon; I have seen the contours of this mountain on postcards and in textbooks almost all my life.
Instead, I am fascinated by the cruel petals of a succulent plant, a variety of Cape Aloe, a few steps away. I have seen a plant like this, but half the size, at the Brooklyn Botanic Gardens in the desert room, a carefully calibrated greenhouse that mimicks this climate. The aloe at Robben Island is as tall as I am, with a hundred yellow-lined brittle tentacles of green flesh, some of them curled against the sand but most raised in salutation to the sky. Pebbles of all colors are scattered about the plant’s base, and a fat, rusty pipe runs among them, along the length of the beach.
The pipe’s presence is somehow obtrusive. The greens and blues of the island had dispelled my distress, and I’d forgotten where I was; this pipe reminds me. But I cannot blame the aloe or the dry soil at the plant’s base. They did not conspire with us; we made this place what it became. I return to the celebrated view, the grey flat-topped mountain in the mist, and think about the people banished here, standing on this soil. Maybe they hated the sight of the mountain, cursed each rock and weed on the mainland. Maybe they raged at the very ground I stood on as I posed for my mother’s camera in my mustard-and-black leggings twenty years ago, against the breakers of Neptune’s Dairy.
The bus stops again a few minutes later so we can snap pictures, from the inside this time, of the island’s indigenous endangered bird, the African Oystercatcher. The duck-like black gull, an odd hiccup of history and biology, possesses tomato-red eyes, beak, and legs. Who knows how long this dinosaur will last in this place, now peopled only by caretakers and seasonal tourists. Or perhaps the bird will thrive, left in peace. As nature takes her course without us.
The bunkers are perhaps, after the imam’s shrine, the biggest surprise of this tour. Concrete blocks–each the size of a small house, painted camouflage green and black–are planted in a group and sheltered by a copse of trees. They were built during World War II in case of a German invasion. A garrison was stationed on Robben Island as a first line of defense against an attack from the ocean. The Germans never came and the succulents have taken over now, growing on the bunkers’ roofs, around them, inside them.
Finally, we’re reminded of why we’re on this surreal bus ride on a sunny island: we approach the limestone quarry. Here, Mandela and other prisoners developed eye damage from two decades of chipping away at white rock under blistering sun. This was where Kathrada, Sesulu, Mandela hatched their nascent plans for a future. Mandela called the quarry “the university” and clandestinely held regular lectures here. The prisoners could talk as they worked, if they were careful; constitutions were composed here, cabinets assembled, as they shaded their eyes from blindness.
Their shadows linger in the caves hewn into the lime cliff-face, in the eerie stillness of this place where even the Dutch are quiet.
* * *
The first gate clangs shut. We are led by another Rikers Corrections Officer into the hallway that flanks the belly of the jail, passing a reception shielded by bullet-proof glass.
An hour after our arrival at the Queens-side trailer, we’re in, walking along a wide hall from which the common areas of the jail branch off: the gym, mess hall, library, chapel. White walls are painted over with various signs advertising programs offered, instructions on where to stand and where not to step. The linoleum floor is broken every so often by a metal detector. We do not need to pass through these detectors or follow the instructions. They are for the jump-suited inmates, to be found singly every few steps, mopping the floor. The men are instructed to stand still until we, the visitors, have safely passed them by.
We conduct interviews every week in one corner of the gym, a vast space with windows set far up, close to the 20-feet-high ceilings. The weak light picks up the grime of the gym, the outline of the doorless toilet, the scratched and bitten primary colors of plastic chairs and tables scattered about.
On most days, twenty or so green-suited, mostly brown-skinned inmates are gathered already, slouching in classroom-style rows of plastic chairs in the middle of the gym. They are silent as we shuffle our papers, our pens, water bottles. I walk up and say good morning, tell them why we’re here, the questions we will ask when we call them individually to our tables. Their voices are important, I say. Only they can help us make the jail better, by sharing their stories with us.
* * *
We’re standing in the shadow of Robben Island prison. The Capetonian says his goodbyes as he hands us over to our next guide, who will take us through the prison buildings. The new man is middle-aged, a blue button-down shirt stretches over his ample belly. A baseball cap, embroidered with a rendering of the Table Mountain cable car, is pulled over his sweaty forehead. His eyes are very small, set back into the folds of his face. He was a political prisoner here, for more than ten years, part of that time spent with Mandela. Now he leads these tours of the prison and lives in the wardens’ compound nearby that still houses some of the guards from that time.
As we follow him into the prison, I try to imagine coming to live alongside the men who enforced his captivity, the notoriously cruel Robben Island guards. But then, those guards were another unwanted group, too, cast on the island by the mainland. They took the jobs voluntarily, but how many working class jobs are truly voluntary? My heart opens a crack but I slam the opening shut. I have not endured the suffering required to forgive those men.
The prison is a set of non-descript buildings topped with corrugated metal roofing. The grey brick, dull barbed-wire fencing, are a counterpoint to the brilliant blue day. We enter through double doors, left open. The cool emptiness echoes with our footsteps and coughs as we gather around the guide. Weak light falls in from a stairwell to one side. The guide begins a rehearsed speech about the censor’s office outside which we now stand. All correspondence was opened here and read. The letters the prisoners received from family arrived with passages–sometimes political, sometimes just words of comfort–cut out by the censors. I imagine prisoners carefully smoothing out scraps of paper, diaphanous as lace, eager for any news they could piece together.
He leads us upstairs, downstairs, through corridors lined with offices, through passages lined with cells and iron bars, outside one building in the complex, through a blinding courtyard into another dark building. The blue-and-whitewashed walls begin to blur, each corner a clone of the one that came before. Finally, we reach the cell that was Mandela’s, “Cell number 5,” where he spent most of his 19 years at Robben Island; 19 of the 27 years that he was imprisoned. The gate to his cell is locked, but we can peer through the bars as we crowd around the narrow corridor. The cell is six by ten feet, a barred window set in one wall. Folded bedding sits on a rolled coir sleeping mat in a corner, a tin plate and mug rest on the blanket, an aluminum toilet-bucket next to the bundle. The floor is cold cement.
Until recently, the cell was open to visitors. You could stand in the precise corner where he must have crouched and watched the back of his hand furrow with wrinkles over the years. The place where his head of black then grey then white hair must have rested on his thin mat. You could press a palm against the wall where he must have edged and steadied his shaking body when the guard came to tell him his teenage son was dead. You could linger by his window, watch the dust gather and billow around the courtyard, day disappear into evening.
Perhaps because the cell is now kept locked, and I cannot touch the corners and crevices, Mandela’s cell, which one might expect to prove the most profound moment of this tour, fails to make an impression on me.
It’s only when we gather in what used to be a dormitory–some bunk beds still stacked against a wall–that I am struck by the true ugliness of this building. The guide tells us about life at Robben Island: everyday indignities that carve a deeper horror than the abstract shell of a barred space could.
He points to two cardstock signs, magnified for this lesson. The first sign is titled: “Differences Between B and C Diets.” B, the sign tells us, are “Coloured/Asiatics.” C are “Bantus.” One can only guess that A must stand for white, but there are no instructions for white diets because there were no white prisoners at Robben Island.
Differences Between B and C Diets:
B – Coloureds/Asiatics– Bantus
Mealie meal – 6oz – BreakfastMealie meal 12oz:
Breakfast – 6oz
Supper 6oz
Bread:   4oz lunch & 4oz supperPuzamandla – lunch
Fat: 1oz daily per personFat ½ oz per person daily
Mealie rice or saapMealies
Meat:   6oz per personMeat 5 oz per person
Jam/syrup:   1oz per person dailyNo jam/syrup
Sugar:   2ozSugar 1 ½ oz
Coffee:
Breakfast – 1/8 oz
Supper 1/8 oz
Coffee:   breakfast ½ oz 1/8 oz
This sign is well-known, and I have seen its image before in books and magazines. But today, the petty divisions and measurements quicken my blood as if for the first time; the faint emphases, the deliberation of type are a new outrage. The “no jam/syrup” in particular strikes at my heart; the knowledge that, as an “Asiatic,” I could have enjoyed an ounce of jam here.
Especially after the birds and breakers of the island, I am sickened by this building. Sickened that men could ferry other men over water, cast them for decades in this concrete hole. But that, too, was not enough. Even here on this island, so full of green and blue life, men enforced unnatural divisions. I did not deserve that jam more than this man, our guide.
The second sign is a magnified identification card, this one belonging to Billy Nair, one of the Rivonia trialists; he would later become a member of parliament. At Robben Island, he was: Sentenced Prisoner No. 69/64. Religion: Hindu. Crime: Sabotasie [sabotage]. Date of sentence: 28/2/64. Date of release: 27/2/84. And two smudged thumb impressions, concentric lines in relief against black ink.
* * *
At Rikers Island, a man stares at the stapled papers between us. He has just completed the mental health inventory section of his interview, answering “yes” to each of the twelve questions (Have you felt depressed for at least two weeks? Do you avoid reminders of something terrible you witnessed?). Now he contemplates this new black-and-white indictment of him by a stranger. I shuffle my papers, but say nothing. I’m only a researcher, I can’t help. I move on to the next interview.
The young ones smirk, joke around, sit back with an eyebrow raised or an elbow against the back of their chair. Some are more earnest; they want very badly for me to know they don’t belong here. They frown as they answer questions, recalling precise details. I don’t drink often, maybe on weekends. Crack? No, nothing like that. Almost all of them snicker at the drugs inventory.
But one man has a hunted expression, his eyes dart into the corners of the gym as he answers “yes” to almost each drug category, yes, every day. He tells me the story of how he came to be here, though I have not asked. A mistake, it was all a mistake. But now he’s leaving, tomorrow, can I offer him something? A referral for services? This is a research interview, I’m sorry. I’m not a social worker. But ask your Corrections Officer, the jail can help you. He gives me a look approaching disgust.
When I began conducting interviews at Rikers, I thought I would remember the face of each man, each circumstance. The shifting eyes, the downcast eyes, the unnerving-direct eyes; the listless, the shut off, the shut down. Even though I’d already conducted research interviews for the better part of eight years, I’d never worked at a jail before. Surely, this made each man at Rikers memorable, each story was fraught with urgency, and surely each one would stay with me always. But after ten interviews, perhaps fifteen, the inmates begin to blend into a singular green jumpsuit, something to be classified and filed away in a sliding steel drawer. At first, I am distressed when I cannot recall faces, particulars, and then, I am just tired.
We conclude each interview with thanks and a handshake. The men disappear back into the innards of the jail from whence they came, where we do not go. From different trips to Rikers, I know the briefest outlines of that place. Concrete floors and televisions high up in a corner, blasting daytime talk. Rows of doors in one of the mental health units, a tiny window set in each one to observe the suicide-proofed cell. A line of dazed women with cough-syrup-size cups in their hands, waiting for medication. A room of men, a support group, and at the front, a green jumpsuit from my composite memory, this is the last time he’ll be here, he says, this is the last time. A different jail, a different city, another mental health unit, a woman thrusts her arm under my face, look, she says, look. The coffee skin of her forearm is rippled up and down with a mosaic of raised mauve scars. Look what I did, she says, I shouldn’t be here.
But they’re here at Rikers, the great unwashed unwanted, pushed as far away from our bustling mainland as we could cast them, across water so thick with our sewage that nothing could wade through. No one could escape the stink and fear between us and them.
At the end of the morning, my co-worker and I gather up our stack of forms, hearts light with our departure. Just like that, we leave Rikers, collecting our belongings from the lockers, pushing through the reluctant revolving gate out of the facility, watching the jail disappear behind us as we are driven back over the bridge. Waiting in the parking lot for our taxi, I am both groggy and giddy with relief, as if I have narrowly escaped capture. Each time I leave Rikers, it’s as though I have cheated fate, free to plunge into the city one more day.
On Rikers Island, I am an unthreatening shade of brown. I speak the right kind of English. I know all the right people. Across the water, I’m wanted, the right kind of wanted, so I do not have to fear this island. And yet, my journey to that other island so far away, the old unwantedness that journey summoned in me, lurks in a small thudding place in my chest. This thudding makes me look over my shoulder each time I leave Rikers Island.
* * *
Photo by Roohi Choudhry
We are directed to take the very dirt path out that the last Robben Island prisoners walked, perhaps ran, as they left. Just before the glittering barbed wire fence, a billboard, about six feet tall, is planted in the soil. The board is a blown-up photograph of those last prisoners on a steamer boat called the Blouberg pulling away from the island. Most of them have their arms raised in jubilation; they are yelling, leaping, almost moving within the confines of this picture. Just one man is still, his face blank, arm hanging over the side of the boat, and a hat pulled low over his forehead. Then I realize he is wearing the uniform of a guard. He was operating the boat taking free men to the mainland.
“Freedom,” proclaims the billboard. And in smaller print: “’We want Robben Island to reflect the triumph of freedom and human dignity over oppression and humiliation.’ Ahmed Kathrada, Prisoner 468/64, Robben Island 1964-1982.” I snap a photo of the board against the dust and the blue sky, against the bermuda shorts and sun hats of the next group of tourists disembarking a few feet away.
At our waiting ferry, I decide to sit below deck in the first floor cabin, shielded from the bitter winds of the journey. As the boat begins a grinding retreat from the harbor, a flock of oystercatchers caw across the jetty, as we leave them to their home. All they have seen of us is our abhorrence on this island. The only people they have known are the unwanted who were cast away and those who banished them.
So much has changed now that I can cross the ocean and visit the birds at my will. Now, I am the right kind of wanted on this island, too. But I do not think I will return.
* * *
I huddle again at the Queens trailer-hut early on a Rikers interview morning, waiting with my co-worker. A flicker of movement, and we turn to see a small cat creeping up from under the trailer onto the shaded deck. Pausing, paw in air, she contemplates us. She is small but not a kitten, a petite mutt of a tabby. Evidently, she decides we are not a threat, proceeds calmly to a dish in a corner and laps up the milk that was clearly left for her. Satisfied, she curls up after she is done and licks her paws, washes her face. We laugh at the incongruence of this little animal so close to Rikers. We wonder who feeds her.
From the van, headed over the bridge, I gaze out at the wide expanse of sludge that separates us from the island and yet, this is only a tiny gash in land mass that the sea has rushed in to fill. This journey would be nothing by boat, a fraction of the distance between Cape Town and Robben Island. And I have read that, before this bridge was built in the sixties, you could only get to Rikers by ferry.
A small boat could one day dock at Queens-side. I could board the ferry clutching my ticket on a warm afternoon. The wind would rush me on the top deck, air clean of stench, jail complex looming ahead. The ferry would pull into Rikers Island, and a tour guide would welcome us as we disembarked.
At the Brooklyn Botanic Gardens not far away, a small piece of land is preserved with the plant cover that was natural to New York hundreds of years ago. I imagine this same native vegetation allowed to twist and sprout at will across Rikers island. Willows shading the rocks near a sloped sandbank. The loam of tree roots and mushrooms in the damp of the woods. Just as they were, before we came here. The gates at Rikers open, cells empty but for lived echoes. Tourists peering through the bars, breathing in the ghosts. Nature spilling through cracks in the concrete.
Read More

venerdì 10 marzo 2017

Robert Mercer: the big data billionaire waging war on mainstream media

13:51 2

Robert Mercer: the big data billionaire waging war on mainstream media

With links to Donald Trump, Steve Bannon and Nigel Farage, the rightwing US computer scientist is at the heart of a multimillion-dollar propaganda network


Robert Mercer: the big data billionaire waging war on mainstream media

Just over a week ago, Donald Trump gathered members of the world’s press before him and told them they were liars. “The press, honestly, is out of control,” he said. “The public doesn’t believe you any more.” CNN was described as “very fake news… story after story is bad”. The BBC was “another beauty”.

That night I did two things. First, I typed “Trump” in the search box of Twitter. My feed was reporting that he was crazy, a lunatic, a raving madman. But that wasn’t how it was playing out elsewhere. The results produced a stream of “Go Donald!!!!”, and “You show ’em!!!” There were star-spangled banner emojis and thumbs-up emojis and clips of Trump laying into the “FAKE news MSM liars!”

Trump had spoken, and his audience had heard him. Then I did what I’ve been doing for two and a half months now. I Googled “mainstream media is…” And there it was. Google’s autocomplete suggestions: “mainstream media is… dead, dying, fake news, fake, finished”. Is it dead, I wonder? Has FAKE news won? Are we now the FAKE news? Is the mainstream media – we, us, I – dying?

I click Google’s first suggested link. It leads to a website called CNSnews.com and an article: “The Mainstream media are dead.” They’re dead, I learn, because they – we, I – “cannot be trusted”. How had it, an obscure site I’d never heard of, dominated Google’s search algorithm on the topic? In the “About us” tab, I learn CNSnews is owned by the Media Research Center, which a click later I learn is “America’s media watchdog”, an organisation that claims an “unwavering commitment to neutralising leftwing bias in the news, media and popular culture”.


The stories you need to read, in one handy email
 Read more
Another couple of clicks and I discover that it receives a large bulk of its funding – more than $10m in the past decade – from a single source, the hedge fund billionaire Robert Mercer. If you follow US politics you may recognise the name. Robert Mercer is the money behind Donald Trump. But then, I will come to learn, Robert Mercer is the money behind an awful lot of things. He was Trump’s single biggest donor. Mercer started backing Ted Cruz, but when he fell out of the presidential race he threw his money – $13.5m of it – behind the Trump campaign.

Robert Mercer: the big data billionaire waging war on mainstream media
It’s money he’s made as a result of his career as a brilliant but reclusive computer scientist. He started his career at IBM, where he made what the Association for Computational Linguistics called “revolutionary” breakthroughs in language processing – a science that went on to be key in developing today’s AI – and later became joint CEO of Renaissance Technologies, a hedge fund that makes its money by using algorithms to model and trade on the financial markets.

One of its funds, Medallion, which manages only its employees’ money, is the most successful in the world – generating $55bn so far. And since 2010, Mercer has donated $45m to different political campaigns – all Republican – and another $50m to non-profits – all rightwing, ultra-conservative. This is a billionaire who is, as billionaires are wont, trying to reshape the world according to his personal beliefs.

 Donald Trump
Facebook Twitter Pinterest
 Donald Trump’s presidential campaigned received $13.5m from Robert Mercer. Photograph: Timothy A Clary/AFP/Getty Images
Robert Mercer very rarely speaks in public and never to journalists, so to gauge his beliefs you have to look at where he channels his money: a series of yachts, all called Sea Owl; a $2.9m model train set; climate change denial (he funds a climate change denial thinktank, the Heartland Institute); and what is maybe the ultimate rich man’s plaything – the disruption of the mainstream media. In this he is helped by his close associate Steve Bannon, Trump’s campaign manager and now chief strategist. The money he gives to the Media Research Center, with its mission of correcting “liberal bias” is just one of his media plays. There are other bigger, and even more deliberate strategies, and shining brightly, the star at the centre of the Mercer media galaxy, is Breitbart.

It was $10m of Mercer’s money that enabled Bannon to fund Breitbart – a rightwing news site, set up with the express intention of being a Huffington Post for the right. It has launched the careers of Milo Yiannopoulos and his like, regularly hosts antisemitic and Islamophobic views, and is currently being boycotted by more than 1,000 brands after an activist campaign. It has been phenomenally successful: the 29th most popular site in America with 2bn page views a year. It’s bigger than its inspiration, the Huffington Post, bigger, even, than PornHub. It’s the biggest political site on Facebook. The biggest on Twitter.

Prominent rightwing journalist Andrew Breitbart, who founded the site but died in 2012, told Bannon that they had “to take back the culture”. And, arguably, they have, though American culture is only the start of it. In 2014, Bannon launched Breitbart London, telling the New York Times it was specifically timed ahead of the UK’s forthcoming election. It was, he said, the latest front “in our current cultural and political war”. France and Germany are next.

A determined plutocrat and a brilliant media strategist can, and have, found a way to mould journalism to their own ends
But there was another reason why I recognised Robert Mercer’s name: because of his connection to Cambridge Analytica, a small data analytics company. He is reported to have a $10m stake in the company, which was spun out of a bigger British company called SCL Group. It specialises in “election management strategies” and “messaging and information operations”, refined over 25 years in places like Afghanistan and Pakistan. In military circles this is known as “psyops” – psychological operations. (Mass propaganda that works by acting on people’s emotions.)

Cambridge Analytica worked for the Trump campaign and, so I’d read, the Leave campaign. When Mercer supported Cruz, Cambridge Analytica worked with Cruz. When Robert Mercer started supporting Trump, Cambridge Analytica came too. And where Mercer’s money is, Steve Bannon is usually close by: it was reported that until recently he had a seat on the board.

Advertisement

Last December, I wrote about Cambridge Analytica in a piece about how Google’s search results on certain subjects were being dominated by rightwing and extremist sites. Jonathan Albright, a professor of communications at Elon University, North Carolina, who had mapped the news ecosystem and found millions of links between rightwing sites “strangling” the mainstream media, told me that trackers from sites like Breitbart could also be used by companies like Cambridge Analytica to follow people around the web and then, via Facebook, target them with ads.

On its website, Cambridge Analytica makes the astonishing boast that it has psychological profiles based on 5,000 separate pieces of data on 220 million American voters – its USP is to use this data to understand people’s deepest emotions and then target them accordingly. The system, according to Albright, amounted to a “propaganda machine”.

A few weeks later, the Observer received a letter. Cambridge Analytica was not employed by the Leave campaign, it said. Cambridge Analytica “is a US company based in the US. It hasn’t worked in British politics.”

Which is how, earlier this week, I ended up in a Pret a Manger near Westminster with Andy Wigmore, Leave.EU’s affable communications director, looking at snapshots of Donald Trump on his phone. It was Wigmore who orchestrated Nigel Farage’s trip to Trump Tower – the PR coup that saw him become the first foreign politician to meet the president elect.

Wigmore scrolls through the snaps on his phone. “That’s the one I took,” he says pointing at the now globally famous photo of Farage and Trump in front of his golden elevator door giving the thumbs-up sign. Wigmore was one of the “bad boys of Brexit” – a term coined by Arron Banks, the Bristol-based businessman who was Leave.EU’s co-founder.

Cambridge Analytica had worked for them, he said. It had taught them how to build profiles, how to target people and how to scoop up masses of data from people’s Facebook profiles. A video on YouTube shows one of Cambridge Analytica’s and SCL’s employees, Brittany Kaiser, sitting on the panel at Leave.EU’s launch event.

Facebook was the key to the entire campaign, Wigmore explained. A Facebook ‘like’, he said, was their most “potent weapon”. “Because using artificial intelligence, as we did, tells you all sorts of things about that individual and how to convince them with what sort of advert. And you knew there would also be other people in their network who liked what they liked, so you could spread. And then you follow them. The computer never stops learning and it never stops monitoring.”

 Steve Bannon
Facebook Twitter Pinterest
 Steve Bannon, Donald Trump’s chief strategist, is an associate of Robert Mercer. Photograph: Evan Vucci/AP
It sounds creepy, I say.



“It is creepy! It’s really creepy! It’s why I’m not on Facebook! I tried it on myself to see what information it had on me and I was like, ‘Oh my God!’ What’s scary is that my kids had put things on Instagram and it picked that up. It knew where my kids went to school.”

They hadn’t “employed” Cambridge Analytica, he said. No money changed hands. “They were happy to help.”

Why?

“Because Nigel is a good friend of the Mercers. And Robert Mercer introduced them to us. He said, ‘Here’s this company we think may be useful to you.’ What they were trying to do in the US and what we were trying to do had massive parallels. We shared a lot of information. Why wouldn’t you?” Behind Trump’s campaign and Cambridge Analytica, he said, were “the same people. It’s the same family.”

There were already a lot of questions swirling around Cambridge Analytica, and Andy Wigmore has opened up a whole lot more. Such as: are you supposed to declare services-in-kind as some sort of donation? The Electoral Commission says yes, if it was more than £7,500. And was it declared? The Electoral Commission says no. Does that mean a foreign billionaire had possibly influenced the referendum without that influence being apparent? It’s certainly a question worth asking.

In the last month or so, articles in first the Swiss and the US press have asked exactly what Cambridge Analytica is doing with US voters’ data. In a statement to the Observer, the Information Commissioner’s Office said: “Any business collecting and using personal data in the UK must do so fairly and lawfully. We will be contacting Cambridge Analytica and asking questions to find out how the company is operating in the UK and whether the law is being followed.”

Cambridge Analytica said last Friday they are in touch with the ICO and are completely compliant with UK and EU data laws. It did not answer other questions the Observer put to it this week about how it built its psychometric model, which owes its origins to original research carried out by scientists at Cambridge University’s Psychometric Centre, research based on a personality quiz on Facebook that went viral. More than 6 million people ended up doing it, producing an astonishing treasure trove of data.


Robert Mercer: the big data billionaire waging war on mainstream media

These Facebook profiles – especially people’s “likes” – could be correlated across millions of others to produce uncannily accurate results. Michal Kosinski, the centre’s lead scientist, found that with knowledge of 150 likes, their model could predict someone’s personality better than their spouse. With 300, it understood you better than yourself. “Computers see us in a more robust way than we see ourselves,” says Kosinski.

But there are strict ethical regulations regarding what you can do with this data. Did SCL Group have access to the university’s model or data, I ask Professor Jonathan Rust, the centre’s director? “Certainly not from us,” he says. “We have very strict rules around this.”

A scientist, Aleksandr Kogan, from the centre was contracted to build a model for SCL, and says he collected his own data. Professor Rust says he doesn’t know where Kogan’s data came from. “The evidence was contrary. I reported it.” An independent adjudicator was appointed by the university. “But then Kogan said he’d signed a non-disclosure agreement with SCL and he couldn’t continue [answering questions].”

Kogan disputes this and says SCL satisfied the university’s inquiries. But perhaps more than anyone, Professor Rust understands how the kind of information people freely give up to social media sites could be used.

 Nigel Farage
Facebook Twitter Pinterest
 Former Ukip leader Nigel Farage is a friend of the Mercers. Photograph: Oli Scarff/AFP/Getty Images
“The danger of not having regulation around the sort of data you can get from Facebook and elsewhere is clear. With this, a computer can actually do psychology, it can predict and potentially control human behaviour. It’s what the scientologists try to do but much more powerful. It’s how you brainwash someone. It’s incredibly dangerous.



“It’s no exaggeration to say that minds can be changed. Behaviour can be predicted and controlled. I find it incredibly scary. I really do. Because nobody has really followed through on the possible consequences of all this. People don’t know it’s happening to them. Their attitudes are being changed behind their backs.”

Mercer invested in Cambridge Analytica, the Washington Post reported, “driven in part by an assessment that the right was lacking sophisticated technology capabilities”. But in many ways, it’s what Cambridge Analytica’s parent company does that raises even more questions.

Emma Briant, a propaganda specialist at the University of Sheffield, wrote about SCL Group in her 2015 book, Propaganda and Counter-Terrorism: Strategies for Global Change. Cambridge Analytica has the technological tools to effect behavioural and psychological change, she said, but it’s SCL that strategises it. It has specialised, at the highest level – for Nato, the MoD, the US state department and others – in changing the behaviour of large groups. It models mass populations and then it changes their beliefs.

SCL was founded by someone called Nigel Oakes, who worked for Saatchi & Saatchi on Margaret Thatcher’s image, says Briant, and the company had been “making money out of the propaganda side of the war on terrorism over a long period of time. There are different arms of SCL but it’s all about reach and the ability to shape the discourse. They are trying to amplify particular political narratives. And they are selective in who they go for: they are not doing this for the left.”

In the course of the US election, Cambridge Analytica amassed a database, as it claims on its website, of almost the entire US voting population – 220 million people – and the Washington Post reported last week that SCL was increasing staffing at its Washington office and competing for lucrative new contracts with Trump’s administration. “It seems significant that a company involved in engineering a political outcome profits from what follows. Particularly if it’s the manipulation, and then resolution, of fear,” says Briant.

It’s the database, and what may happen to it, that particularly exercises Paul-Olivier Dehaye, a Swiss mathematician and data activist who has been investigating Cambridge Analytica and SCL for more than a year. “How is it going to be used?” he says. “Is it going to be used to try and manipulate people around domestic policies? Or to ferment conflict between different communities? It is potentially very scary. People just don’t understand the power of this data and how it can be used against them.”


There are two things, potentially, going on simultaneously: the manipulation of information on a mass level, and the manipulation of information at a very individual level. Both based on the latest understandings in science about how people work, and enabled by technological platforms built to bring us together.

Are we living in a new era of propaganda, I ask Emma Briant? One we can’t see, and that is working on us in ways we can’t understand? Where we can only react, emotionally, to its messages? “Definitely. The way that surveillance through technology is so pervasive, the collection and use of our data is so much more sophisticated. It’s totally covert. And people don’t realise what is going on.”

Public mood and politics goes through cycles. You don’t have to subscribe to any conspiracy theory, Briant says, to see that a mass change in public sentiment is happening. Or that some of the tools in action are straight out of the military’s or SCL’s playbook.

But then there’s increasing evidence that our public arenas – the social media sites where we post our holiday snaps or make comments about the news – are a new battlefield where international geopolitics is playing out in real time. It’s a new age of propaganda. But whose? This week, Russia announced the formation of a new branch of the military: “information warfare troops”.

Sam Woolley of the Oxford Internet Institute’s computational propaganda institute tells me that one third of all traffic on Twitter before the EU referendum was automated “bots” – accounts that are programmed to look like people, to act like people, and to change the conversation, to make topics trend. And they were all for Leave. Before the US election, they were five-to-one in favour of Trump – many of them Russian. Last week they have been in action in the Stoke byelection – Russian bots, organised by who? – attacking Paul Nuttall.

You can take a trending topic, such as fake news, and then weaponise it, turn it against the media that uncovered it
“Politics is war,” said Steve Bannon last year in the Wall Street Journal. And increasingly this looks to be true.

There’s nothing accidental about Trump’s behaviour, Andy Wigmore tells me. “That press conference. It was absolutely brilliant. I could see exactly what he was doing. There’s feedback going on constantly. That’s what you can do with artificial intelligence. You can measure ever reaction to every word. He has a word room, where you fix key words. We did it. So with immigration, there are actually key words within that subject matter which people are concerned about. So when you are going to make a speech, it’s all about how can you use these trending words.”



Wigmore met with Trump’s team right at the start of the Leave campaign. “And they said the holy grail was artificial intelligence.”

Who did?

“Jared Kushner and Jason Miller.”

Later, when Trump picked up Mercer and Cambridge Analytica, the game changed again. “It’s all about the emotions. This is the big difference with what we did. They call it bio-psycho-social profiling. It takes your physical, mental and lifestyle attributes and works out how people work, how they react emotionally.”

Bio-psycho-social profiling, I read later, is one offensive in what is called “cognitive warfare”. Though there are many others: “recoding the mass consciousness to turn patriotism into collaborationism,” explains a Nato briefing document on countering Russian disinformation written by an SCL employee. “Time-sensitive professional use of media to propagate narratives,” says one US state department white paper. “Of particular importance to psyop personnel may be publicly and commercially available data from social media platforms.”

Yet another details the power of a “cognitive casualty” – a “moral shock” that “has a disabling effect on empathy and higher processes such as moral reasoning and critical thinking”. Something like immigration, perhaps. Or “fake news”. Or as it has now become: “FAKE news!!!!”

How do you change the way a nation thinks? You could start by creating a mainstream media to replace the existing one with a site such as Breitbart. You could set up other websites that displace mainstream sources of news and information with your own definitions of concepts like “liberal media bias”, like CNSnews.com. And you could give the rump mainstream media, papers like the “failing New York Times!” what it wants: stories. Because the third prong of Mercer and Bannon’s media empire is the Government Accountability Institute.

Bannon co-founded it with $2m of Mercer’s money. Mercer’s daughter, Rebekah, was appointed to the board. Then they invested in expensive, long-term investigative journalism. “The modern economics of the newsroom don’t support big investigative reporting staffs,” Bannon told Forbes magazine. “You wouldn’t get a Watergate, a Pentagon Papers today, because nobody can afford to let a reporter spend seven months on a story. We can. We’re working as a support function.”



Welcome to the future of journalism in the age of platform capitalism. News organisations have to do a better job of creating new financial models. But in the gaps in between, a determined plutocrat and a brilliant media strategist can, and have, found a way to mould journalism to their own ends.

In 2015, Steve Bannon described to Forbes how the GAI operated, employing a data scientist to trawl the dark web (in the article he boasts of having access to $1.3bn worth of supercomputers) to dig up the kind of source material Google can’t find. One result has been a New York Times bestseller, Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich, written by GAI’s president, Peter Schweizer and later turned into a film produced by Rebekah Mercer and Steve Bannon.

This, Bannon explained, is how you “weaponise” the narrative you want. With hard researched facts. With those, you can launch it straight on to the front page of the New York Times, as the story of Hillary Clinton’s cash did. Like Hillary’s emails it turned the news agenda, and, most crucially, it diverted the attention of the news cycle. Another classic psyops approach. “Strategic drowning” of other messages.

Robert Mercer: the big data billionaire waging war on mainstream media
This is a strategic, long-term and really quite brilliant play. In the 1990s, Bannon explained, conservative media couldn’t take Bill Clinton down because “they wound up talking to themselves in an echo chamber”.

As, it turns out, the liberal media is now. We are scattered, separate, squabbling among ourselves and being picked off like targets in a shooting gallery. Increasingly, there’s a sense that we are talking to ourselves. And whether it’s Mercer’s millions or other factors, Jonathan Albright’s map of the news and information ecosystem shows how rightwing sites are dominating sites like YouTube and Google, bound tightly together by millions of links.

Is there a central intelligence to that, I ask Albright? “There has to be. There has to be some type of coordination. You can see from looking at the map, from the architecture of the system, that this is not accidental. It’s clearly being led by money and politics.”

There’s been a lot of talk in the echo chamber about Bannon in the last few months, but it’s Mercer who provided the money to remake parts of the media landscape. And while Bannon understands the media, Mercer understands big data. He understands the structure of the internet. He knows how algorithms work.

Robert Mercer did not respond to a request for comment for this piece. Nick Patterson, a British cryptographer, who worked at Renaissance Technologies in the 80s and is now a computational geneticist at MIT, described to me how he was the one who talent-spotted Mercer. “There was an elite group working at IBM in the 1980s doing speech research, speech recognition, and when I joined Renaissance I judged that the mathematics we were trying to apply to financial markets were very similar.”

He describes Mercer as “very, very conservative. He truly did not like the Clintons. He thought Bill Clinton was a criminal. And his basic politics, I think, was that he’s a rightwing libertarian, he wants the government out of things.”



He suspects that Mercer is bringing the brilliant computational skills he brought to finance to bear on another very different sphere. “We make mathematical models of the financial markets which are probability models, and from those we try and make predictions. What I suspect Cambridge Analytica do is that they build probability models of how people vote. And then they look at what they can do to influence that.”

Finding the edge is what quants do. They build quantitative models that automate the process of buying and selling shares and then they chase tiny gaps in knowledge to create huge wins. Renaissance Technologies was one of the first hedge funds to invest in AI. But what it does with it, how it’s been programmed to do it, is completely unknown. It is, Bloomberg reports, the “blackest box in finance”.

Johan Bollen, associate professor at Indiana University School of Informatics and Computing, tells me how he discovered one possible edge: he’s done research that shows you can predict stock market moves from Twitter. You can measure public sentiment and then model it. “Society is driven by emotions, which it’s always been difficult to measure, collectively. But there are now programmes that can read text and measure it and give us a window into those collective emotions.”

The research caused a huge ripple among two different constituencies. “We had a lot attention from hedge funds. They are looking for signals everywhere and this is a hugely interesting signal. My impression is hedge funds do have these algorithms that are scanning social feeds. The flash crashes we’ve had – sudden huge drops in stock prices – indicates these algorithms are being used at large scale. And they are engaged in something of an arms race.”

The other people interested in Bollen’s work are those who want not only to measure public sentiment, but to change it. Bollen’s research shows how it’s possible. Could you reverse engineer the national, or even the global, mood? Model it, and then change it?


Google, democracy and the truth about internet search
 Read more
“It does seem possible. And it does worry me. There are quite a few pieces of research that show if you repeat something often enough, people start involuntarily to believe it. And that could be leveraged, or weaponised for propaganda. We know there are thousands of automated bots out there that are trying to do just that.”

THE war of the bots is one of the wilder and weirder aspects of the elections of 2016. At the Oxford Internet Institute’s Unit for Computational Propaganda, its director, Phil Howard, and director of research, Sam Woolley, show me all the ways public opinion can be massaged and manipulated. But is there a smoking gun, I ask them, evidence of who is doing this? “There’s not a smoking gun,” says Howard. “There are smoking machine guns. There are multiple pieces of evidence.”

“Look at this,” he says and shows me how, before the US election, hundreds upon hundreds of websites were set up to blast out just a few links, articles that were all pro-Trump. “This is being done by people who understand information structure, who are bulk buying domain names and then using automation to blast out a certain message. To make Trump look like he’s a consensus.”

And that requires money?

“That requires organisation and money. And if you use enough of them, of bots and people, and cleverly link them together, you are what’s legitimate. You are creating truth.”

You can take an existing trending topic, such as fake news, and then weaponise it. You can turn it against the very media that uncovered it. Viewed in a certain light, fake news is a suicide bomb at the heart of our information system. Strapped to the live body of us – the mainstream media.

One of the things that concerns Howard most is the hundreds of thousands of “sleeper” bots they’ve found. Twitter accounts that have tweeted only once or twice and are now sitting quietly waiting for a trigger: some sort of crisis where they will rise up and come together to drown out all other sources of information.

Like zombies?

“Like zombies.”

Many of the techniques were refined in Russia, he says, and then exported everywhere else. “You have these incredible propaganda tools developed in an authoritarian regime moving into a free market economy with a complete regulatory vacuum. What you get is a firestorm.”

This is the world we enter every day, on our laptops and our smartphones. It has become a battleground where the ambitions of nation states and ideologues are being fought – using us. We are the bounty: our social media feeds; our conversations; our hearts and minds. Our votes. Bots influence trending topics and trending topics have a powerful effect on algorithms, Woolley, explains, on Twitter, on Google, on Facebook. Know how to manipulate information structure and you can manipulate reality.

We’re not quite in the alternative reality where the actual news has become “FAKE news!!!” But we’re almost there. Out on Twitter, the new transnational battleground for the future, someone I follow tweets a quote by Marshall McLuhan, the great information theorist of the 60s. “World War III will be a guerrilla information war,” it says. “With no divisions between military and civilian participation.”

By that definition we’re already there.
Read More

Post Top Ad