Astroturfing the airwaves

If you listen to the radio, you should know by now that most radio stations are computer-controlled jukeboxes stuffed with demographically determined collections of popular songs — and often not even that. Wealthy people buy them up and then program them to play the music they think you ought to hear, whether you want to or not, one of their worst angles is deciding that you, yes you, need to listen to more Christian Rock. No, no, not me, I turn that stuff off the instant I hear it, usually with a sulfurous curse.

There’s a company called the Educational Media Foundation (EMF). They’ve been buying up radio stations and converting them to the same boring format everywhere.

On the surface, EMF’s broadcasts are glaringly apolitical. They opt instead for their trite brand of Christian rock, all teed off by the same, small cast of nationally syndicated, Anywhere-USA DJs who smile through everything from squeaky-clean jokes about the drink sizes at Starbucks to prayers asking God to watch over those who have donated to the organization. But behind its politically neutral facade, the organization — and the CCM industry more broadly — appears to be an inherently conservative project. Many right-wing Christian culture bearers have long believed in the “Breitbart Doctrine” — the idea that, to change politics, you must first change culture — and have fought for decades to build a parallel popular culture free of sharp edges, hard questions, or representations of lives that veer from the straight and narrow. The world of CCM, in turn, “reflects the values of the religious right,” says religious-studies historian and author of God Gave Rock and Roll to You: A History of Contemporary Christian Music Leah Payne, by providing “suburban families with safe Christian listening experiences in the car.” And while EMF stations may not have the “attention-getting, rage-inducing content” of an explicitly political outlet like Fox News, she says, “K-LOVE is the softer side of that conservatism.”

Today, the organization’s nationwide network of radio stations plays mostly white, male artists. Though it professes to broadcast “Christian music,” it largely steers clear of genres like religious rap or gospel, as well as any Christian rock that grapples too heavily with doubt or hardship. Christian artists who have wavered in their faith have quietly been dropped from EMF’s playlists; several queer Christian artists have lost work and airtime on CCM radio after coming out.

As a Christian radio station, you know they also have all the profit-making tricks down pat. Like churches, they’ve scammed the government into thinking they’re non-profit.

As the company built its broadcast network, one business decision proved to be peculiarly prescient: the choice to incorporate as a “not-for-profit” entity. Not only did that status let it avoid paying tax, it also gave EMF several legs up in the radio world. It allowed the organization to take advantage of long-held FCC policies intended to keep the radio dial from being sold to the highest bidder, such as waiving application costs and other fees for nonprofits due to their inherently “limited funding.” EMF also made use of a federal policy that let new nonprofit stations opt out of the requirement of having a local broadcast studio. Furthermore, EMF could legally get donations from listeners — a revenue stream commercial stations don’t have at their disposal. For EMF, “it was just a matter of expansion,” says Todd Urick, a radio engineer and community-radio advocate in Los Angeles County. By the early 2000s, the nonprofit had well over 50 radio stations and was bringing in around $25 million in donations annually.

You’ve probably all heard Contemporary Christian Music, but hopefully not much. It has a recognizable formula, fortunately, so it’s pretty easy to spot it as you’re flipping around the radio dial. When I hear a chorus with a long drawn-out “HIIIIIIM” I know it’s time to kill the channel, but there are other cues.

But in the CCM industry, getting that immediately recognizable sound — however derided — has been a science. “You just can’t be too heavy,” says Grace Semler Baldridge, an independent Christian artist who performs as Semler and who has topped both the iTunes Christian albums and song charts. In addition to her own crop of frankly honest songs about her faith, she’s done session work and built relationships with artists in the CCM industry. There, she immediately became aware of a few soft rules of the genre.

First, she says, there’s a just-right spot when it comes to beats per minute — not too fast, not too slow. After BPMs, there are “JPMs,” or “Jesuses per minute.” While there’s no hard-and-fast rule on the required number of JPMs, more tends to be better — and a reference to “Him,” “God,” “Father,” etc., counts, Semler says. Choruses should be rife with repetition so that listeners can sing along by the second round. The guitar must be warm but just a bit bright, with a touch of drive and a long-tail reverb that hangs in the air. Most important, there’s the delay, which nearly doubles the guitars’ slow strums and picked melodies — a technique that Reverb.com’s “The Gear, Tones, and Techniques of Modern Worship Guitar” guide says was pulled directly from U2’s the Edge.

Ick. There are a few radio stations in my area that fit that description.

Personally, I like KUMM, the student run college station here in town, but it has a very limited range, you can hear it in Morris and practically nowhere else. You go on a quick trip to any of the neighboring towns, and it’s going to drop out. It’s also quirky and weird, with all kinds of odd student conversations and unusual musical choices. It’s kind of the antithesis of EMF.

We also have a classic rock station, 97.3 The Kangaroo (it has an odd Australian theme, sort of, with promos read off by a woman with an Australian accent, and really really bad canned jokey commentary). They play music from the 70s-90s, and that’s the only appeal. It also has an automated playlist, no real DJs, no actual connection to the area, and forget about local news.

But that’s where radio has been going: getting bought up by millionaires who then feed the public flavorless noise without a speck of personality…unless you’re in a metropolitan area, where there is way too much obnoxious personality by way of the “Morning Zoo.” I turn that crap off too.

On long trips I play podcasts and my preferred music on my phone, over the car speakers. Radio is mostly dead.

Chemtrails? Seriously?

The Republican party is expanding their brief further and further into the looney demand. They’re legislating against a nonexistent phenomenon: chemtrails. They’re just condensing vapor from jet engine exhaust, people!

SB 2691, sponsored by Sen. Steve Southerland (R-Morristown), never specifically mentions the dubious claims made by conspiracy theorists about the dangers of so-called “chemtrails,” however, when speaking about the bill, Southerland directly mentioned “chemtrails.”

“If you look at a thousand planes, you won’t see one (chemtrail). But then all of a sudden you see one,” Southerland told the Tennessee Lookout. “So we’re just asking the question: Are they putting anything in the air that could be toxic?”

The “chemtrails” conspiracy theory is the belief that condensation trails or vapor trails left in the sky from aircraft flying at high altitudes are actually some form of chemical or biological agents, which are being purposely released into the atmosphere for nefarious purposes including weather modification, phycological operations, or even population control.

I’ve heard this chemtrail nonsense for as many years as I’ve been on the internet, but now 6 states are proposing legislation to stop the laws of physics which cause hot gases from cold air at low pressure. These are now entirely backed by Republican party apparatchiks, where once upon a time there were plenty of people on the looney left who would babble about chemtrails. Give ’em time, they’ll take on every science-based policy we’ve got.

The language in these bills appears to based on model legislation created and promoted by fringe conspiracy theorists, and connected to group which operates a website that claims to advocate for “shutting down pollution-generating atmospheric modification schemes”: Zero Geoengineering.

In addition to promoting conspiracy theories about “chemtrails,” the group operates a network of connected websites that promote conspiracy theories about 5G networks and WIFI, food and other products produced using genetically modified organisms (GMOs), and the safety and efficacy of vaccines.

You know, if you’re concerned about people injecting bizarre chemicals into the environment, you’d be better off tackling fracking. That’s a real witch’s brew of toxic nastiness being injected into our water table. But of course, fracking is backed by industrialists, there’s real money there.

Demographically Entitled Idiots

I’m at a university thoroughly steeped in the idea of diversity, equity, and inclusion, and I tell you — it doesn’t do the harm the opponents claim, and it helps our students who aren’t white men. It is truly a win:win. I am not hurt by efforts to even the playing field and appreciate that we can create an environment that benefits everyone. There are, of course, some loud assholes who play the victim card — like Chris Rufo, Jerry Coyne, Bret Weinstein, Heather Heying, Steven Pinker, Jonathan Haidt, etc., all the pretentious bigots of the intellectual dark web — but honestly? They can’t demonstrate harm. They whine. At heart, they’re just entitled twits and racists who want to roll back the clock to a day when they were able to belittle and discriminate.

So I welcome this new interpretation of the acronym “DEI”: Demographically Entitled Idiots. I too oppose Demographically Entitled Idiots, and wholeheartedly support the ideals of diversity, equity, and inclusion.

By the way, my university also embraces the indigenous culture that lived on this land before us. It doesn’t mean we abandon science, as some of the fear-mongers want to complain. It means we respect the people, their history, and their culture, and honor them in our ceremonies and our teaching. That is all and that is everything.

For all the debate bros

Here’s a hard-earned lesson from years of debating Christians and creationists, all summed up in one lovely cartoon.

“I’m not interested in proving you wrong. Just in shutting you up.”
Oglaf

The zealots don’t care about logic and reason, they just pretend to care, for the rubes. You’re not going to be able to logic your way past their arguments because they’re not founded on logic in the first place. Their goal is to put on a show for their fellow travelers, to distract you, and eventually, to acquire the power they need to silence you.

Don’t be like the heretic in the cartoon, only realizing their game when they’ve got you tied to the stake.

So that’s what AI is good for

There is this obsessed congresscreature from Missouri, Ann Wagner, who really really hates porn (she’s a Republican, as if you couldn’t guess.) She’s been crusading against sex workers for years, and her latest idea is that she wants to shut down OnlyFans, because, she claims, it enables sex trafficking. She’s full of it.

However, the one good thing she has done is that she motivated an OnlyFans performer, Cherie DeVille, to write a defense of OnlyFans’ techniques to prevent abuse of the site. You have to jump through a lot of hoops to get a site there, and they are extremely strict about preventing minors from getting access, and to prevent its use for prostitution. I was impressed at the level of scrutiny they apply to their performers to make sure there is no non-consensual imagery.

Anti-porn zealots act as if OnlyFans tries to post non-consensual sexual content. But sex workers’ experiences tell a different story. One of my friends had surgery on her labia, and when she returned from the doctor and resumed posting, OnlyFans flagged her content. OnlyFans uses AI to monitor people, and its AI identified her labia as a different woman’s vulva. The site prevented her from airing the content without uploading an ID for this supposed new individual. I struggle to imagine a non-consensual porn epidemic on OnlyFans when it’s this strict about identifying individual vulvas.

That seems redundant and excessive to me. You know they’ve got lots of human eyeballs staring at bits of human anatomy, wouldn’t having users flag surprises in their videos be sufficient, without using computers to stare, too? They’re burning bandwidth that someone has to pay for! Also, I worry about what we’re training AI to become.

Go away, Kooi Chong

We get email. We all get email. Since the dawn of time, a lot of us here at Freethoughtblogs (and also many other people) have been getting demanding messages from Kooi Chong. Here, he introduces himself.

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am Kooi Eng Chong, age 28 and I am from Malaysia. In the year 2020, I had finished my Master’s Degree in History at the National University of Malaysia (UKM). Currently, I am attempting to write a book about world history and a PhD proposal about the history of the Chinese Communist rule in Tibet. Thus, here is my draft PhD proposal about the Chinese Communist rule in Tibet as stated below. Also, I had put my University exam results and my CV below. Moreover, I would like to meet you via Zoom. However, as I am working from Mondays to Fridays, I only can have a meeting with you on Saturday (9:00pm) Malaysia time. Would that be alright for you?

Looking forward to hearing from you soon

Regards

Kooi Eng Chong

That’s nice, except he keeps threatening to enclose his PhD proposal, and never does. Even if he had, I’m not interested. I don’t know why he would think I would care, and I have no idea what he wants from me, but he keeps scheduling Zoom meetings. Every few weeks, he sends us a message asking why I didn’t show up or reply and asking to arrange a meeting again. Here’s a sampling of his tedious and frequent messages.

Dear Sir/Madam,

It has been two and a half months already and I still haven’t receive a reply from you. May I know why is it taking so long? Also, may I know when can I have a Zoom meeting with you? If you can’t make it then you can contact me via my phone number: xxxx xxxx xxx. Would that be alright for you?

Regards

Kooi Eng Chong

Email: kooi.chong@yahoo.com.my

On Sunday, 1 October 2023 at 09:53:18 am MYT, Kooi Chong wrote:

Dear Sir/Madam,

It has been nearly four months already and I still haven’t receive a reply from you. May I know why is it taking so long? Also, may I know when can I have a Zoom meeting with you? If you can’t make it then you can contact me via my phone number: xxxx xxxxx xxx. Would that be alright for you?

Regards

Kooi Eng Chong

Email: kooi.chong@yahoo.com.my

On Friday, 2 June 2023 at 10:12:54 pm GMT+8, Kooi Chong wrote:

Dear Sir/Madam,

It has been a month already and I still haven’t receive a reply from you. May I know why is it taking so long? Also, may I know when can I have a Zoom meeting with you?

Looking forward to hearing from you soon

Regards

Kooi Eng Chong

Email: kooi.chong@yahoo.com.my

On Sunday, 23 April 2023 at 09:58:46 am GMT+8, Kooi Chong wrote:

Dear Sir/Madam,

It has been a month already and I still haven’t receive a reply from you. May I know why is it taking so long? Also, may I know when can I have a Zoom meeting with you?

Looking forward to hearing from you soon

Regards

Kooi Eng Chong

There are more, many more. I haven’t replied to any of them, nor will I — he’s very bot-like, and I have no idea what he’s trying to do. On the remote possibility that he’s a real human being, hunched over his computer in his apartment, sending out plaintive requests for human contact, scanning the internet for some hint that anyone recognizes his existence, I post this that he might discover that yes, a person has heard his cry.

And that he might learn this is the wrong fucking way to to anything.

If it is just a stupid bot, the most likely possibility, I’m letting it know that next week I’ll add a filter that’ll disintegrate all of its email before I even see it.

Bye, Kooi.

Beyoncé enchants me again

I’m not at all a fan of country-western music, even though my parents preferred it all the time. They played the classics, though — Hank Williams, Dolly Parton, Johnny Cash, Tammy Wynette, etc. — and I could appreciate that there’s some really good stuff in the genre. It’s just that every time I’d try to listen to it, there’d be some twangy shit about pickup trucks and jingo and utterly unoriginal noise that would drive me away. I never want to hear Lee Greenwood or his ilk ever again.

But then I’d heard that Beyoncé’s country album, Cowboy Carter, is supposed to be pretty good. So I put it on this morning.

I’m blown away. It’s genre-busting but incredibly original and creative, and challenging but enjoyable to listen to. I think I’m going to have to play it again.

If more country music sounded like this, I might be able to suppress my urge to turn off the radio when it comes on.

What are all these plastics doing to us?

In my eco devo course, we’ve been looking at increasingly subtle effects. We started out the semester examining obviously devastating agents in the environment — think thalidomide, stuff that outright kills embryos or causes gross distortions of developmental processes. Then we spent a few weeks looking at endocrine disruptors, agents that perturb developmental signaling and produce embryos with, for example, fertility problems or changes in sexual differentiation. There are a lot of ways chemistry can screw you up short of wrecking external morphology!

This past week we also looked at micro- and nanoplastics, which I personally find have the potential to be a colossal nightmare. The US is producing about 75 million tons of plastic waste each year, and that crap doesn’t go away. You can throw it in a landfill or dump it in the ocean, but it is just physically eroded down into smaller and smaller fragments, allowing it to infiltrate ever deeper into us and our world. Did you know that archaeologists are finding microplastics drifting down into soils 7 meters down, and that they’re finding them in thousand year old sites? We are filling the world with these novel stable polymers, and we have a poor idea of what they’re doing to us.

So we read a paper by Pederson et al. (2020) about the effect of nanoplastics on zebrafish embryos. Like every paper on this kind of topic, it has to tell us about the magnitude of the problem.

Plastic pollution is ubiquitous and an emerging concern in both freshwater and marine environments. Since mass production began in the 1940s, plastic manufacturing has increased rapidly, with 348 million tons produced globally in 2018. Large amounts end up in the oceans, which are now predicted to contain more than five trillion individual pieces of plastic materials (equaling 250,000 tons) in the first 20 m of the water column. Plastics have been identified virtually everywhere: from arctic sea ice to ocean sediments. In freshwater systems, plastics have been identified in large quantities in lakes, rivers, and basins, especially in areas near dense human populations. Their ubiquity has allowed for potential human exposure to plastics through the consumption of aquatic organisms and via drinking water, especially due to the inability of drinking water facilities to entirely remove anthropogenic particles sourced through freshwater environments. In 2019, the World Health Organization (WHO) called for a greater assessment of plastics in the environment after 90% of bottled water was found to contain small plastic particles (World Health Organization). In addition, anthropogenic particles, many of which are likely plastic fragments and fibers, have been detected in over 81% of tap water sources, allowing for an average of 5800 particles to be ingested annually per person.

This paper isn’t even talking about familiar microplastics — it’s all about nanoplastics, particles less than 1µm in diameter. Eventually, all plastics will be broken down to that degree, but we give these an additional boost by intentionally synthesizing these for use in toothpastes and cosmetics and cleansers, and we’ve added <1 parts per billion (ppb) to tens of thousands of ppb to freshwater and marine ecosystems. We don’t have a practical way to remove this stuff. Go ahead, take a swig of that water bottled in plastic, you’ll just absorb those exotic polymers, they’ll be circulating in your bloodstream and getting incorporated into your tissues. You’ll hardly notice.

Zebrafish embryos and larvae swimming in a solution of up to 10000 ppb nanoplastics didn’t seem to mind. There was no effect on mortality, no change in growth rate, no apparent deformities at all. Maybe we’ll all be OK after all.

Except…they do visibly accumulate the plastics in their tissues (they used plastics that fluoresce in the UV).

And then they looked at gene expression in various known pathways — metabolic genes, genes involved in nervous system function, the cardiovascular system — and whoa, they’re just shifted all over the place. It’s a sign of how robust development is that the organism was looking so normal to human eyes. We are all loaded with compensatory developmental mechanisms to make our construction more reliable, and it always impresses me how much damage and insult an embryo can take and still emerge fairly recognizable.

Heatmap indicating predicted upregulation or downregulation in subpathways based on z-scores. (Red is upregulated, blue is downregulated)

One disappointment in the paper is that the behavioral assays were fairly crude, but that’s not the investigators’ fault. They’re working with 5-day old larvae, which, while zebrafish are remarkable little sensory processing machines at that age, they’re still kind of stupid, with a limited behavioral repertoire. The authors looked at spontaneous motor activity, and the fish exhibited a dose-dependent increase in burst swimming. They’re twitchier. More hyperactive. Their brains are being randomly modified chemically, and we’re seeing changes that I’d expect to be more apparent with more sensitive assays.

The message I’m trying to get across to the students is that there is a wide range of phenomena that environmental factors are causing, and we don’t know most of them. It took us decades to get corporations to remove lead from our gasoline, despite the obvious ways it was perturbing our growth and behavior. Are plastics going to be the leaded gasoline of the 21st century?

There is a solution: make biodegradable plastics, ones that don’t reduce to dead stable particles, but instead are digestible by organisms and can be metabolized. Progress is being made in that direction!

An attractive solution to mitigate the environmental impact of microplastics is to develop plastics that do not generate persistent microplastics as part of their normal life cycle. Even plastics that are properly collected and recycled generate microplastics as part of the normal wear from everyday use or as a consequence of recycling or washing processes. Thus, to prevent the accumulation of microplastics, new plastic materials must be developed that are completely biodegradable so that any particles generated from these products will quickly degrade in the environment. Biodegradation is the process by which microbes break down polymers into simpler molecules that can be used as a source of carbon to produce biomass. This requires that the polymer contains chemical bonds, most notably in the polymer’s primary backbone structure, that are physically accessible to enzymes that naturally recognize these bonds as substrates, and that the underlying monomer molecules that are released through this enzymatic cleavage can be consumed by microorganisms. In natural environments, this process is typically performed by consortia of microbes, including bacteria and fungi, secreting hydrolytic enzymes, which sever the polymer to release a variety of monomers and oligomers that can then be utilized as a carbon nutrient source by the microbes. Catabolism of these polymer-derived oligomers and monomers leads to the generation of organismal biomass and CO2 via respiration.

Why would we want structural materials that inevitably break down? Well, maybe you don’t, but I think if we whisper “planned obsolescence” into the ears of corporate executives, maybe they’ll force us to accept them.


Pedersen AF, Meyer DN, Petriv A-MV, Soto AL, Shields JN, Akemann C, Baker BB, Tsou W-L,
Zhang Y, Baker TR (2020) Nanoplastics impact the zebrafish (Danio rerio) transcriptome: Associated developmental and neurobehavioral consequences. Environmental Pollution https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2020.115090.