vox--2020-01-29--The night sky is increasingly dystopian

The night sky is increasingly dystopian

In the predawn hours of November 18 , 2019 , Northwestern University astronomer Cliff Johnson noticed a huge swarm of unfamiliar objects streaking across the sky .
That night , Johnson was surveying the Magellanic Clouds — two very dim dwarf galaxies that orbit our own Milky Way galaxy — with the telescopes at the Cerro Tololo Inter-American Observatory in Chile .
These galaxies are teaching scientists how stars form , and what happens when two galaxies pass near one another .
Johnson was watching them remotely , through a webcam at Fermilab outside of Chicago .
“ All of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ we just start seeing these streaks come across the webcam view .
I ’ ve never seen anything like that.
” The streaks weren ’ t from the heavens .
They were from Earth .
Over five minutes , a train of 19 satellites had crossed into the telescopes ’ view , scarring the observation with bright parallel marks , and degrading their scientific value .
It didn ’ t take Johnson and his colleagues long to figure out whose satellites they were : A week earlier , Elon Musk ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ low Earth orbit .
Johnson ’ s colleague , astronomer Clarae Martínez-Vázquez , who was also working that night , vented her frustration on Twitter .
“ I am in shock , ” she wrote .
This is what the telescope ’ s camera caught .
Astronomers are accustomed to satellites occasionally passing into view — one at a time .
They don ’ t ruin observations , per se .
But it does take some effort to digitally remove them from the final image .
But 19 satellites ?
That was unprecedented @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the image being “ completely lost , ” Johnson says .
What ’ s more , Johnson worries that the swarm was an omen — of a future where just about every telescope observation conducted at twilight is marred by satellite streaks .
Soon , Earth may be blanketed by tens of thousands of satellites , and they ’ ll greatly outnumber the approximately 9,000 stars that are visible to an unaided human eye .
This is not some distant threat .
It ’ s already happening .
SpaceX has already put @ @ @ @ @ @ @ called Starlink , in the sky .
Sixty were launched this week .
That will be followed by more launches , possibly every two weeks .
In all , the company has approval from the Federal Communications Commission to launch 12,000 satellites , and Musk is seeking approval to launch 30,000 more .
SpaceX ’ s goal is for Starlink satellites to form into a constellation that will provide internet access , for a price , to remote areas of Earth .
And it ’ s hardly the only company in this market @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also wants to beam internet access from space , is seeking to launch 650 satellites , beginning this January .
Amazon wants to launch 3,200 satellites , in a constellation called Kuiper , also with the goal of selling internet access .
In the near future , there could be 50,000 or more small satellites encircling the Earth , and for purposes other than delivering internet .
Could some company arrange bright satellites in the sky to spell out the name of a popular soda ?
Maybe .
There ’ s no global @ @ @ @ @ @ @ satellites are small , mass-produced , and orbit very closely to the Earth to ensure the internet connection they provide is speedy .
But that closeness also makes them more visible , and brighter in the night sky .
“ Satellites launched by SpaceX and others will be brighter than 99 percent of the population of objects of all types currently in Earth orbit , ” Patrick Seitzer , an astronomer at the University of Michigan who studies orbital debris , tells me by email .
He says Starlinks are brighter than other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ So it has something to do with the design and attitude [ i.e.
, orientation ] of the Starlinks.
” In the long run , this could diminish our view of the universe , create more space debris , and , potentially , deprive humanity of an unblemished view of the night sky .
It ’ s not that the 19 Starlink satellites ruined the entire night of observations , Johnson says .
“ The fear is that this is going to become the new normal .
If we ’ re really @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thousands of satellites ... that is no longer a small deal.
” What ’ s more , some worry it may already be too late to fight back .
What the future of the night sky may look like The deployment of so many satellites is critical to close the connectivity gap .
Starlink and its competitors will be able to connect the most remote places in the world ( which are also often very poor ) to the internet , and therefore , the global economy .
That ’ s revolutionary .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ever before .
The systems may also prove useful during natural disasters .
When a hurricane takes out communications infrastructure on the ground , rescue crews will still be able to access space-based internet .
But it comes with a cost .
Astronomers have done the calculations , and say many of these satellites will be visible to the naked eye , particularly in the time after sunset and before sunrise , when they ’ ll most strongly catch the glare of the sun .
When there are 50,000 satellites in the sky @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sky crawling , ” says Tony Tyson , a University of California Davis astronomer and physicist .
“ Every square degree will have something crawling in it.
” The Starlink satellites are most visible after they first launch , when they ’ re closer to the Earth and orbit in close proximity to one another .
So what Johnson saw through his webcam view — the train of satellites passing by in quick succession — will repeat after each launch .
But over time , the satellites will climb into higher orbits , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ visible , and will spread out from one another .
When they reach their final orbits , Tyson says they ’ ll still be “ visible by dark-adapted eyes in dark locations , ” at twilight ( after sunset and before sunrise ) .
But “ twilight can last most of the night , ” he says , depending on your latitude and the time of the year .
( Plus , there are a lot of objects in the space — particularly asteroids that are coming from the direction of the sun @ @ @ @ @ @ @ twilight . )
You may be familiar with the problem of light pollution .
Most people living near or in urban areas can ’ t see many stars because city lights cast a glowing haze that obscures the view of all but the brightest of stars .
But the satellites are not creating light pollution .
It ’ s more like sky pollution .
In the darker places of Earth , these satellites will be even easier to spot .
“ It ’ s pretty dystopian to me , ” Johnson says .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ s going to find you wherever you are.
” In the video below , astronomer Michael Vlasov has a sped-up animation of what the night sky might look like when there are 12,000 Starlink satellites in orbit .
Keep in mind , this is a YouTube video , and it may not look all that impressive .
But you can see how the early night sky , and predawn sky , is peppered with satellites flying across the sky .
And here ’ s an annotated animation from Vlasov showing where the satellites @ @ @ @ @ @ @ notice them or not in the future may depend on where you live , and your access to a dark sky .
“ A large percentage of humans living in cities are not going to notice a large difference at all , ” Tony Beasley , director of the National Radio Astronomy Observatory , says .
There are a lot of other potential concerns about so many satellites in the sky .
One is space debris .
When a satellite breaks down in space , it just stays up there as junk until @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Already , several Starlink satellites have stopped functioning and are just hanging out up there as debris , where they present a hazard for colliding with other objects in space .
“ If you ’ re going to put up 10,000 , or 20,000 or 30,000 satellites , you automatically , instantly intentionally have hundreds of pieces of debris right off the bat , ” says Christopher Johnson , space law adviser at the Secure World Foundation , a nonprofit that advocates for the sustainable and peaceful use of space .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ harder it becomes to build and operate equipment there .
More immediately , the constellation satellites are a cause for straight-up alarm among many astronomers .
In the next decade , they have been hoping to capture an even wider , deeper view of the cosmos from the Earth .
And the satellites will get in the way .
Starlink and similar constellation satellites are different than many of the satellites in orbit in a way that makes them a nuisance to astronomy : They ’ re very close to Earth .
If @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Tyson explains , it ’ s four times brighter to us on the ground .
Telescopes capture images of the sky with very sensitive cameras .
The satellites are so bright , that they overexpose the cameras ’ sensors .
The effect is like taking an eraser to their images of the night sky , covering their images of the sky with tracts of unusable data .
Along with his work at UC Davis , Tyson is the chief scientist at the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope , which was recently renamed the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an observatory under construction in Chile with a huge field of view : Its mirrors will be able to capture an area of the sky 40 times the size of the full moon , and spot objects 10 million times fainter than the human eye could see .
Starting in 2023 , the $ 500 million observatory will embark on a 10-year survey of the entire night sky .
The project is called the Legacy Survey of Space and Time ( LSST ) , which will show the universe in motion , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But if there are tens of thousands of satellites in orbit , LSST ’ s unique view of the universe will be obscured .
“ There ’ ll be nowhere where you can take LSST and point it without having one of [ the satellites ] in the field of view , ” Tyson told me in December .
“ We ’ re going to see a potentially revolutionary new view onto the transient universe , and instead we ’ re going to see a haze of streaks.
” SpaceX says it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and the scientists at the Vera Rubin Observatory in particular , on mitigating the problem .
( “ Our level of brightness and visibility was a surprise to us , ” Patricia Cooper , SpaceX ’ s vice president of satellite government affairs , told attendees of the recent American Astronomical Society meeting in January . )
Their efforts are being recognized : “ SpaceX is setting a very good precedent , I think , trying to do the right thing , ” Beasley says .
Tyson also believes that SpaceX is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of interference with the Vera Rubin Observatory .
In an experiment , SpaceX deployed a dark coating for the underside of one of its satellites on its previous launch to see if it will be less visible to telescopes .
But it ’ s not guaranteed to work .
And meanwhile , the company continues to launch more unaltered bright satellites into space .
It ’ s not simple to just slap a coat of black paint on the satellites .
Too dark , and the satellites will start to absorb excess heat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It still unclear how dark SpaceX will ultimately go .
The company is taking an iterative “ trial and error ” approach , as SpaceX president Gwynne Shotwell told reporters in December .
Meanwhile , astronomers don ’ t have some mandated right to an unobstructed view of the night sky , and don ’ t have a forum to voice their complaints .
I asked Tyson if astronomers are powerless in protecting their view on the night sky .
“ We ’ re definitely powerless , ” he says .
There are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not optical The pessimism among astronomers is due to the fact that they have no legal — national or international — protections here .
Simply put : “ There are currently no regulations , rules , or guidelines of any sort dealing with the brightness of satellites , ” Seitzer says .
“ Not at the international level , not at the national level anywhere.
” Sure , SpaceX might be willing to work with the scientific community in reducing the brightness of their satellites .
But another company , in another country @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that ’ s an outrage .
“ The fact that one person , or one company , can take control and completely transform humans ’ experience of the night sky , and not just humans , but every organism on Earth … that seems profoundly wrong , ” Caitlin Casey , a University of Texas Austin astronomer says .
There is some regulation here , administered in the United States by the FCC , and internationally by the UN ’ s International Telecommunication Union .
But it mostly concerned with telecommunications , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ parts of the electromagnetic spectrum , and for what ( and also : making sure the satellites don ’ t crash into one another ) .
They don ’ t regulate how the satellites look .
“ We are aware from press articles that there have been some concerns raised about the effect of Starlink satellites on observations by astronomers at optical wavelengths , ” Will Wiquist , an FCC spokesperson , says in an email .
But also admits “ this issue has not been raised in any FCC proceedings.
” Casey @ @ @ @ @ @ @ astronomy .
That ’ s where scientists look at the night sky at frequencies our eyes can ’ t see .
Radio astronomy has access to some protected wavelengths that communications companies are not allowed to infringe on .
Though , as Casey points out , radio astronomers like to look at all sorts of wavelengths outside of that range .
Overall , they ’ ll have to depend on the goodwill of companies like SpaceX to turn off their satellite transmitters when orbiting over a big radio observatory .
If the satellites @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scenario is like trying to see a firefly in the vicinity of the sun .
It would be incredibly bright , ” she says .
In the world of radio astronomy , a satellite beaming internet down to Earth might as well be a floodlight .
At least , though , for radio astronomy , there are established channels to voice their concerns over radio use .
But optical astronomy — which looks at the visible light of the universe — does not have international protections .
“ It doesn ’ t have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a space law adviser at the Secure World Foundation , a nonprofit that advocates for the sustainable and peaceful use of space .
The UN Outer Space Treaty — the world ’ s governing framework for the use of space — says nothing on the topic of the reflectivity of satellites , nor their impact on astronomy .
Even if one country began strictly protecting the night sky from overcrowding , another could ignore those regulations entirely , and spoil the night sky for everyone , Johnson explains .
This is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” Mark Skinner , an astronomer associated with the International Institute of Space Law .
Without regulations , the future could get weird Without stricter regulations , the future could get even weirder .
People could launch bright satellites , to intentionally get the attention of people around the globe .
And they already have : In January 2018 , a New Zealand company launched a satellite called “ humanity star.
” It was basically a disco ball in low Earth orbit .
Its creators hoped the light from the satellite would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the planet.
” Many astronomers were not delighted , likening it to “ space graffitti.
” Perhaps the humanity star is just a precursor to even bigger and brighter displays in the night sky .
There ’ s no explicit international ban , Wired reports , on advertising in space .
There ’ s at least one company hoping to arrange satellites in the sky to get people to buy more soda .
The night sky is enormous , and viewable to everyone on the planet .
It ’ s the perfect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ huge driver for us to ring the alarm and try to bring some visibility to this now , ” Johnson , of Northwestern , says .
“ This is just the tip of the iceberg.
” Maybe with some more visibility , astronomers can convince the nations of the world to make sure the night sky remains clear for telescopes .
But the fear is , at the end of the day , commercial interests will win over scientific ones .
SpaceX “ might have good intentions , but they ’ re still @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out to make money , ” Johnson says .
The astronomers I spoke with for this story all see the merits of Starlink , and satellite constellations at large .
Too much of the world is cut off from internet access .
“ Astronomers aren ’ t asking for there to be no Starlink , and for there to be no satellites , ” Johnson says .
“ But to at least do it in a way that takes into account that other people want a night sky.
” The American Astronomical Society @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to thread this needle .
“ The goal of Starlink is to provide worldwide internet service , an aspiration we do not want to impede , ” working group astronomer Kelsie Krafton writes .
“ We do not want to give up access to optical observations from the ground.
” Then , there are impacts to changing the night sky that go beyond science or the internet .
The night sky , when seen from dark places , represents the ultimate wilderness — a pristine view of nature that humans have barely touched @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Every culture throughout time has valued the night sky , and many peoples have enormously meaningful or practical traditions of naked-eye observation , woven right into their culture , ” Kathryn Denning , an anthropologist at York University who studies the ethics of space exploration , writes in an email .
Cultural heritage issues , she says , “ is taken seriously at the United Nations level , but to my knowledge that hasn ’ t translated into international rules for visible satellites yet.
” Even some animals use starlight for navigation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ know if constellation satellites will have an impact on them , too .
Casey , the UT Austin astronomer , wants the world to know that messing with the night sky removes “ the one thing that all humans have had in the past 200,000 years , millions of years , it ’ s always been there.
” That ’ s not something to be taken lightly .
“ My whole attachment to science and pursuing this as a career dates back to seeing the night sky as a child and being mesmerized @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a unique science : we can ’ t tinker with things in a lab , experimenting on stars .
The entire science is looking up at the sky , and losing that would be tragic .
”

In the predawn hours of November 18, 2019, Northwestern University astronomer Cliff Johnson noticed a huge swarm of unfamiliar objects streaking across the sky.
That night, Johnson was surveying the Magellanic Clouds — two very dim dwarf galaxies that orbit our own Milky Way galaxy — with the telescopes at the Cerro Tololo Inter-American Observatory in Chile. These galaxies are teaching scientists how stars form, and what happens when two galaxies pass near one another. Johnson was watching them remotely, through a webcam at Fermilab outside of Chicago. “All of a sudden,” he says, “we just start seeing these streaks come across the webcam view. I’ve never seen anything like that.”
The streaks weren’t from the heavens. They were from Earth.
Over five minutes, a train of 19 satellites had crossed into the telescopes’ view, scarring the observation with bright parallel marks, and degrading their scientific value. It didn’t take Johnson and his colleagues long to figure out whose satellites they were: A week earlier, Elon Musk’s SpaceX had launched 60 small satellites into low Earth orbit. Johnson’s colleague, astronomer Clarae Martínez-Vázquez, who was also working that night, vented her frustration on Twitter.
“I am in shock,” she wrote.
Wow!! I am in shock!! The huge amount of Starlink satellites crossed our skies tonight at @cerrotololo. Our DECam exposure was heavily affected by 19 of them! The train of Starlink satellites lasted for over 5 minutes!! Rather depressing… This is not cool! pic.twitter.com/gK0ekbpLJe — Clarae Martínez-Vázquez (@89Marvaz) November 18, 2019
This is what the telescope’s camera caught.
Astronomers are accustomed to satellites occasionally passing into view — one at a time. They don’t ruin observations, per se. But it does take some effort to digitally remove them from the final image.
But 19 satellites? That was unprecedented, leading to 15 to 20 percent of the image being “completely lost,” Johnson says.
What’s more, Johnson worries that the swarm was an omen — of a future where just about every telescope observation conducted at twilight is marred by satellite streaks.
Soon, Earth may be blanketed by tens of thousands of satellites, and they’ll greatly outnumber the approximately 9,000 stars that are visible to an unaided human eye.
This is not some distant threat. It’s already happening. SpaceX has already put 240 of these small satellites, collectively called Starlink, in the sky. Sixty were launched this week. That will be followed by more launches, possibly every two weeks.
In all, the company has approval from the Federal Communications Commission to launch 12,000 satellites, and Musk is seeking approval to launch 30,000 more.
SpaceX’s goal is for Starlink satellites to form into a constellation that will provide internet access, for a price, to remote areas of Earth.
And it’s hardly the only company in this market. OneWeb, a UK-based company that also wants to beam internet access from space, is seeking to launch 650 satellites, beginning this January. Amazon wants to launch 3,200 satellites, in a constellation called Kuiper, also with the goal of selling internet access. In the near future, there could be 50,000 or more small satellites encircling the Earth, and for purposes other than delivering internet. Could some company arrange bright satellites in the sky to spell out the name of a popular soda? Maybe. There’s no global ban on space advertising.
These new satellites are small, mass-produced, and orbit very closely to the Earth to ensure the internet connection they provide is speedy. But that closeness also makes them more visible, and brighter in the night sky. “Satellites launched by SpaceX and others will be brighter than 99 percent of the population of objects of all types currently in Earth orbit,” Patrick Seitzer, an astronomer at the University of Michigan who studies orbital debris, tells me by email. He says Starlinks are brighter than other satellites orbiting at the same height. “So it has something to do with the design and attitude [i.e., orientation] of the Starlinks.”
In the long run, this could diminish our view of the universe, create more space debris, and, potentially, deprive humanity of an unblemished view of the night sky. It’s not that the 19 Starlink satellites ruined the entire night of observations, Johnson says. “The fear is that this is going to become the new normal. If we’re really talking about many thousands to tens of thousands of satellites ... that is no longer a small deal.”
What’s more, some worry it may already be too late to fight back.
What the future of the night sky may look like
The deployment of so many satellites is critical to close the connectivity gap. Starlink and its competitors will be able to connect the most remote places in the world (which are also often very poor) to the internet, and therefore, the global economy. That’s revolutionary. The world will be more connected than ever before.
The systems may also prove useful during natural disasters. When a hurricane takes out communications infrastructure on the ground, rescue crews will still be able to access space-based internet.
But it comes with a cost.
Astronomers have done the calculations, and say many of these satellites will be visible to the naked eye, particularly in the time after sunset and before sunrise, when they’ll most strongly catch the glare of the sun.
When there are 50,000 satellites in the sky, “you’ll see the sky crawling,” says Tony Tyson, a University of California Davis astronomer and physicist. “Every square degree will have something crawling in it.”
The Starlink satellites are most visible after they first launch, when they’re closer to the Earth and orbit in close proximity to one another. So what Johnson saw through his webcam view — the train of satellites passing by in quick succession — will repeat after each launch.
But over time, the satellites will climb into higher orbits, where they’ll be slightly less visible, and will spread out from one another.
When they reach their final orbits, Tyson says they’ll still be “visible by dark-adapted eyes in dark locations,” at twilight (after sunset and before sunrise). But “twilight can last most of the night,” he says, depending on your latitude and the time of the year. (Plus, there are a lot of objects in the space — particularly asteroids that are coming from the direction of the sun — that can only be seen at twilight.)
You may be familiar with the problem of light pollution. Most people living near or in urban areas can’t see many stars because city lights cast a glowing haze that obscures the view of all but the brightest of stars.
But the satellites are not creating light pollution. It’s more like sky pollution. In the darker places of Earth, these satellites will be even easier to spot. “It’s pretty dystopian to me,” Johnson says. “This is a problem that’s going to find you wherever you are.”
In the video below, astronomer Michael Vlasov has a sped-up animation of what the night sky might look like when there are 12,000 Starlink satellites in orbit. Keep in mind, this is a YouTube video, and it may not look all that impressive. But you can see how the early night sky, and predawn sky, is peppered with satellites flying across the sky.
And here’s an annotated animation from Vlasov showing where the satellites would be flying overhead.
Whether you notice them or not in the future may depend on where you live, and your access to a dark sky. “A large percentage of humans living in cities are not going to notice a large difference at all,” Tony Beasley, director of the National Radio Astronomy Observatory, says.
There are a lot of other potential concerns about so many satellites in the sky. One is space debris. When a satellite breaks down in space, it just stays up there as junk until gravity pulls it back down to Earth. Already, several Starlink satellites have stopped functioning and are just hanging out up there as debris, where they present a hazard for colliding with other objects in space.
“If you’re going to put up 10,000, or 20,000 or 30,000 satellites, you automatically, instantly intentionally have hundreds of pieces of debris right off the bat,” says Christopher Johnson, space law adviser at the Secure World Foundation, a nonprofit that advocates for the sustainable and peaceful use of space. The more space debris in orbit, the harder it becomes to build and operate equipment there.
More immediately, the constellation satellites are a cause for straight-up alarm among many astronomers. In the next decade, they have been hoping to capture an even wider, deeper view of the cosmos from the Earth. And the satellites will get in the way.
Astronomers are worried they’ll lose important observations
Starlink and similar constellation satellites are different than many of the satellites in orbit in a way that makes them a nuisance to astronomy: They’re very close to Earth. If something is two times lower in orbit, Tyson explains, it’s four times brighter to us on the ground.
Telescopes capture images of the sky with very sensitive cameras. The satellites are so bright, that they overexpose the cameras’ sensors. The effect is like taking an eraser to their images of the night sky, covering their images of the sky with tracts of unusable data.
Along with his work at UC Davis, Tyson is the chief scientist at the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope, which was recently renamed the Vera Rubin Observatory. It’s an observatory under construction in Chile with a huge field of view: Its mirrors will be able to capture an area of the sky 40 times the size of the full moon, and spot objects 10 million times fainter than the human eye could see.
Starting in 2023, the $500 million observatory will embark on a 10-year survey of the entire night sky. The project is called the Legacy Survey of Space and Time (LSST), which will show the universe in motion, and capture millions of stars evolving over time.
But if there are tens of thousands of satellites in orbit, LSST’s unique view of the universe will be obscured. “There’ll be nowhere where you can take LSST and point it without having one of [the satellites] in the field of view,” Tyson told me in December. “We’re going to see a potentially revolutionary new view onto the transient universe, and instead we’re going to see a haze of streaks.”
SpaceX says it has been working with the astronomy community, and the scientists at the Vera Rubin Observatory in particular, on mitigating the problem. (“Our level of brightness and visibility was a surprise to us,” Patricia Cooper, SpaceX’s vice president of satellite government affairs, told attendees of the recent American Astronomical Society meeting in January.)
Their efforts are being recognized: “SpaceX is setting a very good precedent, I think, trying to do the right thing,” Beasley says. Tyson also believes that SpaceX is “committed to solving the problem” of interference with the Vera Rubin Observatory.
In an experiment, SpaceX deployed a dark coating for the underside of one of its satellites on its previous launch to see if it will be less visible to telescopes. But it’s not guaranteed to work. And meanwhile, the company continues to launch more unaltered bright satellites into space.
It’s not simple to just slap a coat of black paint on the satellites. Too dark, and the satellites will start to absorb excess heat, which could impact their functioning. It still unclear how dark SpaceX will ultimately go. The company is taking an iterative “trial and error” approach, as SpaceX president Gwynne Shotwell told reporters in December.
Meanwhile, astronomers don’t have some mandated right to an unobstructed view of the night sky, and don’t have a forum to voice their complaints. I asked Tyson if astronomers are powerless in protecting their view on the night sky. “We’re definitely powerless,” he says.
There are international protections for radio astronomy, but not optical
The pessimism among astronomers is due to the fact that they have no legal — national or international — protections here.
Simply put: “There are currently no regulations, rules, or guidelines of any sort dealing with the brightness of satellites,” Seitzer says. “Not at the international level, not at the national level anywhere.”
Sure, SpaceX might be willing to work with the scientific community in reducing the brightness of their satellites. But another company, in another country, may not.
To some, that’s an outrage. “The fact that one person, or one company, can take control and completely transform humans’ experience of the night sky, and not just humans, but every organism on Earth … that seems profoundly wrong,” Caitlin Casey, a University of Texas Austin astronomer says.
There is some regulation here, administered in the United States by the FCC, and internationally by the UN’s International Telecommunication Union. But it mostly concerned with telecommunications, and decisions over who gets to use which parts of the electromagnetic spectrum, and for what (and also: making sure the satellites don’t crash into one another). They don’t regulate how the satellites look.
“We are aware from press articles that there have been some concerns raised about the effect of Starlink satellites on observations by astronomers at optical wavelengths,” Will Wiquist, an FCC spokesperson, says in an email. But also admits “this issue has not been raised in any FCC proceedings.”
Casey does some of her work in radio astronomy. That’s where scientists look at the night sky at frequencies our eyes can’t see. Radio astronomy has access to some protected wavelengths that communications companies are not allowed to infringe on. Though, as Casey points out, radio astronomers like to look at all sorts of wavelengths outside of that range. Overall, they’ll have to depend on the goodwill of companies like SpaceX to turn off their satellite transmitters when orbiting over a big radio observatory.
If the satellites aren’t turned off “the scenario is like trying to see a firefly in the vicinity of the sun. It would be incredibly bright,” she says. In the world of radio astronomy, a satellite beaming internet down to Earth might as well be a floodlight.
At least, though, for radio astronomy, there are established channels to voice their concerns over radio use.
But optical astronomy — which looks at the visible light of the universe — does not have international protections. “It doesn’t have a voice,” says Christopher Johnson, a space law adviser at the Secure World Foundation, a nonprofit that advocates for the sustainable and peaceful use of space.
The UN Outer Space Treaty — the world’s governing framework for the use of space — says nothing on the topic of the reflectivity of satellites, nor their impact on astronomy. Even if one country began strictly protecting the night sky from overcrowding, another could ignore those regulations entirely, and spoil the night sky for everyone, Johnson explains.
This is a problem “that falls in the cracks,” Mark Skinner, an astronomer associated with the International Institute of Space Law.
Without regulations, the future could get weird
Without stricter regulations, the future could get even weirder. People could launch bright satellites, to intentionally get the attention of people around the globe. And they already have: In January 2018, a New Zealand company launched a satellite called “humanity star.” It was basically a disco ball in low Earth orbit. Its creators hoped the light from the satellite would “create a shared experience for everyone on the planet.” Many astronomers were not delighted, likening it to “space graffitti.”
Perhaps the humanity star is just a precursor to even bigger and brighter displays in the night sky. There’s no explicit international ban, Wired reports, on advertising in space. There’s at least one company hoping to arrange satellites in the sky to get people to buy more soda. The night sky is enormous, and viewable to everyone on the planet. It’s the perfect billboard.
“There’s a huge driver for us to ring the alarm and try to bring some visibility to this now,” Johnson, of Northwestern, says. “This is just the tip of the iceberg.”
Maybe with some more visibility, astronomers can convince the nations of the world to make sure the night sky remains clear for telescopes. But the fear is, at the end of the day, commercial interests will win over scientific ones. SpaceX “might have good intentions, but they’re still a company, they’re still out to make money,” Johnson says.
The astronomers I spoke with for this story all see the merits of Starlink, and satellite constellations at large. Too much of the world is cut off from internet access. “Astronomers aren’t asking for there to be no Starlink, and for there to be no satellites,” Johnson says. “But to at least do it in a way that takes into account that other people want a night sky.”
The American Astronomical Society recently convened a working group to try to thread this needle. “The goal of Starlink is to provide worldwide internet service, an aspiration we do not want to impede,” working group astronomer Kelsie Krafton writes. “We do not want to give up access to optical observations from the ground.”
Then, there are impacts to changing the night sky that go beyond science or the internet. The night sky, when seen from dark places, represents the ultimate wilderness — a pristine view of nature that humans have barely touched. What does changing that mean?
“Every culture throughout time has valued the night sky, and many peoples have enormously meaningful or practical traditions of naked-eye observation, woven right into their culture,” Kathryn Denning, an anthropologist at York University who studies the ethics of space exploration, writes in an email. Cultural heritage issues, she says, “is taken seriously at the United Nations level, but to my knowledge that hasn’t translated into international rules for visible satellites yet.” Even some animals use starlight for navigation, and it’s hard to know if constellation satellites will have an impact on them, too.
Casey, the UT Austin astronomer, wants the world to know that messing with the night sky removes “the one thing that all humans have had in the past 200,000 years, millions of years, it’s always been there.” That’s not something to be taken lightly.
“My whole attachment to science and pursuing this as a career dates back to seeing the night sky as a child and being mesmerized,” she says. “Astronomy is a unique science: we can’t tinker with things in a lab, experimenting on stars. The entire science is looking up at the sky, and losing that would be tragic.”


vox--2020-01-29--Alan Dershowitz’s latest defense of Trump would let presidents get away with almost anything

One of the defenses presented by one of Trump ’ s lawyers during Wednesday ’ s portion of the Senate impeachment trial stood out from the others — big time .
That ’ s because it would give presidents almost unlimited power to pervert foreign policy into dirty tricks aimed at boosting their political prospects by defining anything they do to stay in office as part of the national interest .
In response to a Republican senator ’ s question about whether it ’ s true that “ quid pro quos are often used in foreign policy , ” Alan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ then went a step further and made a case that even quid pro quos that most everyone would agree are unacceptable aren ’ t impeachable offenses .
“ If a president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest , that can not be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment , ” Dershowitz said .
He went on : It would be a much harder case if a hypothetical president of the United States said to a hypothetical leader of a foreign country @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with my name on it , and unless you give me a million dollar kickback , I will withhold the funds.
’ That ’ s an easy case .
That ’ s purely corrupt and in the purely private interest .
But a complex middle case is , ‘ I want to be elected .
I think I ’ m a great president .
I think I ’ m the greatest president there ever was .
If I ’ m not elected the national interest will suffer greatly.
’ That can not be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the president thinks his or her reelection itself is in the public interest of the United States , then anything short of crimes he or she does to make that happen — including strong-arming foreign governments into announcing investigations into political foes — is justified .
It ’ s instructive to consider the sorts of things presidents could get away with if Dershowitz ’ s argument were accepted .
And House impeachment manager Adam Schiff did just that immediately after Dershowitz spoke .
Schiff used the example of President Barack Obama ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ then-Russian President Dmitri Medvedev in which Obama told Medvedev he ’ d have more “ flexibility ” to work with Russia “ after my election.
” Schiff asked senators to consider a hypothetical situation in which Obama had instead asked Medvedev to open an investigation into Mitt Romney , his political opponent at the time , and threatened to impose sanctions on Russia if he didn ’ t .
Nobody would argue a request of that sort is acceptable .
And yet by Dershowitz ’ s standard , it wouldn ’ t meet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ One could even argue that Trump ’ s conduct with Ukraine was more egregious than the Obama hypothetical , as Trump held up congressionally authorized military aid as part of his quid pro quo and didn ’ t go through the proper channels to do so .
The US government ’ s top internal watchdog concluded earlier this month that the Trump administration “ broke the law when it withheld military aid to Ukraine last year after Congress had approved its disbursal , ” as my colleague Alex Ward explained .
On Twitter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Human Rights Foundation , characterized Dershowitz ’ s argument as nakedly authoritarian .
Dershowitz ’ s argument illustrates a broader dynamic I wrote about earlier today : that with former National Security Adviser John Bolton now reportedly prepared to testify that Trump told him directly that the release of the Ukraine aid was conditional on the Ukrainian government agreeing to investigate the Bidens , Republicans are moving the goalposts from “ quid pro quos are bad but Trump didn ’ t do one ” to “ quid pro quos don ’ t matter.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ stay updated , follow Aaron Rupar on Twitter , and read more of Vox ’ s policy and politics coverage .

One of the defenses presented by one of Trump’s lawyers during Wednesday’s portion of the Senate impeachment trial stood out from the others — big time.
That’s because it would give presidents almost unlimited power to pervert foreign policy into dirty tricks aimed at boosting their political prospects by defining anything they do to stay in office as part of the national interest.
In response to a Republican senator’s question about whether it’s true that “quid pro quos are often used in foreign policy,” Alan Dershowitz argued they are. But he then went a step further and made a case that even quid pro quos that most everyone would agree are unacceptable aren’t impeachable offenses.
“If a president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment,” Dershowitz said.
Trump attorney Alan Dershowitz: "If a president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment." https://t.co/jKErQcS1Iy pic.twitter.com/zo4rL6Zbla — ABC News (@ABC) January 29, 2020
He went on:
It would be a much harder case if a hypothetical president of the United States said to a hypothetical leader of a foreign country, ‘unless you build a hotel with my name on it, and unless you give me a million dollar kickback, I will withhold the funds.’ That’s an easy case. That’s purely corrupt and in the purely private interest. But a complex middle case is, ‘I want to be elected. I think I’m a great president. I think I’m the greatest president there ever was. If I’m not elected the national interest will suffer greatly.’ That cannot be impeachable.
In other words, if the president thinks his or her reelection itself is in the public interest of the United States, then anything short of crimes he or she does to make that happen — including strong-arming foreign governments into announcing investigations into political foes — is justified.
It’s instructive to consider the sorts of things presidents could get away with if Dershowitz’s argument were accepted. And House impeachment manager Adam Schiff did just that immediately after Dershowitz spoke.
Schiff used the example of President Barack Obama’s infamous March 2012 hot mic conversation with then-Russian President Dmitri Medvedev in which Obama told Medvedev he’d have more “flexibility” to work with Russia “after my election.”
Schiff asked senators to consider a hypothetical situation in which Obama had instead asked Medvedev to open an investigation into Mitt Romney, his political opponent at the time, and threatened to impose sanctions on Russia if he didn’t.
Nobody would argue a request of that sort is acceptable. And yet by Dershowitz’s standard, it wouldn’t meet the bar for impeachment and removal.
Schiff points out that if Obama had asked Medvedev to investigate Romney on a hot mic, Republicans would've impeached him faster than you can say "emails" pic.twitter.com/wMmfuoR2L9 — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) January 29, 2020
One could even argue that Trump’s conduct with Ukraine was more egregious than the Obama hypothetical, as Trump held up congressionally authorized military aid as part of his quid pro quo and didn’t go through the proper channels to do so. The US government’s top internal watchdog concluded earlier this month that the Trump administration “broke the law when it withheld military aid to Ukraine last year after Congress had approved its disbursal,” as my colleague Alex Ward explained.
On Twitter, Garry Kasparov, chair of the Human Rights Foundation, characterized Dershowitz’s argument as nakedly authoritarian.
Wow, Dershowitz is actually making the King Louis XIV argument right now! Trump is good for the country, so anything he does to stay in power is the national interest, even if corrupt or illegal. That's the language of every king & dictator: I am the end and the means justify me. — Garry Kasparov (@Kasparov63) January 29, 2020
Dershowitz’s argument illustrates a broader dynamic I wrote about earlier today: that with former National Security Adviser John Bolton now reportedly prepared to testify that Trump told him directly that the release of the Ukraine aid was conditional on the Ukrainian government agreeing to investigate the Bidens, Republicans are moving the goalposts from “quid pro quos are bad but Trump didn’t do one” to “quid pro quos don’t matter.”
The news moves fast. To stay updated, follow Aaron Rupar on Twitter, and read more of Vox’s policy and politics coverage.


vox--2020-01-29--Hollywood is replacing artists with AI. Its future is bleak.

It took me an embarrassingly long time to realize that the “ black mirror ” of the popular anthology series Black Mirror was a screen , or rather , all the screens we surround ourselves with : phones , tablets , computers , TVs , and , increasingly , futuristic devices built by massive corporations that monitor our movements and preferences and words .
We buy these black mirrors , welcoming them into our homes and lives and letting them — true to their name — reflect ourselves back to us .
And as we know all too well , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Unsettling reflections are not the black mirrors ’ fault .
Gadgets are merely assemblages of wires and metal and glass .
Devices don ’ t have a point of view ; they operate according to the input they receive , the algorithms and designs and patterns that power the software , written by humans and thus shaded and slanted by human biases .
What I mean is that if you or I write a bit of code , what we believe to be true about the world — how it ought to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with my device , what someone else might prefer to do or see on their phone or TV — is baked in right from the start .
Users can customize and modify , but only to a point .
We are restricted by what the software ’ s designers thought we should be allowed to do , or what they assumed we want , based on their own worldviews .
And when we use a gadget , we are inevitably affected by those worldviews .
Our digital worlds alter our “ real ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up with what Jia Tolentino recently described as Instagram face : a “ single , cyborgian look , ” mediated by filters and celebrities ’ use of them , that people now seek at the plastic surgeon ’ s office .
“ Instagram face ” wasn ’ t developed by Instagram ’ s engineers .
But it was enabled by them when they gave us the option to filter our photos .
Other apps , like FaceTune , allow users to edit their selfies to make them more flattering .
As Tolentino notes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ available to everyone is not a celebration of diverse beauty , but an “ algorithmic tendency to flatten everything into a composite of greatest hits , ” resulting in “ a beauty ideal that [ favors ] white women capable of manufacturing a look of rootless exoticism.
” It is an impossible type of beauty determined by consensus .
And while humans have always manufactured beauty standards , this one ’ s a little different , because it sounds as though it ’ s ripped directly from a Black Mirror episode or a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ humans being altered by the machines they created .
“ Instagram face ” is obviously an extreme case , as most people probably wouldn ’ t ( or couldn ’ t ) go so far as to physically change their face because a computer , in essence , told them to .
But it ’ s nonetheless become clear that the long-awaited future in which computers transform our humanity has undeniably arrived .
And there ’ s at least one very specific realm in which that future is steadily becoming more and more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and how they ’ re being made as Hollywood increasingly signals its willingness and even desire to cede control over its product to emerging technologies .
It seems more and more likely that decisions about stories , casting , and even genre may soon be left in the cold , steely hands of machines and algorithms .
Questions of whether a movie should be greenlit , who should star in it , and whether that star should even be “ real ” are being analyzed — and answered — by AI .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what effects this approach might have in the real world down the road .
Filtering our faces on Instagram makes us physically change them to match .
What will happen when what we see on our screens , both big and small , isn ’ t driven at least in part by artists ’ reflections of our anxieties and desires , but by algorithms ?
An algorithm that drives movie creation is likely to shut out a crucial factor in art One of the six biggest studios in Hollywood , Warner Bros. , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a startup in Los Angeles that uses algorithms and data to predict a film ’ s success before the film is made or even greenlit .
Cinelytic ’ s technology uses variables like genre and specific performers to predict how much money a movie could make , based on how those variables typically perform in different markets .
So if you want to gauge how a movie will ostensibly perform with Michael B. Jordan instead of Oscar Isaac in the starring role , you can do that .
Just plug and play .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ technology will be used only in marketing and distribution decisions , or maybe to help executives figure out which projects to greenlight .
They won ’ t , they say , let an algorithm govern the decision-making process entirely ; humans will still be involved .
But it ’ s difficult to believe this costly algorithm the studio has licensed won ’ t ultimately exert a significant amount of influence over which projects move forward and which ones don ’ t , regardless of whether the company plans for it to do so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Not a Gadget , programmer and virtual-reality pioneer Jaron Lanier argues that our digital technologies have baked-in biases that run against the grain of what it means to be human .
“ When the developers of digital technologies design a program that requires you to interact with a computer as if it were a person , they ask you to accept in some corner of your brain that you might also be conceived of as a program , ” Lanier writes .
“ When they design an internet service that is edited by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suggesting that a crowd of humans is an organism with a legitimate point of view.
” In other words , the digital systems that we create and interact with tell us how to be human , then train us to be human in a way that aligns with their priorities .
“ Different media designs stimulate different potentials in human nature , ” Lanier continues .
“ We shouldn ’ t seek to make the pack mentality as efficient as possible .
We should instead seek to inspire the phenomenon of individual intelligence.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” is as near a description of the genius of art-making as I ’ ve ever heard .
Certainly , filmmaking is collaborative , and movies aren ’ t “ individual ” products ( something even the most ardent supporter of auteur theory would admit ) .
But they ’ re not the result of groupthink or a hive mind , because individual intelligences are at play in the collaboration .
In a good film , creative , accomplished , and opinionated artists are able to leave their thumbprint , or a lot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In general , the more a movie seems created by consensus — as many big franchise flicks designed for maximum box-office earnings are — the less good it is .
It ’ s designed to please many and challenge few , not for any philosophical reason but because that ’ s what makes a lot of money .
The almighty buck rules .
Which is fine .
Hollywood movies have always occupied the weird space between mass culture and rarefied art .
They ’ re a young art form , barely over a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as well as to interrogate , confront , and move the audience .
They ’ re also really expensive to make , so they ’ ve got to bring in a lot of money to be successful .
And they ’ re still , on the whole , made by people who really love movies : directors and writers and actors and producers who eat and breathe and sleep cinema .
Even bad or mediocre filmmakers get excited by interesting movies , films that bend their brains and make them see the world @ @ @ @ @ @ @ create such movies ?
By being “ visionary , ” a quality that ’ s become a marketing cliché but is still meaningful .
A visionary filmmaker sees something the rest of us don ’ t , then chases it down and puts it on screen .
Visionary filmmakers are people like Martin Scorsese and Mati Diop and Bong Joon-ho and Marielle Heller and Christopher Nolan and Jordan Peele and Kelly Reichardt and Ryan Coogler and Lulu Wang and so many more .
They change how we see the world by letting us @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trouble is that visionary directors sometimes make movies that don ’ t appeal to a wide audience or , for whatever reason , make a lot of money .
And Hollywood studios want just the opposite : as big and loyal an audience as possible for every film they release .
Most of the industry believes that the way to attract big , loyal audiences is to tell stories that viewers already know they ’ re interested in ( because they liked the previous movie , or the book , or whatever ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ re already familiar .
Hollywood believes in the big swing — but not , in the end , in taking risks .
So the primary goal for the industry ’ s decision-makers is to mitigate risk as much as possible .
And that ’ s why the partnership between Cinelytic and Warner Bros. makes sense — but it ’ s also why I ’ m worried it sets a troubling precedent for the future .
Algorithms will likely only reinforce the assumptions Hollywood already makes Anyone who ’ s been alive in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in general has a weird way of creeping into places where it didn ’ t previously exist .
Twitter is a space to post random nonsense , but suddenly becomes an avenue for politicians to make official announcements and pronouncements .
Your iPhone is just a thing for making calls and playing games , before suddenly it becomes the thing with which you manage your dating life ( among countless other things ) .
And what ’ s especially disturbing is that the data used by predictive technologies like the one Cinelytic is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Why ?
Because algorithms that make predictions need data from the past on which to model those predictions .
And in the case of the movies , the data they ’ ll be using is influenced by the biases of Hollywood executives , who have long hewn to a hopelessly outmoded set of beliefs about what people want to see ( and , by extension , what they ’ ll pay for ) .
These are the same groups of people who say they ’ re shocked when movies like Get Out and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ America and abroad , because they ’ ve long subscribed to the myth that “ black films don ’ t travel.
” Who are surprised when a film like Wonder Woman breaks records .
Who continue to harbor bizarre ideas about women directors .
And who have long made decisions based on those presumptions .
You could argue that technologies like those from Cinelytic — a handful of which have made their way into Hollywood ’ s decision-making process in recent years — may actually help counteract these outmoded ideas by spotting patterns @ @ @ @ @ @ @ overlook .
But the historic exclusion of people of color and women from filmmaking and lead roles , particularly in big-budget genres like action and franchise films , will make it tricky for algorithms to avoid simply reinforcing those old habits .
And if it ’ s the computer that spits out biased , exclusionary results , nobody ’ s to blame , right ?
But that ’ s not even the biggest issue .
What ’ s most worrying to me is how these technologies are essentially designed to strip out some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ filmmaking process in favor of “ safe , ” lucrative choices .
That ’ s a strategy the formerly innovative leader Disney has already shown itself more than eager to adopt of late , favoring safe nostalgia over daring creativity .
And the studio has been richly rewarded for it .
Seven of the 10 top-grossing movies in 2019 , both domestic and worldwide , came from Disney ; an eighth , Spider-Man : Far from Home , was a Disney co-production ( by way of Marvel Studios ) .
Meanwhile , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into using machine learning and AI technologies , such as an analysis tool called ScriptBook that predicts how well a movie might perform based on its screenplay ( in contrast to Cinelytic ’ s analysis of genre plus potential stars ) .
Those technologies are designed to influence decision-making .
And in an industry that thrives on achieving the largest possible return on its investments , the kind of results they provide drives sameness rather than experimentation and discovery .
It ’ s easy to imagine a world in which studio executives , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from corporate higher-ups , cede increasing territory to the algorithms , opting for the “ guaranteed ” moneymaker over the “ visionary ” risk .
But it ’ s the visionary risk-takers — the James Camerons and Jordan Peeles and Agnès Vardas and George Lucases and Jane Campions and Ava DuVernays and , yes , the Walt Disneys of the world — who have always driven change and altered the form .
It ’ s the unexpected new faces and voices who light the world on fire .
Because movies aren ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ art .
They ’ re meant to challenge and inspire , which Hollywood frequently congratulates itself on doing even if the congratulations aren ’ t earned .
The shift toward algorithms is also reflected in Hollywood ’ s increasing foray into faking performance , slowly pushing the actor ’ s craft ( and , in some cases , the animator ’ s ) out of the picture .
Consider the deepfake-style Lion King of 2019 , or the strange case of an animated Will Smith in Gemini Man , which drew on old @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of “ digital mask ” of his younger self that could be projected onto his current face .
Or the presence of Carrie Fisher in the last two installments of the latest Star Wars trilogy , both of which were filmed after her death and used previously shot footage and some fancy CGI to revive the star .
In November 2019 , it was announced that James Dean , who died in 1955 , will be “ resurrected ” via CGI to play the leading role in a live-action Vietnam War movie called @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and low for the perfect character to portray the role of Rogan , which has some extreme complex character arcs , and after months of research , we decided on James Dean , ” the movie ’ s co-director told the Hollywood Reporter , adding that Dean ’ s family views this “ as his fourth movie , a movie he never got to make , ” and that they “ do not intend to let his fans down.
” Let that statement sink in for a moment : The movie ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ find a single living actor to play the part as well as a technologically reconstituted James Dean , or rather , a holographic version of the actor designed to their specifications .
Of course they could have found another actor .
“ Casting ” Dean is a marketing stunt .
But imagine a future — one actually depicted in the 2013 film The Congress — in which beloved actors ( or their estates ) eagerly ( or reluctantly ) license their images and voices to film studios .
Actors wouldn ’ t even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ appear in a movie ; they ’ d effectively become cartoon characters , endlessly and infinitely digitally generated .
Now imagine that those studios could use an algorithm to make decisions about whom to cast in one film or another , with the option to choose from a stable of licensed actors based on whoever is likely to bring in the most cash .
It ’ s an idea that might delight some people , but one I find rather grim .
If such a scenario doesn ’ t bring about the death @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and for all , create a rift between the art of making movies and the business of making movies .
At present , you still need human animators and artists to create deepfake-style films , but eventually , technology will surely make it possible to remove humans from the process entirely .
And with companies like Netflix continually trying to reverse-engineer the kinds of films and TV shows — excuse me , content — that people want to see based on what they already like to see , the ability to rapidly ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ content without having to pay too many people to do it is absolutely on the horizon .
One can easily imagine a streaming service , in the not-too-far-off future , that allows viewers to plop down on the couch , select a few variables , and generate a movie on the fly .
Want a PG-13 72-minute action-comedy starring Reese Witherspoon and Adam Sandler , set in Paris with , say , a liberal bent ?
Click , click , click .
You got it .
But who cares , right ?
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ m professionally obligated to care , but even if I weren ’ t , I ’ d still find these possibilities disturbing .
And I hope others will too .
Because in a world where we can fully control our own experience with art , the echo chambers we often find ourselves in — what media theorist Thomas de Zengotita refers to as realities that “ flatter ” us because they shield us from anything that might disturb or discomfit or surprise us — are only going to get more soundproof .
For @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shows are still a place where we can find common ground .
Just go listen to any conversation at a party that has inevitably turned to what people have been watching .
Movies and TV shows are also where we bump into people who think and act and believe and look different from us , a key reason why more risk-taking , not less , is a great thing for both the art form of cinema and the people who watch it .
But technologies that encourage the creation of entertainment via algorithm @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , are caving to the black mirror ’ s worst tendencies .
Because let ’ s face it : Many of us tend to opt for comfort over challenge .
Many of us tend to watch the same TV shows over and over , or stick to the same safe movies , unless someone tells us we ’ ve got to see this new , strange thing that ’ s just come out .
Word of mouth ( and good advertising and reviews ) is what drives a movie like Get Out or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hit and keeps filmmakers engaged and studios on their toes .
But a lot of people wouldn ’ t have gone to see those movies if others didn ’ t insist they step outside their comfort zone .
The great danger in letting the algorithms decide what belongs on our TV and movie screens is that we ’ ll only ever see ourselves reflected in them — or , even worse , only the subset of ourselves that ’ s always been favored by Hollywood .
Which tends to result in predominantly white @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most of which have been told many times before , in a visual style that ’ s designed for maximum legibility and at a pace dictated by the desire to ensure that the audience never gets bored , even if it ’ s boredom with a purpose .
The issue isn ’ t that there won ’ t be any financial , creative , or existential incentive for filmmakers to take risks ; it ’ s that the risk-takers will , more often than not , be crowded out by what ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an algorithm-driven world , it ’ ll be much , much more difficult for A Hidden Life or Roma or Moonlight or Do The Right Thing to succeed .
There ’ ll be little incentive for audiences to try something new , to see a movie that doesn ’ t reinforce the biases of the majority , to be enthralled or flabbergasted by someone else ’ s imagination .
We ’ ll get stuck in a feedback loop of our own creation , and we might forget what it was like to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could argue we ’ re already seeing this feedback loop in action , though there are still studio flicks , and a host of indie and mid-budget films , out there that are full of life .
But in an industry that ’ s shown over and over again how risk-averse it is , the future , I fear , is a dark place where the movies , like our FaceTuned faces , meld into a single , cyborgian retread lacking the guts to be art .
I have no solution , other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ king at the movies , we ’ ve got to be brave now .
We ’ ve got to watch films we ’ re not sure we ’ ll like and share them with others .
It ’ s almost too simple .
We ’ ve got to vote with our credit cards , a little at a time , and keep insisting we deserve more than warm milk designed to lull us into market-driven complacency , pre-chewed meals served on white bread .

It took me an embarrassingly long time to realize that the “black mirror” of the popular anthology series Black Mirror was a screen, or rather, all the screens we surround ourselves with: phones, tablets, computers, TVs, and, increasingly, futuristic devices built by massive corporations that monitor our movements and preferences and words. We buy these black mirrors, welcoming them into our homes and lives and letting them — true to their name — reflect ourselves back to us. And as we know all too well, those reflections sometimes betray our darkest impulses.
Unsettling reflections are not the black mirrors’ fault. Gadgets are merely assemblages of wires and metal and glass. Devices don’t have a point of view; they operate according to the input they receive, the algorithms and designs and patterns that power the software, written by humans and thus shaded and slanted by human biases.
What I mean is that if you or I write a bit of code, what we believe to be true about the world — how it ought to look, how I ought to interact with my device, what someone else might prefer to do or see on their phone or TV — is baked in right from the start. Users can customize and modify, but only to a point. We are restricted by what the software’s designers thought we should be allowed to do, or what they assumed we want, based on their own worldviews.
And when we use a gadget, we are inevitably affected by those worldviews. Our digital worlds alter our “real” worlds, which is how we end up with what Jia Tolentino recently described as Instagram face: a “single, cyborgian look,” mediated by filters and celebrities’ use of them, that people now seek at the plastic surgeon’s office.
“Instagram face” wasn’t developed by Instagram’s engineers. But it was enabled by them when they gave us the option to filter our photos. Other apps, like FaceTune, allow users to edit their selfies to make them more flattering. As Tolentino notes, the result of these capabilities becoming available to everyone is not a celebration of diverse beauty, but an “algorithmic tendency to flatten everything into a composite of greatest hits,” resulting in “a beauty ideal that [favors] white women capable of manufacturing a look of rootless exoticism.” It is an impossible type of beauty determined by consensus.
And while humans have always manufactured beauty standards, this one’s a little different, because it sounds as though it’s ripped directly from a Black Mirror episode or a sci-fi blockbuster — a clear example of humans being altered by the machines they created.
“Instagram face” is obviously an extreme case, as most people probably wouldn’t (or couldn’t) go so far as to physically change their face because a computer, in essence, told them to. But it’s nonetheless become clear that the long-awaited future in which computers transform our humanity has undeniably arrived. And there’s at least one very specific realm in which that future is steadily becoming more and more of a threat: the movies, and how they’re being made as Hollywood increasingly signals its willingness and even desire to cede control over its product to emerging technologies.
It seems more and more likely that decisions about stories, casting, and even genre may soon be left in the cold, steely hands of machines and algorithms. Questions of whether a movie should be greenlit, who should star in it, and whether that star should even be “real” are being analyzed — and answered — by AI.
It seems unlikely that anyone involved has contemplated what effects this approach might have in the real world down the road. Filtering our faces on Instagram makes us physically change them to match. What will happen when what we see on our screens, both big and small, isn’t driven at least in part by artists’ reflections of our anxieties and desires, but by algorithms?
An algorithm that drives movie creation is likely to shut out a crucial factor in art
One of the six biggest studios in Hollywood, Warner Bros., recently announced a deal with Cinelytic, a startup in Los Angeles that uses algorithms and data to predict a film’s success before the film is made or even greenlit. Cinelytic’s technology uses variables like genre and specific performers to predict how much money a movie could make, based on how those variables typically perform in different markets. So if you want to gauge how a movie will ostensibly perform with Michael B. Jordan instead of Oscar Isaac in the starring role, you can do that. Just plug and play.
Warner Bros. and Cinelytic have claimed the technology will be used only in marketing and distribution decisions, or maybe to help executives figure out which projects to greenlight. They won’t, they say, let an algorithm govern the decision-making process entirely; humans will still be involved. But it’s difficult to believe this costly algorithm the studio has licensed won’t ultimately exert a significant amount of influence over which projects move forward and which ones don’t, regardless of whether the company plans for it to do so.
In his 2010 book You Are Not a Gadget, programmer and virtual-reality pioneer Jaron Lanier argues that our digital technologies have baked-in biases that run against the grain of what it means to be human. “When the developers of digital technologies design a program that requires you to interact with a computer as if it were a person, they ask you to accept in some corner of your brain that you might also be conceived of as a program,” Lanier writes. “When they design an internet service that is edited by a vast anonymous crowd, they are suggesting that a crowd of humans is an organism with a legitimate point of view.”
In other words, the digital systems that we create and interact with tell us how to be human, then train us to be human in a way that aligns with their priorities. “Different media designs stimulate different potentials in human nature,” Lanier continues. “We shouldn’t seek to make the pack mentality as efficient as possible. We should instead seek to inspire the phenomenon of individual intelligence.”
The “phenomenon of individual intelligence” is as near a description of the genius of art-making as I’ve ever heard. Certainly, filmmaking is collaborative, and movies aren’t “individual” products (something even the most ardent supporter of auteur theory would admit). But they’re not the result of groupthink or a hive mind, because individual intelligences are at play in the collaboration. In a good film, creative, accomplished, and opinionated artists are able to leave their thumbprint, or a lot more, on the finished product.
In general, the more a movie seems created by consensus — as many big franchise flicks designed for maximum box-office earnings are — the less good it is. It’s designed to please many and challenge few, not for any philosophical reason but because that’s what makes a lot of money. The almighty buck rules.
Which is fine. Hollywood movies have always occupied the weird space between mass culture and rarefied art. They’re a young art form, barely over a century old, and designed to entertain as well as to interrogate, confront, and move the audience. They’re also really expensive to make, so they’ve got to bring in a lot of money to be successful.
And they’re still, on the whole, made by people who really love movies: directors and writers and actors and producers who eat and breathe and sleep cinema. Even bad or mediocre filmmakers get excited by interesting movies, films that bend their brains and make them see the world differently.
And how can a filmmaker create such movies? By being “visionary,” a quality that’s become a marketing cliché but is still meaningful. A visionary filmmaker sees something the rest of us don’t, then chases it down and puts it on screen. Visionary filmmakers are people like Martin Scorsese and Mati Diop and Bong Joon-ho and Marielle Heller and Christopher Nolan and Jordan Peele and Kelly Reichardt and Ryan Coogler and Lulu Wang and so many more. They change how we see the world by letting us see it through their eyes.
The trouble is that visionary directors sometimes make movies that don’t appeal to a wide audience or, for whatever reason, make a lot of money. And Hollywood studios want just the opposite: as big and loyal an audience as possible for every film they release. Most of the industry believes that the way to attract big, loyal audiences is to tell stories that viewers already know they’re interested in (because they liked the previous movie, or the book, or whatever), starring actors with whom they’re already familiar. Hollywood believes in the big swing — but not, in the end, in taking risks.
So the primary goal for the industry’s decision-makers is to mitigate risk as much as possible. And that’s why the partnership between Cinelytic and Warner Bros. makes sense — but it’s also why I’m worried it sets a troubling precedent for the future.
Algorithms will likely only reinforce the assumptions Hollywood already makes
Anyone who’s been alive in the last couple of decades knows that technology in general has a weird way of creeping into places where it didn’t previously exist. Twitter is a space to post random nonsense, but suddenly becomes an avenue for politicians to make official announcements and pronouncements. Your iPhone is just a thing for making calls and playing games, before suddenly it becomes the thing with which you manage your dating life (among countless other things). And what’s especially disturbing is that the data used by predictive technologies like the one Cinelytic is selling will almost certainly be skewed.
Why? Because algorithms that make predictions need data from the past on which to model those predictions. And in the case of the movies, the data they’ll be using is influenced by the biases of Hollywood executives, who have long hewn to a hopelessly outmoded set of beliefs about what people want to see (and, by extension, what they’ll pay for). These are the same groups of people who say they’re shocked when movies like Get Out and Black Panther do well in both North America and abroad, because they’ve long subscribed to the myth that “black films don’t travel.” Who are surprised when a film like Wonder Woman breaks records. Who continue to harbor bizarre ideas about women directors. And who have long made decisions based on those presumptions.
You could argue that technologies like those from Cinelytic — a handful of which have made their way into Hollywood’s decision-making process in recent years — may actually help counteract these outmoded ideas by spotting patterns that executives’ biases allow them to overlook. But the historic exclusion of people of color and women from filmmaking and lead roles, particularly in big-budget genres like action and franchise films, will make it tricky for algorithms to avoid simply reinforcing those old habits. And if it’s the computer that spits out biased, exclusionary results, nobody’s to blame, right?
But that’s not even the biggest issue. What’s most worrying to me is how these technologies are essentially designed to strip out some of the “visionary” from the filmmaking process in favor of “safe,” lucrative choices.
That’s a strategy the formerly innovative leader Disney has already shown itself more than eager to adopt of late, favoring safe nostalgia over daring creativity. And the studio has been richly rewarded for it. Seven of the 10 top-grossing movies in 2019, both domestic and worldwide, came from Disney; an eighth, Spider-Man: Far from Home, was a Disney co-production (by way of Marvel Studios).
Meanwhile, the movie industry has cautiously but increasingly edged into using machine learning and AI technologies, such as an analysis tool called ScriptBook that predicts how well a movie might perform based on its screenplay (in contrast to Cinelytic’s analysis of genre plus potential stars). Those technologies are designed to influence decision-making. And in an industry that thrives on achieving the largest possible return on its investments, the kind of results they provide drives sameness rather than experimentation and discovery.
It’s easy to imagine a world in which studio executives, panicked over flagging ticket sales and mandates from corporate higher-ups, cede increasing territory to the algorithms, opting for the “guaranteed” moneymaker over the “visionary” risk.
But it’s the visionary risk-takers — the James Camerons and Jordan Peeles and Agnès Vardas and George Lucases and Jane Campions and Ava DuVernays and, yes, the Walt Disneys of the world — who have always driven change and altered the form. It’s the unexpected new faces and voices who light the world on fire. Because movies aren’t just commercial products. They’re art. They’re meant to challenge and inspire, which Hollywood frequently congratulates itself on doing even if the congratulations aren’t earned.
The shift toward algorithms is also reflected in Hollywood’s increasing foray into faking performance, slowly pushing the actor’s craft (and, in some cases, the animator’s) out of the picture. Consider the deepfake-style Lion King of 2019, or the strange case of an animated Will Smith in Gemini Man, which drew on old footage of Smith to create a kind of “digital mask” of his younger self that could be projected onto his current face. Or the presence of Carrie Fisher in the last two installments of the latest Star Wars trilogy, both of which were filmed after her death and used previously shot footage and some fancy CGI to revive the star.
In November 2019, it was announced that James Dean, who died in 1955, will be “resurrected” via CGI to play the leading role in a live-action Vietnam War movie called Finding Jack. “We searched high and low for the perfect character to portray the role of Rogan, which has some extreme complex character arcs, and after months of research, we decided on James Dean,” the movie’s co-director told the Hollywood Reporter, adding that Dean’s family views this “as his fourth movie, a movie he never got to make,” and that they “do not intend to let his fans down.”
Let that statement sink in for a moment: The movie’s creative team insists they couldn’t find a single living actor to play the part as well as a technologically reconstituted James Dean, or rather, a holographic version of the actor designed to their specifications.
Of course they could have found another actor. “Casting” Dean is a marketing stunt. But imagine a future — one actually depicted in the 2013 film The Congress — in which beloved actors (or their estates) eagerly (or reluctantly) license their images and voices to film studios. Actors wouldn’t even need to show up on set to appear in a movie; they’d effectively become cartoon characters, endlessly and infinitely digitally generated. Now imagine that those studios could use an algorithm to make decisions about whom to cast in one film or another, with the option to choose from a stable of licensed actors based on whoever is likely to bring in the most cash.
It’s an idea that might delight some people, but one I find rather grim. If such a scenario doesn’t bring about the death of cinema, it will, once and for all, create a rift between the art of making movies and the business of making movies. At present, you still need human animators and artists to create deepfake-style films, but eventually, technology will surely make it possible to remove humans from the process entirely.
And with companies like Netflix continually trying to reverse-engineer the kinds of films and TV shows — excuse me, content — that people want to see based on what they already like to see, the ability to rapidly (and relatively cheaply) churn out that content without having to pay too many people to do it is absolutely on the horizon. One can easily imagine a streaming service, in the not-too-far-off future, that allows viewers to plop down on the couch, select a few variables, and generate a movie on the fly. Want a PG-13 72-minute action-comedy starring Reese Witherspoon and Adam Sandler, set in Paris with, say, a liberal bent? Click, click, click. You got it.
So what?
But who cares, right? It’s just movies.
I’m professionally obligated to care, but even if I weren’t, I’d still find these possibilities disturbing. And I hope others will too. Because in a world where we can fully control our own experience with art, the echo chambers we often find ourselves in — what media theorist Thomas de Zengotita refers to as realities that “flatter” us because they shield us from anything that might disturb or discomfit or surprise us — are only going to get more soundproof.
For better or worse, movies and TV shows are still a place where we can find common ground. Just go listen to any conversation at a party that has inevitably turned to what people have been watching. Movies and TV shows are also where we bump into people who think and act and believe and look different from us, a key reason why more risk-taking, not less, is a great thing for both the art form of cinema and the people who watch it.
But technologies that encourage the creation of entertainment via algorithm, based on what we already prefer, are caving to the black mirror’s worst tendencies. Because let’s face it: Many of us tend to opt for comfort over challenge. Many of us tend to watch the same TV shows over and over, or stick to the same safe movies, unless someone tells us we’ve got to see this new, strange thing that’s just come out. Word of mouth (and good advertising and reviews) is what drives a movie like Get Out or Parasite or Knives Out to become a hit and keeps filmmakers engaged and studios on their toes. But a lot of people wouldn’t have gone to see those movies if others didn’t insist they step outside their comfort zone.
The great danger in letting the algorithms decide what belongs on our TV and movie screens is that we’ll only ever see ourselves reflected in them — or, even worse, only the subset of ourselves that’s always been favored by Hollywood. Which tends to result in predominantly white guys telling predominantly white guy stories, most of which have been told many times before, in a visual style that’s designed for maximum legibility and at a pace dictated by the desire to ensure that the audience never gets bored, even if it’s boredom with a purpose.
The issue isn’t that there won’t be any financial, creative, or existential incentive for filmmakers to take risks; it’s that the risk-takers will, more often than not, be crowded out by what’s already been proven to work. In an algorithm-driven world, it’ll be much, much more difficult for A Hidden Life or Roma or Moonlight or Do The Right Thing to succeed. There’ll be little incentive for audiences to try something new, to see a movie that doesn’t reinforce the biases of the majority, to be enthralled or flabbergasted by someone else’s imagination. We’ll get stuck in a feedback loop of our own creation, and we might forget what it was like to be radically affected by a movie.
I could argue we’re already seeing this feedback loop in action, though there are still studio flicks, and a host of indie and mid-budget films, out there that are full of life. But in an industry that’s shown over and over again how risk-averse it is, the future, I fear, is a dark place where the movies, like our FaceTuned faces, meld into a single, cyborgian retread lacking the guts to be art.
I have no solution, other than to repeat that if money is king at the movies, we’ve got to be brave now. We’ve got to watch films we’re not sure we’ll like and share them with others. It’s almost too simple. We’ve got to vote with our credit cards, a little at a time, and keep insisting we deserve more than warm milk designed to lull us into market-driven complacency, pre-chewed meals served on white bread.


vox--2020-01-29--Top Democrat: Bolton urged me to look into Trump’s ouster of Yovanovitch

A top Democratic Congress member just added another wrinkle to the ongoing Senate debate over whether to allow witnesses to testify in the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump .
And one witness in particular : former National Security Adviser John Bolton .
House Foreign Affairs Committee Chair Eliot Engel ( D-NY ) made a stunning disclosure on Wednesday : “ President Trump is wrong that John Bolton didn ’ t say anything about the Trump-Ukraine Scandal at the time the President fired him .
He said something to me.
” According to Engel , during a private phone conversation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was fired , Bolton told him — “ unprompted ” — that the House Foreign Affairs Committee should look into the ouster of US Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch .
“ He strongly implied that something improper had occurred around her removal as our top diplomat in Kyiv , ” Engel said in his statement .
At that point , the House had already begun its inquiry into Trump ’ s dealings with Ukraine , which encompassed the right-wing smear campaign against Yovanovitch .
Engel was responding Wednesday to a Trump tweet in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ assertions in his forthcoming book that Trump told him directly that he had held up aid to Ukraine in exchange for investigations into the Bidens .
“ Why didn ’ t John Bolton complain about this ‘ nonsense ’ a long time ago , when he was very publicly terminated .
He said , not that it matters , NOTHING !
” Trump tweeted .
Engel said he ’ d declined to make public his conversation with Bolton at the time , but he did share details with his House counterparts leading the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It was one of the reasons we wished to hear from Ambassador Bolton , under oath , in a formal setting , ” Engel said .
Bolton does seem to know a lot about this Ukraine affair By now it ’ s clear that John Bolton has a lot to say relating to the Ukraine scandal , which is why the Senate is torn over whether to summon him as a witness in the impeachment trial .
The New York Times on Sunday reported on parts of an unpublished draft of Bolton ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the White House , based on descriptions from multiple people familiar with the contents of the manuscript .
According to the Times , Bolton writes in his book that Trump told him directly that he was holding up millions in aid to Ukraine until officials agreed to investigate the Bidens .
This revelation renewed the push to call the former national security adviser to testify in the impeachment trial , something senators will vote on this week .
The Yovanovitch saga is a bit of a sidebar to the larger impeachment case that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ assistance and a White House meeting in exchange for Ukraine ’ s promise to investigate his Democratic political rivals .
Those events occurred after Yovanovitch left Ukraine , as she was recalled by the Trump administration in April 2019 .
A career foreign service official , Yovanovitch had been the ambassador to Ukraine since August 2016 and was seen as a strong anti-corruption advocate .
But she came under pressure from Trump ’ s allies , specifically former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani , who allegedly saw her as an obstacle in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Bidens , as she objected to their attempts to work outside the proper channels .
The ambassador ultimately fell victim to a nasty smear campaign , which falsely accused her of , among other things , blocking Trump ’ s Ukraine policy and furnishing a “ do not prosecute ” list to Ukrainian prosecutors .
These fabrications were disseminated widely in right-wing circles , and they culminated in her abrupt departure from Kyiv in April .
Trump also referenced Yovanovitch on the July 25 call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky , calling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ last week , a recording from 2018 leaked on which Lev Parnas , Giuliani ’ s now-indicted former fixer , can purportedly be heard encouraging Trump to fire Yovanovitch .
“ Get rid of her !
... Get her out tomorrow .
Take her out .
Okay ?
Do it , ” Trump responds on the recording .
( Parnas also provided documents to House investigators that include disturbing messages alluding to the possibility that Yovanovitch was under surveillance . )
House managers have tried to frame Yovanovitch as collateral in Trump ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Ukraine .
But Engel ’ s revelation — and Bolton ’ s apparent concern that something sketchy had gone down — might strengthen the case to wary senators that they have no choice but to agree to hear from witnesses , Bolton chief among them .
Or maybe not .

A top Democratic Congress member just added another wrinkle to the ongoing Senate debate over whether to allow witnesses to testify in the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump.
And one witness in particular: former National Security Adviser John Bolton.
House Foreign Affairs Committee Chair Eliot Engel (D-NY) made a stunning disclosure on Wednesday: “President Trump is wrong that John Bolton didn’t say anything about the Trump-Ukraine Scandal at the time the President fired him. He said something to me.”
According to Engel, during a private phone conversation in late September, shortly after Bolton was fired, Bolton told him — “unprompted” — that the House Foreign Affairs Committee should look into the ouster of US Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch.
“He strongly implied that something improper had occurred around her removal as our top diplomat in Kyiv,” Engel said in his statement.
At that point, the House had already begun its inquiry into Trump’s dealings with Ukraine, which encompassed the right-wing smear campaign against Yovanovitch.
Engel was responding Wednesday to a Trump tweet in which the president questioned Bolton’s assertions in his forthcoming book that Trump told him directly that he had held up aid to Ukraine in exchange for investigations into the Bidens.
“Why didn’t John Bolton complain about this ‘nonsense’ a long time ago, when he was very publicly terminated. He said, not that it matters, NOTHING!” Trump tweeted.
Engel said he’d declined to make public his conversation with Bolton at the time, but he did share details with his House counterparts leading the investigation into the Ukraine scandal.
“It was one of the reasons we wished to hear from Ambassador Bolton, under oath, in a formal setting,” Engel said.
Bolton does seem to know a lot about this Ukraine affair
By now it’s clear that John Bolton has a lot to say relating to the Ukraine scandal, which is why the Senate is torn over whether to summon him as a witness in the impeachment trial.
The New York Times on Sunday reported on parts of an unpublished draft of Bolton’s forthcoming book about his time in the White House, based on descriptions from multiple people familiar with the contents of the manuscript.
According to the Times, Bolton writes in his book that Trump told him directly that he was holding up millions in aid to Ukraine until officials agreed to investigate the Bidens.
This revelation renewed the push to call the former national security adviser to testify in the impeachment trial, something senators will vote on this week.
The Yovanovitch saga is a bit of a sidebar to the larger impeachment case that Trump abused his power by withholding security assistance and a White House meeting in exchange for Ukraine’s promise to investigate his Democratic political rivals.
Those events occurred after Yovanovitch left Ukraine, as she was recalled by the Trump administration in April 2019. A career foreign service official, Yovanovitch had been the ambassador to Ukraine since August 2016 and was seen as a strong anti-corruption advocate.
But she came under pressure from Trump’s allies, specifically former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who allegedly saw her as an obstacle in getting Ukrainian officials to open investigations into the Bidens, as she objected to their attempts to work outside the proper channels.
The ambassador ultimately fell victim to a nasty smear campaign, which falsely accused her of, among other things, blocking Trump’s Ukraine policy and furnishing a “do not prosecute” list to Ukrainian prosecutors. These fabrications were disseminated widely in right-wing circles, and they culminated in her abrupt departure from Kyiv in April.
Trump also referenced Yovanovitch on the July 25 call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, calling her “bad news.” And just last week, a recording from 2018 leaked on which Lev Parnas, Giuliani’s now-indicted former fixer, can purportedly be heard encouraging Trump to fire Yovanovitch.
“Get rid of her! ... Get her out tomorrow. Take her out. Okay? Do it,” Trump responds on the recording. (Parnas also provided documents to House investigators that include disturbing messages alluding to the possibility that Yovanovitch was under surveillance.)
House managers have tried to frame Yovanovitch as collateral in Trump’s scheme to advance his personal interests in Ukraine. But Engel’s revelation — and Bolton’s apparent concern that something sketchy had gone down — might strengthen the case to wary senators that they have no choice but to agree to hear from witnesses, Bolton chief among them.
Or maybe not.