DOCSLIB.ORG

Potential Responses to the Threat of 'Fake News' in a Digitalised Media

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Potential Responses to the Threat of 'Fake News' in a Digitalised Media Potential responses to the threat of ‘fake news’ in a digitalised media environment Jack Edmond A dissertation in partial fulfilment of the degree of Bachelor of Laws (with Honours) at the University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand October 2018 1 Acknowledgements To my supervisor Professor Paul Roth, thank you for your help and patience throughout the year. To Professor Colin Gavaghan for your insight and feedback. To my flatmates for their friendship and support, particularly Raffie, Jonny and Zac for putting up with diss chat all year. Finally, I would like to say thank you to my parents, I wouldn’t be where I am today without your love and support. 2 Table of Contents Part 1: ............................................................................................................................ 5 I. Introduction: ................................................................................................................... 5 II. A background to ‘fake news’ ............................................................................................ 7 A. A history of fake news ............................................................................................................7 B. The current digital climate .....................................................................................................8 C. The threat ‘fake news’ poses to democracy ....................................................................... 10 D. Does ‘fake news’ actually pose a threat to democracy?..................................................... 11 E. An overview ......................................................................................................................... 12 III. Defining ‘fake news’ ....................................................................................................... 13 A. The need to define ‘fake news’ ........................................................................................... 13 B. The proposed definition ...................................................................................................... 13 C. The proposed definition explained ..................................................................................... 14 D. Conclusion ........................................................................................................................... 15 Part 2 .............................................................................................................................16 I. Legislative action in other jurisdictions ........................................................................... 16 A. France’s law against ‘fake news’ ......................................................................................... 16 B. Criticism of the law .............................................................................................................. 17 C. Applicability to New Zealand............................................................................................... 18 D. Germany’s law against ‘fake news’ ..................................................................................... 19 E. The Network Enforcement Act ............................................................................................ 19 F. Criticism of the law .............................................................................................................. 19 G. Applicability to New Zealand............................................................................................... 20 II. New legislation based on the Harmful Digital Communications Act ................................. 21 A. Arguments in favour of using the HDCA as a framework for alternative legislation .......... 21 B. Necessary departures from the Act .................................................................................... 22 C. A regulatory body to deal with complaints ......................................................................... 22 D. The penalty .......................................................................................................................... 23 E. The requirement of harm .................................................................................................... 23 F. The civil remedies ................................................................................................................ 24 G. Arguments against using the HDCA as a framework for legislative change: ...................... 24 H. Conclusion ........................................................................................................................... 25 III. Reform to Electoral law .................................................................................................. 26 A. Electoral law in New Zealand .............................................................................................. 26 B. Principles of electoral law ................................................................................................... 26 C. Potential for reform ............................................................................................................ 27 D. Arguments in favour of reform ........................................................................................... 28 E. Arguments against reform .................................................................................................. 29 F. Winston Peters v Electoral Commission ............................................................................. 29 G. Conclusion: .......................................................................................................................... 30 IV. Advertising regulation ................................................................................................ 31 A. The current regulatory framework ..................................................................................... 31 B. The United Kingdom’s response ......................................................................................... 31 C. A three-pronged test to identify ‘fake news’ ...................................................................... 32 D. Voluntary action from digital platforms.............................................................................. 33 E. The Digital Trading Standards Group .................................................................................. 33 3 F. The positive role advertising plays in society ...................................................................... 34 G. Conclusion: .......................................................................................................................... 34 V. Data Protection.............................................................................................................. 35 A. The GDPR ............................................................................................................................. 35 B. Argument for similar regulation in New Zealand ................................................................ 36 C. Conclusion: .......................................................................................................................... 37 VI. Non-legal responses to ‘fake news’............................................................................. 38 A. Education ............................................................................................................................. 38 B. A voluntary response from digital platforms ...................................................................... 38 C. Fact-checking websites ....................................................................................................... 39 D. Conclusion: .......................................................................................................................... 40 VII. Conclusion: ................................................................................................................ 41 Bibliography ...................................................................................................................42 4 Part 1: I. Introduction: The Oxford Dictionary word of the year for 2016 was “post-truth”, which was fitting in a year where ‘fake news’ stories were ubiquitous.1 For example, a Buzzfeed report observed that false election-related stories were viewed more on Facebook than election stories generated by generally trusted media such as the New York Times.2 The emergence of the internet has effectively removed all barriers to enter the media market, creating what can be described as the “new media”. The “new media” has had significant societal consequences, both positive and negative. In theory, the increase in media plurality that has accompanied the ‘new media’ should strengthen democracy, as people can vote with the knowledge required to make informed decisions. However, alongside facilitating the democratic process, the media has the potential to subvert it through unfair, selective, misleading, or completely false reporting.3 Inherent within the media is the power to undermine the democratic process, and cause serious reputational, emotional, and financial harm.4 The ‘new media’ has seen consumers transition from receiving their news through traditional means such as newspapers and broadcasting to social media, as suggested by one poll indicating that 62 per cent of United States adults receive their news from social media.5 Following the United States Election, ‘fake news’ has become a commonly
Load more

Recommended publications
  • If It's Broke, Fix It: Restoring Federal Government Ethics and Rule Of
    If it’s Broke, Fix it Restoring Federal Government Ethics and Rule of Law Edited by Norman Eisen The editor and authors of this report are deeply grateful to several indi- viduals who were indispensable in its research and production. Colby Galliher is a Project and Research Assistant in the Governance Studies program of the Brookings Institution. Maya Gros and Kate Tandberg both worked as Interns in the Governance Studies program at Brookings. All three of them conducted essential fact-checking and proofreading of the text, standardized the citations, and managed the report’s production by coordinating with the authors and editor. IF IT’S BROKE, FIX IT 1 Table of Contents Editor’s Note: A New Day Dawns ................................................................................. 3 By Norman Eisen Introduction ........................................................................................................ 7 President Trump’s Profiteering .................................................................................. 10 By Virginia Canter Conflicts of Interest ............................................................................................... 12 By Walter Shaub Mandatory Divestitures ...................................................................................... 12 Blind-Managed Accounts .................................................................................... 12 Notification of Divestitures .................................................................................. 13 Discretionary Trusts
    [Show full text]
  • IN the SENATE of the UNITED STATES Sitting As a Court of Impeachment in Re IMPEACHMENT of PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP TRIAL MEMORA
    IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Sitting as a Court of Impeachment In re IMPEACHMENT OF PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP TRIAL MEMORANDUM OF THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES IN THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL OF PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP United States House of Representatives Adam B. Schiff Jerrold Nadler Zoe Lofgren Hakeem S. Jeffries Val Butler Demings Jason Crow Sylvia R. Garcia U.S. House of Representatives Managers TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................... 1 BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................................................. 9 I. CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS FOR PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT .................................................... 9 II. THE HOUSE’S IMPEACHMENT OF PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP AND PRESENTATION OF THIS MATTER TO THE SENATE .............................................................................................................. 12 ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................................................... 16 I. THE SENATE SHOULD CONVICT PRESIDENT TRUMP OF ABUSE OF POWER .................................. 16 A. President Trump Exercised His Official Power to Pressure Ukraine into Aiding His Reelection ...................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Be Afraid. Be a Little Afraid: the Threat of Terrorism from Western Foreign Fighters in Syria and Iraq Daniel Byman Jeremy Shapiro
    Be Afraid. Be A Little Afraid: The Threat of Terrorism from Western Foreign Fighters in Syria and Iraq DANIEL BYMAN JEREMY SHAPIRO Foreign Policy at BROOKINGS POLICY PAPER Number 34, November 2014 Acknowledgements This report is in large part the distillation and orga- expert and relatively gentle criticisms which both nization of other people’s observations and wisdom. improved the paper and maintained our fragile egos The authors relied heavily on interviews with experts (for the most part). and government officials in Denmark, France, Ger- many, the Netherlands, Turkey, the United King- Finally, we would like to thank our Brookings col- dom, and the United States to understand these leagues: Martin Indyk, for supporting the work issues. These people were extraordinarily generous through the Director’s Strategic Initiative Fund; Ta- with their time and with their insights. Most of mara Cofman Wittes and Fiona Hill for providing them asked not to be identified, either for reasons stimulating and smiling places within Brookings of modesty, professional survival, or simply because to work; Bruce Jones for shepherding us through they are embarrassed to know us. This report is, we the review process and providing sage advice; and hope, a small testimony to their enormous collective Rangano Makamure, Maggie Humenay, and Ben wisdom and dedication to the safety and security of Cahen for their financial acumen. Special thanks go their respective countries. to Stephanie Dahle for her expert editing and for reminding us to thank everyone. Finally, our greatest We would particularly like to thank Marc Hecker, debt is to Jennifer Williams. Her research assistance, Shiraz Maher, Peter Neumann, Magnus Ranstorp, her formidable skills as an editor, and her astonish- and Floris Vermeulen.
    [Show full text]
  • Russian Strategic Intentions
    APPROVED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE Russian Strategic Intentions A Strategic Multilayer Assessment (SMA) White Paper May 2019 Contributing Authors: Dr. John Arquilla (Naval Postgraduate School), Ms. Anna Borshchevskaya (The Washington Institute for Near East Policy), Dr. Belinda Bragg (NSI, Inc.), Mr. Pavel Devyatkin (The Arctic Institute), MAJ Adam Dyet (U.S. Army, J5-Policy USCENTCOM), Dr. R. Evan Ellis (U.S. Army War College Strategic Studies Institute), Mr. Daniel J. Flynn (Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI)), Dr. Daniel Goure (Lexington Institute), Ms. Abigail C. Kamp (National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START)), Dr. Roger Kangas (National Defense University), Dr. Mark N. Katz (George Mason University, Schar School of Policy and Government), Dr. Barnett S. Koven (National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START)), Dr. Jeremy W. Lamoreaux (Brigham Young University- Idaho), Dr. Marlene Laruelle (George Washington University), Dr. Christopher Marsh (Special Operations Research Association), Dr. Robert Person (United States Military Academy, West Point), Mr. Roman “Comrade” Pyatkov (HAF/A3K CHECKMATE), Dr. John Schindler (The Locarno Group), Ms. Malin Severin (UK Ministry of Defence Development, Concepts and Doctrine Centre (DCDC)), Dr. Thomas Sherlock (United States Military Academy, West Point), Dr. Joseph Siegle (Africa Center for Strategic Studies, National Defense University), Dr. Robert Spalding III (U.S. Air Force), Dr. Richard Weitz (Center for Political-Military Analysis at the Hudson Institute), Mr. Jason Werchan (USEUCOM Strategy Division & Russia Strategic Initiative (RSI)) Prefaces Provided By: RDML Jeffrey J. Czerewko (Joint Staff, J39), Mr. Jason Werchan (USEUCOM Strategy Division & Russia Strategic Initiative (RSI)) Editor: Ms.
    [Show full text]
  • Geoengineering: Parts I, Ii, and Iii
    GEOENGINEERING: PARTS I, II, AND III HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION AND SECOND SESSION NOVEMBER 5, 2009 FEBRUARY 4, 2010 and MARCH 18, 2010 Serial No. 111–62 Serial No. 111–75 and Serial No. 111–88 Printed for the use of the Committee on Science and Technology ( GEOENGINEERING: PARTS I, II, AND III GEOENGINEERING: PARTS I, II, AND III HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION AND SECOND SESSION NOVEMBER 5, 2009 FEBRUARY 4, 2010 and MARCH 18, 2010 Serial No. 111–62 Serial No. 111–75 and Serial No. 111–88 Printed for the use of the Committee on Science and Technology ( Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 53–007PDF WASHINGTON : 2010 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001 COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY HON. BART GORDON, Tennessee, Chair JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois RALPH M. HALL, Texas EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER JR., LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California Wisconsin DAVID WU, Oregon LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas BRIAN BAIRD, Washington DANA ROHRABACHER, California BRAD MILLER, North Carolina ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio W.
    [Show full text]
  • Book Review of Donald Trump V. the United States: Inside the Struggle to Stop a President by Michael S Schmidt - the Washington Post 8/31/20, 917 PM
    Book review of Donald Trump v. The United States: Inside the Struggle to Stop a President by Michael S Schmidt - The Washington Post 8/31/20, 917 PM Democracy Dies in Darkness White House insiders’ failure to rein in Trump’s tilt toward chaos and lawlessness By Jeremi Suri Jeremi Suri is a professor of history and public affairs at the University of Texas at Austin. His most recent book is “The Impossible Presidency: The Rise and Fall of America’s Highest Office.” He hosts a weekly podcast, “This Is Democracy.” August 31, 2020 at 7:00 a.m. CDT When President Trump cries out for “law and order,” as he often does, he is neither describing his behavior nor his aspirations. Just the opposite. During his nearly four years in the White House, he has done more than any previous president to promote lawlessness and chaos across the country and abroad. As a Washington correspondent for the New York Times, Michael S. Schmidt has closely covered the lawlessness and chaos. His book, “Donald Trump v. the United States: Inside the Struggle to Stop a President,” provides an urgent explanation of how it imperils the constitutional limits on presidential power. For many years before Trump’s unlikely rise to the presidency, dishonesty and greed pervaded his family and its closest confidants. When he entered the White House, however, Trump was surrounded by a group of government professionals who sincerely embodied a culture of law and order. The “deep state,” as Trump derisively calls it, is populated by men and women who care deeply about public service, integrity, and yes, law and order.
    [Show full text]
  • Disinformation and Propaganda – Impact on the Functioning of the Rule of Law in the EU and Its Member States
    STUDY Requested by the LIBE committee Disinformation and propaganda – impact on the functioning of the rule of law in the EU and its Member States Policy Department for Citizens' Rights and Constitutional Affairs Directorate General for Internal Policies of the Union PE 608.864 - February 2019 EN Disinformation and propaganda – impact on the functioning of the rule of law in the EU and its Member States STUDY Abstract This study, commissioned by the European Parliament’s Policy Department for Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs and requested by the European Parliament’s Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, assesses the impact of disinformation and strategic political propaganda disseminated through online social media sites. It examines effects on the functioning of the rule of law, democracy and fundamental rights in the EU and its Member States. The study formulates recommendations on how to tackle this threat to human rights, democracy and the rule of law. It specifically addresses the role of social media platform providers in this regard. ABOUT THE PUBLICATION This research paper was requested by the European Parliament's Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) and was commissioned, overseen and published by the Policy Department for Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs. Policy Departments provide independent expertise, both in-house and externally, to support European Parliament committees and other parliamentary bodies in shaping legislation and exercising democratic scrutiny
    [Show full text]
  • Law and Order As the Foundational Paradox of the Trump Presidency
    Stanford Law Review Online Volume 73 June 2021 SYMPOSIUM ESSAY Law and Order as the Foundational Paradox of the Trump Presidency Trevor George Gardner* Abstract. This Essay scrutinizes the feuding between the Trump White House and various federal law enforcement agencies, concurrent with criminal lawbreaking in the Trump Administration, in an effort to extend scholarly understanding of the relationship between law-and-order politics and popular regard for rule-of-law principles. Sociolegal scholars have long argued that the politics advanced under the banner of “law and order” reduces the whole of the criminal–legal order to minority violent crime. In doing so, these politics stoke white racial anxieties regarding one or more racial minority groups. But under the Trump regime, law-and-order politics exhibited an additional benefit to its purveyors: obfuscation of the threat to the criminal– legal order posed by the very purveyors of these politics. This is to say that the criminal offending of the Trump campaign and Administration would likely have been more politically damaging to the Administration had much of the public not been fixated on Trump’s allegation of a rising tide of minority violent crime. Moreover, this same reductive logic has badly damaged the political standing of Black Lives Matter. It has often reduced the Black Lives Matter organization—effectively, a rule-of-law campaign targeting extra-legal police violence—to the limited instances of violent crime found at the margins of Black Lives Matter protest activity. * Professor of Law, Washington University in St. Louis School of Law. This Essay was written for the 2021 Policing, Race, and Power Symposium hosted by the Stanford Law Review and the Stanford Black Law Students Association, and for the cross-journal Reckoning and Reformation Symposium.
    [Show full text]
  • Illicit Networks and National Security in the Age of Globalization, That Delves Deeply Into Everything Mentioned Above and More
    Edited by Michael Miklaucic and Jacqueline Brewer With a Foreword by Admiral James G. Stavridis, USN Published for the Center for Complex Operations Institute for National Strategic Studies By National Defense University Press Washington, D.C. 2013 Opinions, conclusions, and recommendations expressed or implied within are solely those of the contributors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Defense Department or any other agency of the Federal Government. Cleared for public release; distribution unlimited. Portions of this book may be quoted or reprinted without permission, provided that a standard source credit line is included. NDU Press would appreciate a courtesy copy of reprints or reviews. First printing, April 2013 NDU Press publications are sold by the U.S. Government Printing Office. For ordering information, call (202) 512–1800 or write to the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402. For GPO publications on-line, access its Web site at: http://www.access. gpo.gov/su_docs/sale.html. For current publications of the Institute for National Strategic Studies, consult the National Defense University Web site at: http://www.ndu.edu. Contents Foreword vii James G. Stavridis Acknowledgments xi Introduction xiii Michael Miklaucic and Jacqueline Brewer Part I. A Clear and Present Danger Chapter 1 3 Deviant Globalization Nils Gilman, Jesse Goldhammer, and Steven Weber Chapter 2 15 Lawlessness and Disorder: An Emerging Paradigm for the 21st Century Phil Williams Chapter 3 37 Can We Estimate the Global Scale and Impact of Illicit Trade? Justin Picard Part II. Complex Illicit Operations Chapter 4 63 The Illicit Supply Chain Duncan Deville Chapter 5 75 Fixers, Super Fixers, and Shadow Facilitators: How Networks Connect Douglas Farah Chapter 6 97 The Geography of Badness: Mapping the Hubs of the Illicit Global Economy Patrick Radden Keefe Chapter 7 111 Threat Finance: A Critical Enabler for Illicit Networks Danielle Camner Lindholm and Celina B.
    [Show full text]
  • The Transcript Available to You and to the Department for Review Prior to Its Publication
    1 COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, D.C. INTERVIEW OF: DON MCGAHN Friday, June 4, 2021 Washington, D.C. The interview in the above matter was held in Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, commencing at 10:05 a.m. 2 Present: Representatives Nadler, Jackson Lee, Johnson of Georgia, Raskin, Scanlon, Dean, Jordan, and Gaetz. Staff Present: Perry Apelbaum, Staff Director and Chief Counsel; Aaron Hiller, Deputy Chief Counsel; Arya Hariharan, Chief Oversight Counsel; Sarah Istel, Oversight Counsel; Priyanka Mara, Professional Staff Member; Cierra Fontenot, Chief Clerk; Kayla Hamedi, Deputy Press Secretary; Will Emmons, Professional Staff Member; Anthony Valdez, Professional Staff Member; Steve Castor, Minority General Counsel; James Lesinski, Minority Counsel; Betsy Ferguson, Minority Senior Counsel; Caroline Nabity, Minority Counsel; Michael Koren, Minority Senior Professional Staff; Darius Namazi, Minority Research Assistant; and Isabela Belchior, Legislative Director for Representative Matt Gaetz. 3 Appearances: For DON MCGAHN: ALLISON MCGUIRE WILLIAM A. BURCK QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 1300 I Street NW Suite 900 Washington, D.C. 20005 For the DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE: ELIZABETH SHAPIRO, COUNSEL For the OFFICE OF THE FORMER PRESIDENT TRUMP: SCOTT GAST 4 Mr. Hiller. All right. We'll go on the record. Good morning. I'm Aaron Hiller, deputy chief counsel for the House Judiciary Committee, and I have the honor of kicking things off today. This is a transcribed interview of former White House counsel, Donald F. McGahn. Would the witness please state his name and formal position at the White House for the record? Mr. McGahn. I'm Donald McGahn. I was the counsel to the President.
    [Show full text]
  • Local Newspapers: an Unfilled Void
    THE RISE OF A NEW MEDIA BARON AND THE EMERGING THREAT OF NEWS DESERTS By Penelope Muse Abernathy, Knight Chair in Journalism and Digital Media Economics The Center for Innovation and Sustainability in Local Media School of Media and Journalism University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill © 2016 Center for Innovation and Sustainability in Local Media, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill All rights reserved ISBN 978-1-4696-3402-9 (pbk.: alk. paper) ISBN 978-1-4696-3403-6 (ebook) Distributed by the University of North Carolina Press 116 South Boundary Street Chapel Hill, NC 27514-3808 www.uncpress.org CONTENTS Preface ..................................................................5 Executive Summary ......................................................6 A Dramatically Changed Landscape .......................................9 Fewer Newspapers ...................................................11 Fewer Readers .......................................................13 Fewer Owners .......................................................14 The Rise of a New Media Baron ..........................................17 How the New Media Baron is Different .................................19 The Largest 25 Companies in 2004 .....................................21 2008 and a Tectonic Shift for the Industry ..............................24 The Largest 25 in 2014 ...............................................26 How the New Media Barons Grew .....................................28 The Profile of a New Type of Owner ...................................29
    [Show full text]
  • The Comey Rule
    THE COMEY RULE A two-part mini-series Night Two Teleplay by Billy Ray CBS Studios CBS All-Access The Story Factory Secret Hideout Producers - Shane Salerno, Alex Kurtzman Final Post-Production Draft - May, 2020 The Green Room - Night Two PROD.WHITE (Oct 3, 2019) 1 FADE IN... on a WASHINGTON POST. Trump has won. We are: 1 INT. COMEY HOME - KITCHEN - DAWN (2016) 1 Three plates of uneaten breakfast. Patrice stunned. SUPER: “Nov. 9, 2016” Abby stares lifelessly at her laptop: a PHONY NEWS ARTICLE on a FACEBOOK PAGE -- “Thousands of MASSACHUSETTS voters cast ballots illegally for Hillary in New Hampshire.” Red-eyed from crying, Abby deletes it. Clicks on: “James Comey Might Be The Most Hated Man In America.” DELETE. She clicks on something else, which simply reads “FUCK JAMES COMEY.” Then she shuts her lap-top. We CUT TO: 2 INT. COMEY HOME - GYM - SAME 2 Comey is on a CYCLING MACHINE, sweat-soaked, his face a mask. No tv. We RETURN TO: 3 INT. COMEY HOME - DEN - SAME 3 Patrice, Abby, and (now) Claire sit - all in shock. CLAIRE He won. The guy from “The Apprentice” is now President. CNN begins a story about COMEY’S IMPACT ON THE ELECTION. The girls tighten. Patrice changes the channel, as-- 4 INT. COMEY HOME - GYM - SAME 4 Comey, cycling, out of breath. 5 INT. COMEY HOME - DEN - RESUMING 5 Patrice, Abby, Claire, and (now) KATE COMEY watch the tv, which has now been muted. That same pall hanging... ABBY Maybe Ivanka will tell him what to do. Everyone says she cares about the environment.
    [Show full text]