TO COMMENT CLICK HERE
Worthless Media
WELCOME TO WORTHLESS MEDIA WHERE THE FAILURE OF REAL JOURNALISM IS
EXPOSED
June 16, 2019
“The media serve, and propagandize on behalf of, the powerful societal interests that control and finance them. The representatives of these interests have important agendas and principles that they want to advance, and they are well positioned to shape and constrain media policy.”
–Chomsky
Media lo-lites
(source: politicus usa, raw story, alternet, newshounds)
*Fox panel explodes as guest insists Trump can’t be impeached for obstruction because temper tantrums aren’t illegal
*‘Deeply stupid’ Fox News analyst Brit Hume gets pounded for comparing ex-Trump aide Carter Page to MLK
Open Letter to the MSM
Nancegreggs - demo underground
6/16/19
Watch any political news show these days and you’ll inevitably hear the same question asked:What are the Democrats doing about Trump?
It would seem obvious that the real question should be: What are the Republicans doing about Trump?
The Democrats didn’t put this Idiot in the White House – Republicans did. They nominated him, elected him, and continue to support him. It’s the Republicans who controlled the House, the Senate, and the “presidency” for two years – so how is it the Democrats’ fault that The Dotard is still where he is? Why is it somehow the failure of the Democrats that a Russian-colluding traitor is distancing us from our allies while praising our enemies?
Why is it the responsibility of the Democrats to stop the insanity of the madman in the Oval Office, while the Republicans support his every lie, his every inane statement, his every attempt to undermine the agencies that keep our country safe from the very people who their “pResident” is determined to align himself with.
I’ve heard it dozens of times now: Why aren’t the Democrats coming up with a way to humanely house immigrant children in cages? Again, shouldn’t the question be: Why are there children in cages in the first place?We all know who put them there – and it wasn’t the Democrats. Why are Republicans let off the hook for their inhumane policies, while Democrats are excoriated for not undoing the damage that Republicans continue to do?
I’m tired of hearing how the Democrats are spineless. It isn’t the Democrats who sat in silence while a Republican “pResident” stood on the world’s stage and declared that Putin’s “word for it” should be taken above the factual findings of our own intelligence community. It isn’t the Democrats who have – consistently and repeatedly – supported the undermining of our most precious freedoms, like a free press, the right to vote, and the safeguards that ensure that every vote is counted – and NOT interfered with or influenced by our enemies.
If anyone has been spineless, it is the Republicans, who – two-plus years into this disastrous “pResidency” – have yet to stand up to the democracy-destroying, brainless bigot they placed in the highest office in the land. Where is the spine of the party that has remained silent while the institutions that underpin our democracy have been demeaned by their “pResident”, who dismisses their efforts to keep our nation secure while instead kow-towing to ruthless dictators who send him “beautiful letters”?
This is not to say that Democrats are above reproach, or above criticism. But when you play the ”What are you doing about Trump?” card, you might think about dealing that card to the players who invited him to the table to begin with. You might want to ask them why they insisted that a known con-man be allowed to join the game.
I am fed up with watching this scenario played out – not on FOX-News (where this bullshit is to be expected), but on networks that hold themselves out as representing serious journalism. There is nothing ‘serious’ about asking the Democrats why they haven’t cleaned-up the shit this “pResident” has smeared all over the Constitution and the rule of law. Serious journalists would be asking the Republicans why they ever allowed their rabid dog to shit on those things in the first instance, and why they continue to enable him to do so, instead of asking Democrats why they have failed to rid us of the stench.
Let’s get this much straight. The Republicans have held the power to curb their mutt all along. They had the power to rein him in, the power to withhold their support of his idiotic ideas, the power to render him powerless if he refused to conduct himself in accordance with the Constitution and the law – and yet they have consistently refused to do so.
So let’s stop this pretense of being fair-and-balanced by asking Democrats what they are going to do about Trump. Ask the Republicans what they’re going to do about their out-of-control, snarling attack dog – because in case you haven’t noticed, they’re ones who have been holding the leash all along.
It would seem obvious that the real question should be: What are the Republicans doing about Trump?
The Democrats didn’t put this Idiot in the White House – Republicans did. They nominated him, elected him, and continue to support him. It’s the Republicans who controlled the House, the Senate, and the “presidency” for two years – so how is it the Democrats’ fault that The Dotard is still where he is? Why is it somehow the failure of the Democrats that a Russian-colluding traitor is distancing us from our allies while praising our enemies?
Why is it the responsibility of the Democrats to stop the insanity of the madman in the Oval Office, while the Republicans support his every lie, his every inane statement, his every attempt to undermine the agencies that keep our country safe from the very people who their “pResident” is determined to align himself with.
I’ve heard it dozens of times now: Why aren’t the Democrats coming up with a way to humanely house immigrant children in cages? Again, shouldn’t the question be: Why are there children in cages in the first place?We all know who put them there – and it wasn’t the Democrats. Why are Republicans let off the hook for their inhumane policies, while Democrats are excoriated for not undoing the damage that Republicans continue to do?
I’m tired of hearing how the Democrats are spineless. It isn’t the Democrats who sat in silence while a Republican “pResident” stood on the world’s stage and declared that Putin’s “word for it” should be taken above the factual findings of our own intelligence community. It isn’t the Democrats who have – consistently and repeatedly – supported the undermining of our most precious freedoms, like a free press, the right to vote, and the safeguards that ensure that every vote is counted – and NOT interfered with or influenced by our enemies.
If anyone has been spineless, it is the Republicans, who – two-plus years into this disastrous “pResidency” – have yet to stand up to the democracy-destroying, brainless bigot they placed in the highest office in the land. Where is the spine of the party that has remained silent while the institutions that underpin our democracy have been demeaned by their “pResident”, who dismisses their efforts to keep our nation secure while instead kow-towing to ruthless dictators who send him “beautiful letters”?
This is not to say that Democrats are above reproach, or above criticism. But when you play the ”What are you doing about Trump?” card, you might think about dealing that card to the players who invited him to the table to begin with. You might want to ask them why they insisted that a known con-man be allowed to join the game.
I am fed up with watching this scenario played out – not on FOX-News (where this bullshit is to be expected), but on networks that hold themselves out as representing serious journalism. There is nothing ‘serious’ about asking the Democrats why they haven’t cleaned-up the shit this “pResident” has smeared all over the Constitution and the rule of law. Serious journalists would be asking the Republicans why they ever allowed their rabid dog to shit on those things in the first instance, and why they continue to enable him to do so, instead of asking Democrats why they have failed to rid us of the stench.
Let’s get this much straight. The Republicans have held the power to curb their mutt all along. They had the power to rein him in, the power to withhold their support of his idiotic ideas, the power to render him powerless if he refused to conduct himself in accordance with the Constitution and the law – and yet they have consistently refused to do so.
So let’s stop this pretense of being fair-and-balanced by asking Democrats what they are going to do about Trump. Ask the Republicans what they’re going to do about their out-of-control, snarling attack dog – because in case you haven’t noticed, they’re ones who have been holding the leash all along.
IN COURT, FACEBOOK BLAMES USERS FOR DESTROYING THEIR OWN RIGHT TO PRIVACY
Sam Biddle - The Intercept
June 14 2019, 8:50 a.m
IN APRIL 2018, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg sat before members of both houses of Congress and told them his company respected the privacy of the roughly two billion people who use it. “Privacy” remained largely undefined throughout Zuckerberg’s televised flagellations, but he mentioned the concept more than two dozen times, including when he told the Senate’s Judiciary and Commerce committees, “We have a broader responsibility to protect people’s privacy even beyond” a consent decree from federal privacy regulators, and when he told the House Energy and Commerce Committee, “We believe that everyone around the world deserves good privacy controls.” A year later, Zuckerberg claimed in interviews and essays to have discovered the religion of personal privacy and vowed to rebuild the company in its image.
But only months after Zuckerberg first outlined his “privacy-focused vision for social networking” in a 3,000-word post on the social network he founded, his lawyers were explaining to a California judge that privacy on Facebook is nonexistent.
The courtroom debate, first reported by Law360, took place as Facebook tried to scuttle litigation from users upset that their personal data was shared without their knowledge with the consultancy Cambridge Analytica and later with advisers to Donald Trump’s campaign. The full transcript of the proceedings — which has been quoted from only briefly — reveal one of the most stunning examples of corporate doublespeak certainly in Facebook’s history.
Representing Facebook before U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria was Orin Snyder of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, who claimed that the plaintiffs’ charges of privacy invasion were invalid because Facebook users have no expectation of privacy on Facebook. The simple act of using Facebook, Snyder claimed, negated any user’s expectation of privacy:
There is no privacy interest, because by sharing with a hundred friends on a social media platform, which is an affirmative social act to publish, to disclose, to share ostensibly private information with a hundred people, you have just, under centuries of common law, under the judgment of Congress, under the SCA, negated any reasonable expectation of privacy.
An outside party can’t violate what you yourself destroyed, Snyder seemed to suggest. Snyder was emphatic in his description of Facebook as a sort of privacy anti-matter, going so far as to claim that “the social act of broadcasting your private information to 100 people negates, as a matter of law, any reasonable expectation of privacy.” You’d be hard-pressed to come up with a more elegant, concise description of Facebook than “the social act of broadcasting your private information” to people. So not only is it Facebook’s legal position that you’re not entitled to any expectation of privacy, but it’s your fault that the expectation went poof the moment you started using the site (or at least once you connected with 100 Facebook “friends”).
Judge Chhabria was skeptical of Snyder’s privacy nonexistence argument at times, which he rejected as treating personal privacy as a binary, “like either you have a full expectation of privacy, or you have no expectation of privacy at all,” the judge put it at one point. Chhabria continued with a relatable hypothetical:
If I share [information] with ten people, that doesn’t eliminate my expectation of privacy. It might diminish it, but it doesn’t eliminate it. And if I share something with ten people on the understanding that the entity that is helping me share it will not further disseminate it to a thousand companies, I don’t understand why I don’t have — why that’s not a violation of my expectation of privacy.
Snyder responded with an incredible metaphor for how Facebook sees your use of its services — legally, at least:
Let me give you a hypothetical of my own. I go into a classroom and invite a hundred friends. This courtroom. I invite a hundred friends, I rent out the courtroom, and I have a party. And I disclose — And I disclose something private about myself to a hundred people, friends and colleagues. Those friends then rent out a 100,000-person arena, and they rebroadcast those to 100,000 people. I have no cause of action because by going to a hundred people and saying my private truths, I have negated any reasonable expectation of privacy, because the case law is clear.
And there it is, in broad daylight: Using Facebook is a depressing party taking place in a courtroom, for some reason, that’s being simultaneously broadcasted to a 100,000-person arena on a sort of time delay. If you show up at the party, don’t be mad when your photo winds up on the Jumbotron. That is literally the company’s legal position.
Again and again, Snyder blames the targets of surveillance capitalism for their own surveillance:
This is why every parent says to their child, “Do not post it on Facebook if you don’t want to read about it tomorrow morning in the school newspaper,” or, as I tell my young associates if I were going to be giving them an orientation, “Do not put anything on social media that you don’t want to read in the Law Journal in the morning.” There is no expectation of privacy when you go on a social media platform, the purpose of which, when you are set to friends, is to share and communicate things with a large group of people, a hundred people.
At one point Chhabria asked, seemingly unable to believe Snyder’s argument himself, “If Facebook promises not to disseminate anything that you send to your hundred friends, and Facebook breaks that promise and disseminates your photographs to a thousand corporations, that would not be a serious privacy invasion?
Snyder didn’t blink: “Facebook does not consider that to be actionable, as a matter of law under California law.”
Facebook’s counsel did seem to concede one possibility for the existence of privacy on Facebook: someone who uses Facebook completely contrary to the way it’s designed and to the way it has always been marketed. “If you really want to be private,” Snyder proposed to the court, “there are people who have archival Facebook pages that are like their own private mausoleum. It’s only set to [be visible by] me, and it’s for the purpose of repository, you know, of your private information, and no one will ever see that.” So these are your possible valid legal statuses as a Facebook user: You’re either plugged into the 100,0000-person perpetual surveillance Coachella or living in a digital “mausoleum.” But if you ever decide to fling open the doors of your private data crypt and, say, share a little content on Facebook with friends, as the company has been pushing us for the past 13 years, Snyder says you’re out of luck:
Once you go to friends, the gig is over because you’ve just gone — taken a hundred people and pronounced your personal likes and dislikes. In fact, the very act of liking something and showing your friends that you like something is a non-private act. It’s the whole premise of Facebook and social media, is to render not private your likes, your dislikes, your expressions. When I tag someone in a photo, it’s to tell people, not keep private, that I’m sitting on a park bench with John Smith. So it’s the opposite of private when you do that.
Facebook’s stance that if one truly wants to keep something private, they should keep it far from Facebook is odd — odder, still, given the fact that the company publishes an extremely detailed privacy policy, perhaps only meant for those huddling in private mausoleums where such a principle still exists.
“Facebook was built to bring people closer together,” reads the start of the company’s “Privacy Principles.” “We help you connect with friends and family, discover local events and find groups to join.”
Not mentioned is that if you do any of that, it’s Facebook’s official opinion that you’ve “negated” your claim to any privacy whatsoever. The list of principles reads like a bad joke after studying Snyder’s courtroom theorizing: “We design privacy into our products from the outset” seems hard to reconcile with “Once you go to friends, the gig is over.” It’s similarly hard to take “We give you control of your privacy” seriously after hearing, through Snyder, that because Facebook users “shared the information … you’ve lost control over the information and its subsequent disclosure.”
So which is true, then? Are we to believe Orin Snyder when he says Facebook privacy is an oxymoron and that showing something to even a small group of friends completely forfeits your right to privacy, or Mark Zuckerberg when, this past March, he wrote, “We’ve worked hard to build privacy into all our products, including those for public sharing.” These statements can’t both be true, and yet they appear to originate from the same company, albeit from two separate sides of its mouth. Perhaps Snyder is right when he tells the judge that the litigation isn’t really about just Facebook, but rather, the “Complaint is really a Complaint about ubiquitous sharing on social media platforms. … They don’t like it because when you go on a social media platform and share your information with a hundred people, you’ve lost control. And that creates anxiety, and that creates concern.” It will be interesting to watch Facebook confront this public dread in multiple ways at once, as if originating in completely different dimensions, apologizing for their misdeeds in media tours while denying any wrongdoing in the relative privacy of court.
Neither Facebook nor Orin Snyder responded to a request for comment. Plaintiff’s counsel declined to comment.
But only months after Zuckerberg first outlined his “privacy-focused vision for social networking” in a 3,000-word post on the social network he founded, his lawyers were explaining to a California judge that privacy on Facebook is nonexistent.
The courtroom debate, first reported by Law360, took place as Facebook tried to scuttle litigation from users upset that their personal data was shared without their knowledge with the consultancy Cambridge Analytica and later with advisers to Donald Trump’s campaign. The full transcript of the proceedings — which has been quoted from only briefly — reveal one of the most stunning examples of corporate doublespeak certainly in Facebook’s history.
Representing Facebook before U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria was Orin Snyder of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, who claimed that the plaintiffs’ charges of privacy invasion were invalid because Facebook users have no expectation of privacy on Facebook. The simple act of using Facebook, Snyder claimed, negated any user’s expectation of privacy:
There is no privacy interest, because by sharing with a hundred friends on a social media platform, which is an affirmative social act to publish, to disclose, to share ostensibly private information with a hundred people, you have just, under centuries of common law, under the judgment of Congress, under the SCA, negated any reasonable expectation of privacy.
An outside party can’t violate what you yourself destroyed, Snyder seemed to suggest. Snyder was emphatic in his description of Facebook as a sort of privacy anti-matter, going so far as to claim that “the social act of broadcasting your private information to 100 people negates, as a matter of law, any reasonable expectation of privacy.” You’d be hard-pressed to come up with a more elegant, concise description of Facebook than “the social act of broadcasting your private information” to people. So not only is it Facebook’s legal position that you’re not entitled to any expectation of privacy, but it’s your fault that the expectation went poof the moment you started using the site (or at least once you connected with 100 Facebook “friends”).
Judge Chhabria was skeptical of Snyder’s privacy nonexistence argument at times, which he rejected as treating personal privacy as a binary, “like either you have a full expectation of privacy, or you have no expectation of privacy at all,” the judge put it at one point. Chhabria continued with a relatable hypothetical:
If I share [information] with ten people, that doesn’t eliminate my expectation of privacy. It might diminish it, but it doesn’t eliminate it. And if I share something with ten people on the understanding that the entity that is helping me share it will not further disseminate it to a thousand companies, I don’t understand why I don’t have — why that’s not a violation of my expectation of privacy.
Snyder responded with an incredible metaphor for how Facebook sees your use of its services — legally, at least:
Let me give you a hypothetical of my own. I go into a classroom and invite a hundred friends. This courtroom. I invite a hundred friends, I rent out the courtroom, and I have a party. And I disclose — And I disclose something private about myself to a hundred people, friends and colleagues. Those friends then rent out a 100,000-person arena, and they rebroadcast those to 100,000 people. I have no cause of action because by going to a hundred people and saying my private truths, I have negated any reasonable expectation of privacy, because the case law is clear.
And there it is, in broad daylight: Using Facebook is a depressing party taking place in a courtroom, for some reason, that’s being simultaneously broadcasted to a 100,000-person arena on a sort of time delay. If you show up at the party, don’t be mad when your photo winds up on the Jumbotron. That is literally the company’s legal position.
Again and again, Snyder blames the targets of surveillance capitalism for their own surveillance:
This is why every parent says to their child, “Do not post it on Facebook if you don’t want to read about it tomorrow morning in the school newspaper,” or, as I tell my young associates if I were going to be giving them an orientation, “Do not put anything on social media that you don’t want to read in the Law Journal in the morning.” There is no expectation of privacy when you go on a social media platform, the purpose of which, when you are set to friends, is to share and communicate things with a large group of people, a hundred people.
At one point Chhabria asked, seemingly unable to believe Snyder’s argument himself, “If Facebook promises not to disseminate anything that you send to your hundred friends, and Facebook breaks that promise and disseminates your photographs to a thousand corporations, that would not be a serious privacy invasion?
Snyder didn’t blink: “Facebook does not consider that to be actionable, as a matter of law under California law.”
Facebook’s counsel did seem to concede one possibility for the existence of privacy on Facebook: someone who uses Facebook completely contrary to the way it’s designed and to the way it has always been marketed. “If you really want to be private,” Snyder proposed to the court, “there are people who have archival Facebook pages that are like their own private mausoleum. It’s only set to [be visible by] me, and it’s for the purpose of repository, you know, of your private information, and no one will ever see that.” So these are your possible valid legal statuses as a Facebook user: You’re either plugged into the 100,0000-person perpetual surveillance Coachella or living in a digital “mausoleum.” But if you ever decide to fling open the doors of your private data crypt and, say, share a little content on Facebook with friends, as the company has been pushing us for the past 13 years, Snyder says you’re out of luck:
Once you go to friends, the gig is over because you’ve just gone — taken a hundred people and pronounced your personal likes and dislikes. In fact, the very act of liking something and showing your friends that you like something is a non-private act. It’s the whole premise of Facebook and social media, is to render not private your likes, your dislikes, your expressions. When I tag someone in a photo, it’s to tell people, not keep private, that I’m sitting on a park bench with John Smith. So it’s the opposite of private when you do that.
Facebook’s stance that if one truly wants to keep something private, they should keep it far from Facebook is odd — odder, still, given the fact that the company publishes an extremely detailed privacy policy, perhaps only meant for those huddling in private mausoleums where such a principle still exists.
“Facebook was built to bring people closer together,” reads the start of the company’s “Privacy Principles.” “We help you connect with friends and family, discover local events and find groups to join.”
Not mentioned is that if you do any of that, it’s Facebook’s official opinion that you’ve “negated” your claim to any privacy whatsoever. The list of principles reads like a bad joke after studying Snyder’s courtroom theorizing: “We design privacy into our products from the outset” seems hard to reconcile with “Once you go to friends, the gig is over.” It’s similarly hard to take “We give you control of your privacy” seriously after hearing, through Snyder, that because Facebook users “shared the information … you’ve lost control over the information and its subsequent disclosure.”
So which is true, then? Are we to believe Orin Snyder when he says Facebook privacy is an oxymoron and that showing something to even a small group of friends completely forfeits your right to privacy, or Mark Zuckerberg when, this past March, he wrote, “We’ve worked hard to build privacy into all our products, including those for public sharing.” These statements can’t both be true, and yet they appear to originate from the same company, albeit from two separate sides of its mouth. Perhaps Snyder is right when he tells the judge that the litigation isn’t really about just Facebook, but rather, the “Complaint is really a Complaint about ubiquitous sharing on social media platforms. … They don’t like it because when you go on a social media platform and share your information with a hundred people, you’ve lost control. And that creates anxiety, and that creates concern.” It will be interesting to watch Facebook confront this public dread in multiple ways at once, as if originating in completely different dimensions, apologizing for their misdeeds in media tours while denying any wrongdoing in the relative privacy of court.
Neither Facebook nor Orin Snyder responded to a request for comment. Plaintiff’s counsel declined to comment.
Fox News Stars Begin Pushing Rumors About Joe Biden’s Health
Baseless claims about Biden’s medical fitness have quietly taken hold on Fox. At a time when TV news stars make similar claims about Trump and Clinton, this may be the new normal.
Justin Baragona - Daily Beast
Published 06.10.19 5:12AM ET
One month after Joe Biden announced his run for president, several Fox News stars have already begun quietly pushing rumors that the 76-year-old ex-veep is in poor health.
Since the end of May, Fox Business Network and Fox News star Lisa “Kennedy” Montgomery and Fox News prime-time host Sean Hannity have speculated on-air, on at least four separate occasions, that the current Democratic presidential frontrunner is secretly dealing with health issues, often comparing his condition to illness-related conspiracy theories the network pushed about Hillary Clinton during the 2016 election.
The Biden rumor-mongering seemingly began May 29, during the broadcast of Fox News’ afternoon gabfest The Five. While assessing Biden’s candidacy, Kennedy claimed to know Democratic operatives engaged in a whisper campaign about Biden’s health.
“He is much more like Hillary Clinton, because if you talk to Democrats, who are working for different campaigns, all of the aggressive gossip whisperers—and this is where the action is happening in terms of opposition research—it’s people having a few drinks at a bar and whispering, ‘You know there is something wrong with the former vice president,’” she claimed. “But that’s what they are actively doing right now. And it is surprising because they are concerned with taking Biden down and getting their candidate out there.”
Co-host Jesse Watters, an avid Trump booster, pressed Kennedy to elaborate. “Don’t do it,” co-host Greg Gutfeld joked to Kennedy, acknowledging the danger in openly speculating about Biden being sick.
The innuendo seemed to go over the head of Watters, however, as he took it upon himself to explain “the gossip” about Biden as involving his support from black voters. Gutfeld laughed, remarking: “I don’t think that’s what Kennedy meant.”
“I was thinking more along the lines of Hillary Clinton having a lumpy overcoat in 85-degree weather,” Kennedy explained, invoking a popular 2016 right-wing conspiracy theory fixated on a photo of Clinton wearing a wool jacket with a lump on the back while campaigning in warm weather.
“He looks healthy to me,” Watters—surprisingly—replied.
In the news business, it is considered irresponsible to spread baseless, potentially damaging rumors about public figures. Even Fox News briefly suspended Judge Andrew Napolitano in early 2017 after he made the unfounded claim on-air that British officials helped President Obama spy on the Trump campaign. Beyond news personalities, the American Medical Association considers it wholly unethical for physicians to speculate on public officials’ health without having personally examined them.
Nevertheless, early last week, while hosting her eponymous Fox Business Network show, Kennedy suggested Biden’s campaign staff may want to keep him “off a main stage” because he says “stupid things and he slurs,” adding that Biden “does look very tired.”
The following evening on her program, Kennedy went even further, once again invoking the conspiracy theory about Clinton’s overcoat to suggest Biden could be viewed as being in poor health.
“I think that it is a good move on Bernie’s part comparing Joe Biden to Hillary,” she said about Sanders saying that, in possibly picking Biden, Democrats might make “the same mistake” they did in nominating Clinton in 2016.
Sanders was referring specifically to how, in his estimation, there was and is a lack of energy and enthusiasm around both “establishment” candidates. And yet Kennedy suggested the comparison was health-related. “The more damage that [comparison] does, you go, ‘You know we haven’t seen Joe a lot, maybe he has hidden health issues, is always wearing an overcoat.’”
That same evening, during his top-rated prime-time Fox News show, Hannity—who regularly echoes Trump in calling the former vice president “Sleepy Joe”—also referenced Clinton to speculate about Biden’s health.
“Joe Biden’s tired,” he declared. “He does not have the energy for this. He’s not up for this challenge. They’re already hiding him like they hid Hillary. They don’t want him out there.”
In a statement to The Daily Beast, the Biden campaign’s national press secretary, TJ Ducklo, said “These are baseless lies meant to stoke fear in their viewers. It has no place in our public discourse, and anyone amplifying it bears some responsibility for giving it legitimacy it most certainly does not deserve.”
But this not the first time cable-news stars have made similar unverified insinuations about a candidate.
In the summer of 2016, Fox News devoted copious amounts of airtime to conspiracy theories about Hillary Clinton’s medical state. For an entire week in August, Hannity hosted segments in which he and a slew of guests analyzed out-of-context photos and videos while referencing Clinton’s 2012 concussion to claim the Democratic nominee was battling chronic illnesses, maladies, seizures, and critical neurological conditions. It didn’t take long for the Trump campaign to echo the claims.
At the time, even Newt Gingrich noted the recklessness in baselessly speculating about public figures’ health issues, calling it “junk medicine.” Additionally, he fretted: “Next you’re gonna get a left-wing psychiatrist explaining Donald Trump in negative terms."
And now since taking office, Trump himself has occasionally been the butt of such illness-related speculation.
CNN senior media correspondent Brian Stelter faced criticism when he wondered aloud in 2017 why more journalists don’t ask “uncomfortable questions” about the president’s mental state. “His actions have been described as unpresidential, unhinged, and sometimes even crazy,” Stelter said. “That word crazy can be interpreted several different ways. It gets said more in private than on TV.” And Stelter has been far from alone at CNN when it comes to questioning the president’s mental fitness.
MSNBC hosts, too, have speculated on the president’s mental and physical fitness. For example, for more than a year now, Trump’s ex-pal-turned-nemesis Joe Scarborough has repeatedly claimed the president is dealing with neurocognitive disorders.
In November 2017, the Morning Joe host relayed that “people close to him during the campaign told me he had early stages of dementia.”
In recent weeks, Scarborough has resuscitated these rumors, insisting last monththat those who know Trump are worried that he has “pre-dementia” and is in “mental decline.”
Since the end of May, Fox Business Network and Fox News star Lisa “Kennedy” Montgomery and Fox News prime-time host Sean Hannity have speculated on-air, on at least four separate occasions, that the current Democratic presidential frontrunner is secretly dealing with health issues, often comparing his condition to illness-related conspiracy theories the network pushed about Hillary Clinton during the 2016 election.
The Biden rumor-mongering seemingly began May 29, during the broadcast of Fox News’ afternoon gabfest The Five. While assessing Biden’s candidacy, Kennedy claimed to know Democratic operatives engaged in a whisper campaign about Biden’s health.
“He is much more like Hillary Clinton, because if you talk to Democrats, who are working for different campaigns, all of the aggressive gossip whisperers—and this is where the action is happening in terms of opposition research—it’s people having a few drinks at a bar and whispering, ‘You know there is something wrong with the former vice president,’” she claimed. “But that’s what they are actively doing right now. And it is surprising because they are concerned with taking Biden down and getting their candidate out there.”
Co-host Jesse Watters, an avid Trump booster, pressed Kennedy to elaborate. “Don’t do it,” co-host Greg Gutfeld joked to Kennedy, acknowledging the danger in openly speculating about Biden being sick.
The innuendo seemed to go over the head of Watters, however, as he took it upon himself to explain “the gossip” about Biden as involving his support from black voters. Gutfeld laughed, remarking: “I don’t think that’s what Kennedy meant.”
“I was thinking more along the lines of Hillary Clinton having a lumpy overcoat in 85-degree weather,” Kennedy explained, invoking a popular 2016 right-wing conspiracy theory fixated on a photo of Clinton wearing a wool jacket with a lump on the back while campaigning in warm weather.
“He looks healthy to me,” Watters—surprisingly—replied.
In the news business, it is considered irresponsible to spread baseless, potentially damaging rumors about public figures. Even Fox News briefly suspended Judge Andrew Napolitano in early 2017 after he made the unfounded claim on-air that British officials helped President Obama spy on the Trump campaign. Beyond news personalities, the American Medical Association considers it wholly unethical for physicians to speculate on public officials’ health without having personally examined them.
Nevertheless, early last week, while hosting her eponymous Fox Business Network show, Kennedy suggested Biden’s campaign staff may want to keep him “off a main stage” because he says “stupid things and he slurs,” adding that Biden “does look very tired.”
The following evening on her program, Kennedy went even further, once again invoking the conspiracy theory about Clinton’s overcoat to suggest Biden could be viewed as being in poor health.
“I think that it is a good move on Bernie’s part comparing Joe Biden to Hillary,” she said about Sanders saying that, in possibly picking Biden, Democrats might make “the same mistake” they did in nominating Clinton in 2016.
Sanders was referring specifically to how, in his estimation, there was and is a lack of energy and enthusiasm around both “establishment” candidates. And yet Kennedy suggested the comparison was health-related. “The more damage that [comparison] does, you go, ‘You know we haven’t seen Joe a lot, maybe he has hidden health issues, is always wearing an overcoat.’”
That same evening, during his top-rated prime-time Fox News show, Hannity—who regularly echoes Trump in calling the former vice president “Sleepy Joe”—also referenced Clinton to speculate about Biden’s health.
“Joe Biden’s tired,” he declared. “He does not have the energy for this. He’s not up for this challenge. They’re already hiding him like they hid Hillary. They don’t want him out there.”
In a statement to The Daily Beast, the Biden campaign’s national press secretary, TJ Ducklo, said “These are baseless lies meant to stoke fear in their viewers. It has no place in our public discourse, and anyone amplifying it bears some responsibility for giving it legitimacy it most certainly does not deserve.”
But this not the first time cable-news stars have made similar unverified insinuations about a candidate.
In the summer of 2016, Fox News devoted copious amounts of airtime to conspiracy theories about Hillary Clinton’s medical state. For an entire week in August, Hannity hosted segments in which he and a slew of guests analyzed out-of-context photos and videos while referencing Clinton’s 2012 concussion to claim the Democratic nominee was battling chronic illnesses, maladies, seizures, and critical neurological conditions. It didn’t take long for the Trump campaign to echo the claims.
At the time, even Newt Gingrich noted the recklessness in baselessly speculating about public figures’ health issues, calling it “junk medicine.” Additionally, he fretted: “Next you’re gonna get a left-wing psychiatrist explaining Donald Trump in negative terms."
And now since taking office, Trump himself has occasionally been the butt of such illness-related speculation.
CNN senior media correspondent Brian Stelter faced criticism when he wondered aloud in 2017 why more journalists don’t ask “uncomfortable questions” about the president’s mental state. “His actions have been described as unpresidential, unhinged, and sometimes even crazy,” Stelter said. “That word crazy can be interpreted several different ways. It gets said more in private than on TV.” And Stelter has been far from alone at CNN when it comes to questioning the president’s mental fitness.
MSNBC hosts, too, have speculated on the president’s mental and physical fitness. For example, for more than a year now, Trump’s ex-pal-turned-nemesis Joe Scarborough has repeatedly claimed the president is dealing with neurocognitive disorders.
In November 2017, the Morning Joe host relayed that “people close to him during the campaign told me he had early stages of dementia.”
In recent weeks, Scarborough has resuscitated these rumors, insisting last monththat those who know Trump are worried that he has “pre-dementia” and is in “mental decline.”
Trump wanted his cut of the scam!!!
Trump booster taken off Fox News after he angered the president: report
June 3, 2019
By Travis Gettys_ Raw Story
Fox News has banished an employee from the airwaves after he angered President Donald Trump.
David Bossie, the head of the conservative Citizens United activist group and former Trump deputy campaign manager, had regularly appeared on Fox News until the network stopped booking him to appease the president, reported The Daily Beast.
Trump was infuriated by reports that Bossie had raised millions by aligning with the president but spending very little of those funds on political activity.
Three sources told The Daily Beast that Fox News kept Bossie off the air because its opinion programming is designed not to anger the president, who is a regular viewer and frequent booster.
Trump’s campaign sent out an official statement denouncing Bossie’s activity, and Fox News and Fox Business employees raised ethical concerns about the fundraising.
A Fox News source made clear they had no evidence the White House or the Trump campaign had formally requested Bossie be taken off the air, but this person was told Trump’s allies at the network felt it was best to keep him from appearing on TV until the president had cooled off.
A Daily Beast analysis found Bossie had not appeared on Fox News or Fox Business since April 30, just before the reports surfaced about his fundraising.
He had appeared at least twice a week during that same month, and his opinion columns had appeared about once a week on FoxNews.com — until May 1, when his last column was published there.
A Fox News spokeswoman denied the sources’ claims as “not accurate,” but declined to be more specific, and Bossie declined to comment.
Bossie was suspended last year for two weeks for telling a black Democratic strategist on-air, “You’re out of your cotton-picking mind!”
David Bossie, the head of the conservative Citizens United activist group and former Trump deputy campaign manager, had regularly appeared on Fox News until the network stopped booking him to appease the president, reported The Daily Beast.
Trump was infuriated by reports that Bossie had raised millions by aligning with the president but spending very little of those funds on political activity.
Three sources told The Daily Beast that Fox News kept Bossie off the air because its opinion programming is designed not to anger the president, who is a regular viewer and frequent booster.
Trump’s campaign sent out an official statement denouncing Bossie’s activity, and Fox News and Fox Business employees raised ethical concerns about the fundraising.
A Fox News source made clear they had no evidence the White House or the Trump campaign had formally requested Bossie be taken off the air, but this person was told Trump’s allies at the network felt it was best to keep him from appearing on TV until the president had cooled off.
A Daily Beast analysis found Bossie had not appeared on Fox News or Fox Business since April 30, just before the reports surfaced about his fundraising.
He had appeared at least twice a week during that same month, and his opinion columns had appeared about once a week on FoxNews.com — until May 1, when his last column was published there.
A Fox News spokeswoman denied the sources’ claims as “not accurate,” but declined to be more specific, and Bossie declined to comment.
Bossie was suspended last year for two weeks for telling a black Democratic strategist on-air, “You’re out of your cotton-picking mind!”
Laura Ingraham loses sponsor over defense of white supremacist
The Fox News host called white supremacist Paul Nehlen and others "people who believe in national sovereignty."
JOSHUA EATON - Thinkprogress
JUN 1, 2019, 11:45 AM
Fox News host Laura Ingraham has lost a sponsor over her defense of a prominent white supremacist.
The “Ingraham Angle” host featured avowed white supremacist Paul Nehlen in a graphic of prominent conservatives who she said have been censored on social media during her Thursday night show. As the graphic went up, Ingraham criticized social-media companies, which she accused of censoring conservatives under the guise of combating hate speech.
“It’s people who believe in border enforcement, people who believe in national sovereignty,” Ingraham told far-right activist Candice Owens, who is black, as the graphic went up.
The photo-printing service Fracture was quick to respond, pulling its advertisement from Ingraham’s show. In a statement on its website, the company said it is reviewing its ad-buying policies to make sure they are in line with its values.
“Last night one of our ads aired during an episode of The Ingraham Angle during which Laura Ingraham expressed alarming views that run entirely counter to the values that we hold as a company,” the statement read. “We are taking this matter very seriously and as a result we are taking swift action.”
Ingraham did not apologize for the graphic or mention the controversy over it during her show Friday. But in a statement, Fox News denied that Ingraham was defending Nehlen and said “some of the names” in the graphic came from an Associated Press report on Facebook banning political extremists.
“Anyone who watches Laura’s show knows that she is a fierce protector of freedom of speech and the intent of the segment was to highlight the growing trend of unilateral censorship in America,” the statement read.
Nehlen is a member of the so-called “alt right” who made unsuccessful bids for the Republican U.S. House nomination in Wisconsin’s first district in 2016 and 2018. He was banned from Twitter in 2018 over a series of racist and anti-semitic tweets, including a meme that replaced the face of British royal Meghan Markle, who is biracial, with a prehistoric dark-skinned Britain dubbed “Cheddar Man.”
The tweets also won Nehlen a ban from the Wisconsin Republican Party and a round of censures from state Republican politicians, including his then-opponent, former House Speaker Paul Ryan, whose campaign called Nehlen “bigoted.”
Last April, Nehlen wore a T-shirt featuring Pittsburgh synagogue shooter Robert Bowers as he praised people whom he said “do what needs to be done, and that is to rid white lands of Jews.”
The graphic Ingraham showed also featured several other controversial figures. One, far-right provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos, has flirted with neo-Nazism and defended pedophilia with children as young as 13. Another, conspiracy-monger Alex Jones, has promoted theories that mass shootings are staged and accused “Democrats and communists” of plotting “white genocide.”
The controversy over the Nehlen graphic is not Ingraham’s first.
Last August, during a discussion of immigration, she said that “massive demographic changes have been foisted upon the American people … that none of us ever voted for, and most of us don’t like.” Many commentators saw that as a reference to the U.S. becoming less white, though Ingraham later denied she was talking about race or ethnicity.
Just four months earlier, a stampede of advertisers fled Ingraham’s show after she mocked Parkland shooting survivor and gun-safety advocate David Hogg on air.
The “Ingraham Angle” host featured avowed white supremacist Paul Nehlen in a graphic of prominent conservatives who she said have been censored on social media during her Thursday night show. As the graphic went up, Ingraham criticized social-media companies, which she accused of censoring conservatives under the guise of combating hate speech.
“It’s people who believe in border enforcement, people who believe in national sovereignty,” Ingraham told far-right activist Candice Owens, who is black, as the graphic went up.
The photo-printing service Fracture was quick to respond, pulling its advertisement from Ingraham’s show. In a statement on its website, the company said it is reviewing its ad-buying policies to make sure they are in line with its values.
“Last night one of our ads aired during an episode of The Ingraham Angle during which Laura Ingraham expressed alarming views that run entirely counter to the values that we hold as a company,” the statement read. “We are taking this matter very seriously and as a result we are taking swift action.”
Ingraham did not apologize for the graphic or mention the controversy over it during her show Friday. But in a statement, Fox News denied that Ingraham was defending Nehlen and said “some of the names” in the graphic came from an Associated Press report on Facebook banning political extremists.
“Anyone who watches Laura’s show knows that she is a fierce protector of freedom of speech and the intent of the segment was to highlight the growing trend of unilateral censorship in America,” the statement read.
Nehlen is a member of the so-called “alt right” who made unsuccessful bids for the Republican U.S. House nomination in Wisconsin’s first district in 2016 and 2018. He was banned from Twitter in 2018 over a series of racist and anti-semitic tweets, including a meme that replaced the face of British royal Meghan Markle, who is biracial, with a prehistoric dark-skinned Britain dubbed “Cheddar Man.”
The tweets also won Nehlen a ban from the Wisconsin Republican Party and a round of censures from state Republican politicians, including his then-opponent, former House Speaker Paul Ryan, whose campaign called Nehlen “bigoted.”
Last April, Nehlen wore a T-shirt featuring Pittsburgh synagogue shooter Robert Bowers as he praised people whom he said “do what needs to be done, and that is to rid white lands of Jews.”
The graphic Ingraham showed also featured several other controversial figures. One, far-right provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos, has flirted with neo-Nazism and defended pedophilia with children as young as 13. Another, conspiracy-monger Alex Jones, has promoted theories that mass shootings are staged and accused “Democrats and communists” of plotting “white genocide.”
The controversy over the Nehlen graphic is not Ingraham’s first.
Last August, during a discussion of immigration, she said that “massive demographic changes have been foisted upon the American people … that none of us ever voted for, and most of us don’t like.” Many commentators saw that as a reference to the U.S. becoming less white, though Ingraham later denied she was talking about race or ethnicity.
Just four months earlier, a stampede of advertisers fled Ingraham’s show after she mocked Parkland shooting survivor and gun-safety advocate David Hogg on air.
more proof that facebook epitomizes "worthless media"
Donald Trump’s campaign is using Facebook to scam his own supporters
By Sarah K. Burris - raw story
May 28, 2019
Facebook promised its billions of users that it would be better when it comes to fake news. One year later, Facebook seems to be turning against that promise.
Last week, President Donald Trump and his allies posted doctored videos of Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), which falls under Facebook’s category of “false or misleading news.” Facebook, however, said that it wouldn’t remove the video because so many people had posted it.
The Verge interviewed journalists Facebook hired to research and flatten “fake news” on their platforms. Sometimes it takes up to a few days to remove the “fake news.” As the adage goes: “A lie travels around the globe while the truth is putting on its shoes.” Such is the case with Facebook’s fake news problem.
In a Popular Information interview, Facebook admitted that although it hired 15,000 people around the world to stop the proliferation of false information on their platform, it is relying primarily on “automated tools” to pass political ads.
That is how Trump’s 2020 campaign manages to promote false or misleading information to their own campaign supporters. Tuesday, March 28, the Trump campaign began running dozens of adspromoting a contest for supporters where they can enter to win a free “Make America Great Again” hat that is signed by the president. The deadline was at midnight tonight.
It’s a clear violation of Facebook’s rules prohibiting “misleading or false content.” Facebook is likely making a lot of money off of the campaign from the Trump campaign, but it’s unknown if that is the motivation for refusing to enforce the rules others are forced to follow.
“Most of the time, coverage of Trump’s tactics on Facebook involves misleading the public about an important political issue,” Popular Information reported. “But this is a standard grift that seeks to manipulate people to extract email addresses and, ultimately, money.
The MAGA hat contest isn’t the only problem, however. Trump is also running ads saying Democrats want to repeal the Second Amendment, despite no Democrats suggesting a law to do so.
Interestingly, Trump and other conservatives have spent a lot of time playing the victim and saying that they are mistreated or censored by social media sites, including Facebook. This was one of the ways Russia was able to push so much false information on the platform in 2016. The company was fearful Republicans would complain if they censored the false information and the Russian ads promoting Trump, Mashable reported last year.
“This is why Trump spends a lot of time claiming that Facebook is biased against conservatives,” Popular Info stated. “Trump’s campaign can then violate the rules and, whatever happens, it helps him. If Facebook does nothing, the campaign gets to continue to run false ads. If Facebook acts, Trump claims that it is proof of bias, an issue that fires up his core supporters.”
It’s unclear if Facebook intends to enforce their rules on Republicans for the 2020 election or only suppress progressive content.
Last week, President Donald Trump and his allies posted doctored videos of Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), which falls under Facebook’s category of “false or misleading news.” Facebook, however, said that it wouldn’t remove the video because so many people had posted it.
The Verge interviewed journalists Facebook hired to research and flatten “fake news” on their platforms. Sometimes it takes up to a few days to remove the “fake news.” As the adage goes: “A lie travels around the globe while the truth is putting on its shoes.” Such is the case with Facebook’s fake news problem.
In a Popular Information interview, Facebook admitted that although it hired 15,000 people around the world to stop the proliferation of false information on their platform, it is relying primarily on “automated tools” to pass political ads.
That is how Trump’s 2020 campaign manages to promote false or misleading information to their own campaign supporters. Tuesday, March 28, the Trump campaign began running dozens of adspromoting a contest for supporters where they can enter to win a free “Make America Great Again” hat that is signed by the president. The deadline was at midnight tonight.
It’s a clear violation of Facebook’s rules prohibiting “misleading or false content.” Facebook is likely making a lot of money off of the campaign from the Trump campaign, but it’s unknown if that is the motivation for refusing to enforce the rules others are forced to follow.
“Most of the time, coverage of Trump’s tactics on Facebook involves misleading the public about an important political issue,” Popular Information reported. “But this is a standard grift that seeks to manipulate people to extract email addresses and, ultimately, money.
The MAGA hat contest isn’t the only problem, however. Trump is also running ads saying Democrats want to repeal the Second Amendment, despite no Democrats suggesting a law to do so.
Interestingly, Trump and other conservatives have spent a lot of time playing the victim and saying that they are mistreated or censored by social media sites, including Facebook. This was one of the ways Russia was able to push so much false information on the platform in 2016. The company was fearful Republicans would complain if they censored the false information and the Russian ads promoting Trump, Mashable reported last year.
“This is why Trump spends a lot of time claiming that Facebook is biased against conservatives,” Popular Info stated. “Trump’s campaign can then violate the rules and, whatever happens, it helps him. If Facebook does nothing, the campaign gets to continue to run false ads. If Facebook acts, Trump claims that it is proof of bias, an issue that fires up his core supporters.”
It’s unclear if Facebook intends to enforce their rules on Republicans for the 2020 election or only suppress progressive content.
Fox News celebrates new abortion bans in Missouri and Alabama by falsely claiming ‘voters want’ to ban abortion
David Badash, The New Civil Rights Movement - rawstory
16 MAY 2019 AT 09:07 ET
"Fox & Friends” host Ainsley Earhardt Thursday morning celebrated Alabama’s new law banning nearly all abortions, and the Missouri Senate’s overnight passage of a bill banning abortion at 8 weeks, both of which are unconstitutional.
Earhardt opened her segment by attacking “2020 Democrats pouncing on Alabama’s abortion bill,” which is actually now Alabama’s abortion law, and the just-passed Missouri bill. She “asks” her guest if these “signs that the pro-life movement is continuing to grow in our country?”
Her guest was anti-abortion activist Kathryn Glenn Foster, head of Americans United for Life.
What Earhardt did not do is offer a single fact about support for abortion in America.
She did offer some false facts, however, by asking her guest, “Why are the Democrats, why are the media, why are they hitting so hard against these states [passing abortion bans] when this is what the voters want?”
Here are a few quick stats.
According to Gallup, 56% of Americans are pro-choice, just 44% are anti-abortion.
That right there seems should cause Fox News to issue a retraction on Earhardt’s claim that “voters want” abortion bans.
But terms like “pro-choice” and so-called “pro-life” don’t do justice to what voters want.
48% of Americans say abortion is “morally wrong,” but just 20% say it should be illegal.
There’s more, too.
Only 18% of Americans say abortion should be illegal in all cases.
29% say legal under any circumstance, and 50% say only under certain circumstances.
As far as Earhardt and Foster’s claims that Americans are increasingly supportive of banning abortion, that too is false.
Gallup’s polling on abortion spans five decades, back to 1975.
Here’s what folks said back then, two years after Roe v. Wade was decided.
Abortion should be illegal in all circumstances: 22%.
Abortion should be legal under any circumstance: 21%.
Abortion should be legal only under certain circumstances: 54%.
Over the decades and years, all these numbers have remained astonishingly consistent, varying just a few percentage points up and down, year after year.
When Fox News says voters want these bans and when their guest says Americans are increasingly becoming “pro-life,” their words are inaccurate and incorrect. These numbers prove that.
Earhardt opened her segment by attacking “2020 Democrats pouncing on Alabama’s abortion bill,” which is actually now Alabama’s abortion law, and the just-passed Missouri bill. She “asks” her guest if these “signs that the pro-life movement is continuing to grow in our country?”
Her guest was anti-abortion activist Kathryn Glenn Foster, head of Americans United for Life.
What Earhardt did not do is offer a single fact about support for abortion in America.
She did offer some false facts, however, by asking her guest, “Why are the Democrats, why are the media, why are they hitting so hard against these states [passing abortion bans] when this is what the voters want?”
Here are a few quick stats.
According to Gallup, 56% of Americans are pro-choice, just 44% are anti-abortion.
That right there seems should cause Fox News to issue a retraction on Earhardt’s claim that “voters want” abortion bans.
But terms like “pro-choice” and so-called “pro-life” don’t do justice to what voters want.
48% of Americans say abortion is “morally wrong,” but just 20% say it should be illegal.
There’s more, too.
Only 18% of Americans say abortion should be illegal in all cases.
29% say legal under any circumstance, and 50% say only under certain circumstances.
As far as Earhardt and Foster’s claims that Americans are increasingly supportive of banning abortion, that too is false.
Gallup’s polling on abortion spans five decades, back to 1975.
Here’s what folks said back then, two years after Roe v. Wade was decided.
Abortion should be illegal in all circumstances: 22%.
Abortion should be legal under any circumstance: 21%.
Abortion should be legal only under certain circumstances: 54%.
Over the decades and years, all these numbers have remained astonishingly consistent, varying just a few percentage points up and down, year after year.
When Fox News says voters want these bans and when their guest says Americans are increasingly becoming “pro-life,” their words are inaccurate and incorrect. These numbers prove that.
Report Shows Fox News Lies Daily In Newscasts To Viewers
MON, MAY 13TH, 2019
BY JASON EASLEY - politicus usa
The myth that Fox has a news side and an opinion side was shattered a by a new report documenting the lies that Fox told to their viewers during their “news” segments of their programming.
Here is a smattering of some of the lies pushed as news by Fox anchors:
– Anchor Harris Faulkner claimed Democrats “have gotten” Mueller’s findings “through that four-page report from the AG.”
– Anchor Maria Bartiromo suggested that Democrats don’t support border security because they didn’t vote for three specific proposals
– Anchor Bill Hemmer said the Trump/Russia investigation began with “the original sin” of the “dirty dossier.”
– Chief national correspondent Ed Henry said, “House Democrats already seem to be, at least, encouraging illegal immigrants to vote” through voting and campaign finance reform bill HR 1.”
– Anchor Sandra Smith parroted a highly misleading claim that “Medicare for All” would cost $33 trillion in its first 10 years.
The supposed news side is telling the same lies to viewers that Sean Hannity is spewing at night. Fox is giving the lies news like presentation, but they are still partisan false statements that are designed to misinform and mislead viewers.
Fox’s news reporters were caught in leaked emails discussing how they could defend Trump against Joe Biden. There is no news side and opinion side separation. Propaganda, Trump supporting lies, and partisan misinformation are the backbone of Fox News. Fox could deliver news with conservative analysis, but that is not what the network chooses to do. They use the pretense of news to spread partisan misinformation and misinform the public.
Fox News has nothing to do with journalism and the news. One of the last remaining cover stories for Fox’s propaganda has been exposed, and no American who wants to be accurately informed should give Fox News one second of their time.
Here is a smattering of some of the lies pushed as news by Fox anchors:
– Anchor Harris Faulkner claimed Democrats “have gotten” Mueller’s findings “through that four-page report from the AG.”
– Anchor Maria Bartiromo suggested that Democrats don’t support border security because they didn’t vote for three specific proposals
– Anchor Bill Hemmer said the Trump/Russia investigation began with “the original sin” of the “dirty dossier.”
– Chief national correspondent Ed Henry said, “House Democrats already seem to be, at least, encouraging illegal immigrants to vote” through voting and campaign finance reform bill HR 1.”
– Anchor Sandra Smith parroted a highly misleading claim that “Medicare for All” would cost $33 trillion in its first 10 years.
The supposed news side is telling the same lies to viewers that Sean Hannity is spewing at night. Fox is giving the lies news like presentation, but they are still partisan false statements that are designed to misinform and mislead viewers.
Fox’s news reporters were caught in leaked emails discussing how they could defend Trump against Joe Biden. There is no news side and opinion side separation. Propaganda, Trump supporting lies, and partisan misinformation are the backbone of Fox News. Fox could deliver news with conservative analysis, but that is not what the network chooses to do. They use the pretense of news to spread partisan misinformation and misinform the public.
Fox News has nothing to do with journalism and the news. One of the last remaining cover stories for Fox’s propaganda has been exposed, and no American who wants to be accurately informed should give Fox News one second of their time.
Google has given $150,000 in free ads to deceptive anti-abortion group
Exclusive: Obria Group’s ads suggest it provides abortion services, when in fact it tries to persuade women not to terminate pregnancies
Stephanie Kirchgaessner in Washington and Jessica Glenza in New York
the guardian
Mon 13 May 2019 01.00 EDT
Google has given tens of thousands of dollars in free advertising to an anti-abortion group that runs ads suggesting it provides abortion services at its medical clinics, but actually seeks to deter “abortion-minded women” from terminating their pregnancies.
The Obria Group, which runs a network of clinics funded by Catholic organisations, received a $120,000 Google advertising grant in 2015, according to a public filing. In 2011, it received nearly $32,000. Such grants are designed to support and expand the reach of nonprofits around the world.
Obria was awarded the 2015 grant despite the fact Google had faced intense criticism a year earlier, after a pro-choice group found the platform was running deceptive ads for clinics that appeared to offer abortions and other medical services, but instead focused on counseling and information on alternatives to abortion.
In some cases, such clinics, known as crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs), are located close to Planned Parenthood clinics and provide some medical treatment, such as pregnancy tests, ultrasounds and prenatal counseling. But they also seek to deter women who enter from seeking abortions and do not offer referrals for alternative treatment.
Obria runs a network of clinics across the US, many of which suggest on their websites that they offer abortion. The clinics are actually opposed to abortion and all forms of contraception.
Obria’s use of Google grants underscores how Google has become a vital marketing tool for such organisations. A group called Choose Life Marketing, which helps CPCs market their services, encourages its clients to apply for Google grants.
The Guardian obtained a screenshot of an exchange in January in which a Choose Life Marketing employee sought assistance in an open online chatroom for not-for-profit organizations seeking assistance for Google ad grant applications. In the exchange, a Google employee explains that two centers’ websites were rejected because they were not secure, not because of their content. They were encouraged to re-apply.
Alice Huling, counsel for the Campaign for Accountability, a watchdog fighting a recent change in federal rules on what kinds of clinics can receive federal funds for healthcare services, said Google was usually the first resource for a woman with an unplanned pregnancy.
“Google should not allow CPCs to use its platform to serve misinformation to pregnant women,” she said. “Google’s business model is predicated on serving ads to customers, and the company is clearly uninterested in taking the steps necessary to crack down on misleading ads placed by CPCs.”
Google said it made ad grants available to “a diverse group that represents many different views and different causes” and both groups that provide abortions and those that are opposed to abortions are given grants.
Google would not comment on the Obria grant, but said all recipients have to comply with its policies. One such policy prohibits misrepresentation in ads as well as ads that “intend to deceive users by excluding relevant information or giving misleading information about products, services, or businesses”.
Google awarded the Obria grant as part of a program to support nonprofit organisations around the world with in-kind donations worth up to $10,000 a month.
It is not clear which precise ads were published through Obria’s grants, because the information is not public.
Obria did not return a request for comment.
The group recently faced scrutiny after it was awarded $1.7m in federal funds– known as Title X funding – meant to support healthcare providers that offer family planning services. Obria does not offer birth control, including condoms, in its clinics, offering “natural family planning” methods instead.
When the Guardian presented Google with a host of other examples of ads for clinics that appear to offer abortion services but do not, the company declined to comment, saying only that any ads that violated its policies would be taken down. Those ads were still available online several days later.
Google promised to address the issue in 2014. But the problem resurfaced in 2017, when the company was forced to remove more misleading ads. In 2018, Google was criticized for pointing women seeking abortions in Silicon Valley to CPCs through its maps service, while demoting results for Planned Parenthood clinics.
Google continues to feature ads for the clinics that appear to violate its policies. In one such case, an ad for a Texas clinic called the Grapevine Women’s Clinic pops up if a user does a local search for “abortion clinic”.
At first glance, the Grapevine clinic appears to offer abortion services: it emphasizes a woman’s choice, provides detailed information about the abortion pill and recommends that women call insurance providers to pay for their procedures. The clinic also says it provides “post abortive counseling”.
The Obria Group, which runs a network of clinics funded by Catholic organisations, received a $120,000 Google advertising grant in 2015, according to a public filing. In 2011, it received nearly $32,000. Such grants are designed to support and expand the reach of nonprofits around the world.
Obria was awarded the 2015 grant despite the fact Google had faced intense criticism a year earlier, after a pro-choice group found the platform was running deceptive ads for clinics that appeared to offer abortions and other medical services, but instead focused on counseling and information on alternatives to abortion.
In some cases, such clinics, known as crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs), are located close to Planned Parenthood clinics and provide some medical treatment, such as pregnancy tests, ultrasounds and prenatal counseling. But they also seek to deter women who enter from seeking abortions and do not offer referrals for alternative treatment.
Obria runs a network of clinics across the US, many of which suggest on their websites that they offer abortion. The clinics are actually opposed to abortion and all forms of contraception.
Obria’s use of Google grants underscores how Google has become a vital marketing tool for such organisations. A group called Choose Life Marketing, which helps CPCs market their services, encourages its clients to apply for Google grants.
The Guardian obtained a screenshot of an exchange in January in which a Choose Life Marketing employee sought assistance in an open online chatroom for not-for-profit organizations seeking assistance for Google ad grant applications. In the exchange, a Google employee explains that two centers’ websites were rejected because they were not secure, not because of their content. They were encouraged to re-apply.
Alice Huling, counsel for the Campaign for Accountability, a watchdog fighting a recent change in federal rules on what kinds of clinics can receive federal funds for healthcare services, said Google was usually the first resource for a woman with an unplanned pregnancy.
“Google should not allow CPCs to use its platform to serve misinformation to pregnant women,” she said. “Google’s business model is predicated on serving ads to customers, and the company is clearly uninterested in taking the steps necessary to crack down on misleading ads placed by CPCs.”
Google said it made ad grants available to “a diverse group that represents many different views and different causes” and both groups that provide abortions and those that are opposed to abortions are given grants.
Google would not comment on the Obria grant, but said all recipients have to comply with its policies. One such policy prohibits misrepresentation in ads as well as ads that “intend to deceive users by excluding relevant information or giving misleading information about products, services, or businesses”.
Google awarded the Obria grant as part of a program to support nonprofit organisations around the world with in-kind donations worth up to $10,000 a month.
It is not clear which precise ads were published through Obria’s grants, because the information is not public.
Obria did not return a request for comment.
The group recently faced scrutiny after it was awarded $1.7m in federal funds– known as Title X funding – meant to support healthcare providers that offer family planning services. Obria does not offer birth control, including condoms, in its clinics, offering “natural family planning” methods instead.
When the Guardian presented Google with a host of other examples of ads for clinics that appear to offer abortion services but do not, the company declined to comment, saying only that any ads that violated its policies would be taken down. Those ads were still available online several days later.
Google promised to address the issue in 2014. But the problem resurfaced in 2017, when the company was forced to remove more misleading ads. In 2018, Google was criticized for pointing women seeking abortions in Silicon Valley to CPCs through its maps service, while demoting results for Planned Parenthood clinics.
Google continues to feature ads for the clinics that appear to violate its policies. In one such case, an ad for a Texas clinic called the Grapevine Women’s Clinic pops up if a user does a local search for “abortion clinic”.
At first glance, the Grapevine clinic appears to offer abortion services: it emphasizes a woman’s choice, provides detailed information about the abortion pill and recommends that women call insurance providers to pay for their procedures. The clinic also says it provides “post abortive counseling”.
Fox's Jeanine Pirro Falsely Declares That Democrats Have 'Stolen The House'
It's upside-down land again over on Trump's favorite propaganda network.
By Heather - crooks & liars
5/12/19 7:25am
Is this a preview of what we can expect from Trump's favorite propaganda network pretending to be a "news" channel if he loses the 2020 presidential election?
Fox's "judge" Jeanine Pirro opened her show this Saturday by accusing Democrats of "stealing" the House during her "opening statement," despite the fact that Republicans are the ones who have actually rigged the game through a combination of gerrymandering and voter suppression.
Transcript:
They’ve stolen the House, the people’s House. That hallowed chamber our forefathers created to represent the people as well as be closest to the people. They hijacked it to maintain power for themselves. They don’t work for or represent you. These radicals who have forfeited their job representing you, continue to resist, create havoc and claim Constitutional crisis.“Most important, start gearing up for 2020. We need a House of Representatives that represents the people in this great nation. The people who want to remake America and maintain their own power. God help us and God help us if we elect these same people and they stay in control of our country.
Pirro also accused Democrats of being "stupid" for demanding access to the full, unredacted Mueller report, which supposedly "totally exonerates" Trump. Of course, Pirro didn't explain why they need to hide something that proves his innocence.
Fox's "judge" Jeanine Pirro opened her show this Saturday by accusing Democrats of "stealing" the House during her "opening statement," despite the fact that Republicans are the ones who have actually rigged the game through a combination of gerrymandering and voter suppression.
Transcript:
They’ve stolen the House, the people’s House. That hallowed chamber our forefathers created to represent the people as well as be closest to the people. They hijacked it to maintain power for themselves. They don’t work for or represent you. These radicals who have forfeited their job representing you, continue to resist, create havoc and claim Constitutional crisis.“Most important, start gearing up for 2020. We need a House of Representatives that represents the people in this great nation. The people who want to remake America and maintain their own power. God help us and God help us if we elect these same people and they stay in control of our country.
Pirro also accused Democrats of being "stupid" for demanding access to the full, unredacted Mueller report, which supposedly "totally exonerates" Trump. Of course, Pirro didn't explain why they need to hide something that proves his innocence.
Fake News Is Getting a Big Boost From Real Companies
A new report details how low-quality sites gobble up advertising revenue.
ALI BRELAND - mother jones
5/9/19
Disinformation and hoax news stories aren’t just misleading people—they’re also threatening the reputable news industry’s ability to stay in business.
More and more advertising money is being funneled away from legitimate news websites and to click-bait ad farm sites that spread hyper-sensational, misleading, and sometimes outright false news, according to a new report from the Global Disinformation Index (GDI), a coalition focused on assessing the damaging impacts of disinformation.
“Disinformation actors are gaming the online advertising system for a quick dollar. A system developed to help advertisers reach their audiences more effectively is being abused for money by those who want to disinform,” said Clare Melford, GDI’s executive director.
The conclusions reached by GDI suggest that major brands’ advertisements are unwittingly fueling the disinformation ecosystem. While many groups and individuals spread inaccurate stories online to influence, manipulate, or troll the public in service of a political goal, others are simply in it for the money. Companies, often without realizing, will purchase ads that end up placed on sites that get high volume by pumping out low-quality and misleading news, inadvertently funding them and incentivizing the spread of misinformation for profit-seeking click bait groups.
The hyper-polemic stories that both categories of sites push out, GDI found, often garner much higher rates of traffic than less sensational, reported news stories because they are “generally unconstrained by truth or reality” and “their focus on negative emotions” can drive rage clicks.
“Low-quality online outlets are siphoning ad money away from quality ones and the audiences they attract,” GDI wrote in its study. “The result is that there has been—and will continue to be—a sharp drop in revenue to quality news publishers. Not only has the increase in disinformation overwhelmed the spread of high-quality information, it has also made quality journalism less financially viable.”
Despite their findings and analysis, the full scope of the problem isn’t yet clear. In their report, GDI noted that currently, “there are no reliable estimates of the size of the disinformation market in terms of the ad dollars and merchandise that support it,” though the organization says it plans to attempt an approximation.
While the report may be one of the first to study how brand advertising enables the spread of false news stories, previous reporting has shown how political sites pumping out misinformation, both in the U.S. but also as far away as Eastern Europe, have profited at the edge of America’s political news economy. Shortly before the 2016 election, Buzzfeed, for example, reported on teens in Macedonia who purportedly made thousands of dollars pushing mostly false stories about Trump on Facebook.
Major technology companies like Facebook—whose algorithms have fueled the rise of misleading and hyper-polemic news sites—and Google have eaten up increasing shares of advertising revenue that was previously spread across media companies. With some of what’s left being funneled into low-quality news sites, reputable media businesses have faced enormous financial challenges. Since the start of 2019 alone, media companies have cut thousands of staffers as they struggle to stay profitable.
More and more advertising money is being funneled away from legitimate news websites and to click-bait ad farm sites that spread hyper-sensational, misleading, and sometimes outright false news, according to a new report from the Global Disinformation Index (GDI), a coalition focused on assessing the damaging impacts of disinformation.
“Disinformation actors are gaming the online advertising system for a quick dollar. A system developed to help advertisers reach their audiences more effectively is being abused for money by those who want to disinform,” said Clare Melford, GDI’s executive director.
The conclusions reached by GDI suggest that major brands’ advertisements are unwittingly fueling the disinformation ecosystem. While many groups and individuals spread inaccurate stories online to influence, manipulate, or troll the public in service of a political goal, others are simply in it for the money. Companies, often without realizing, will purchase ads that end up placed on sites that get high volume by pumping out low-quality and misleading news, inadvertently funding them and incentivizing the spread of misinformation for profit-seeking click bait groups.
The hyper-polemic stories that both categories of sites push out, GDI found, often garner much higher rates of traffic than less sensational, reported news stories because they are “generally unconstrained by truth or reality” and “their focus on negative emotions” can drive rage clicks.
“Low-quality online outlets are siphoning ad money away from quality ones and the audiences they attract,” GDI wrote in its study. “The result is that there has been—and will continue to be—a sharp drop in revenue to quality news publishers. Not only has the increase in disinformation overwhelmed the spread of high-quality information, it has also made quality journalism less financially viable.”
Despite their findings and analysis, the full scope of the problem isn’t yet clear. In their report, GDI noted that currently, “there are no reliable estimates of the size of the disinformation market in terms of the ad dollars and merchandise that support it,” though the organization says it plans to attempt an approximation.
While the report may be one of the first to study how brand advertising enables the spread of false news stories, previous reporting has shown how political sites pumping out misinformation, both in the U.S. but also as far away as Eastern Europe, have profited at the edge of America’s political news economy. Shortly before the 2016 election, Buzzfeed, for example, reported on teens in Macedonia who purportedly made thousands of dollars pushing mostly false stories about Trump on Facebook.
Major technology companies like Facebook—whose algorithms have fueled the rise of misleading and hyper-polemic news sites—and Google have eaten up increasing shares of advertising revenue that was previously spread across media companies. With some of what’s left being funneled into low-quality news sites, reputable media businesses have faced enormous financial challenges. Since the start of 2019 alone, media companies have cut thousands of staffers as they struggle to stay profitable.
Beltway Media's White Nationalism Is Now Mainstreamed
Whether Tucker Carlson or Lou Dobbs, the mask is slipping on white nationalism in Beltway media circles
By David Neiwert - crooks & liars
5/09/19 5:27am
One of the important factors in the rise of white nationalism is the way it has been normalized within the national media—treated at best as an afterthought, a purely fringe phenomenon that we really needn’t worry our heads about, with coverage often accompanied by warm fuzzy features remarking on how normal these neo-Nazi types can seem in real life.
People both inside and outside the media business often wind up scratching their heads in wonder that this sort of thing can happen even in an age when there is ample information on the toxicity that white nationalism represents. But the more we learn about the alt-right and its tentacles, the clearer it’s become that there are people situated within the media mainstream who in reality are silently sympathetic to these causes, and they are influencing the decisions over what gets covered and how.
A recent BuzzFeed piece by Rosie Gray does an excellent job of exposing how white nationalism has managed to insinuate itself inside the Beltway media ecosystem, mainly through a coterie of ostensibly mainstream conservatives who, it seems, are extraordinarily tolerant of neo-Nazism. It recounts the saga of Katie McHugh, an alt-right provocateur who moved in the right-wing Washington circles of Breitbart, The Daily Caller, GotNews, and WorldNetDaily, and who now deeply regrets the error of her ways.
It’s not entirely clear from the piece that McHugh has come to terms with the deeper issues around the work she did in helping propagate a vicious brand of white nationalism surreptitiously, under the guise of “conservatism.” It’s certainly not clear that she has yet reckoned with the real damage she did and her obligation now to do what she can to repair it, but time will tell on that front.
On the other hand, she clearly is regretful for her past actions, which is where everyone needs to start on the road to recovery from the grip of hateful ideologies. And she deserves credit for taking that biggest of all steps.
She also has started out by performing what is probably a huge public service in exposing much of the inner workings of the Beltway media white nationalist coterie. Editors and other reporters who operate with supposedly mainstream credentials are shown to be co-players in the white nationalist propaganda they all engaged in, though they all deny doing so.
Appropriately enough, the nexus of this coterie is none other than Tucker Carlson, both his Daily Caller news operation, of which he is co-founder but no longer publisher, as well as his daily Fox News program. As McHugh describes it, the vast majority of the surreptitious white nationalist organizing occurred within the ranks of Daily Caller staffers, heavily flanked by a full complement of Breitbart writers.
Some of the more prominent white nationalist movement figures—such as Kevin DeAnna, McHugh’s former boyfriend, who has long been on the radar of the Southern Poverty Law Center for his youthful organization of campus white nationalists in the 2000s—apparently operated more on the periphery, while their close friends occupied media positions inside the Beltway.
McHugh, you may recall, was fired from Breitbart for an overtly racist tweet about Muslims (“There would be no terror attacks in the UK if Muslims didn’t live there”). Of course, it was not actually the most racist thing she had ever tweeted out, but her timing was indiscreet, and she got caught in a media crossfire and was shown the door after having been a protégé of Steve Bannon’s, all while attending truly weird neopagan events:
McHugh sometimes accompanied DeAnna on weekend trips down to the Wolves’ headquarters for what they called a “moot” — a ceremony in which the assembled Wolves would smear ash on their bodies around a fire and give what McHugh described as “dramatic speeches” about self-sufficiency and relying on the other group members. They would then sit around the fire and drink beers.
The Wolves placed a heavy emphasis on masculinity. The women would prepare food for the gatherings earlier in the day before the moot commenced, according to McHugh. The Wolves were into a “Centurion Method” of physical fitness; a video still on YouTube shows DeAnna and Paul Waggener, one of the founders of the group who used the pseudonym “Grimnir,” taking turns lifting up the trunk of a car filled with cement blocks, scrambling around on a bunch of debris, and squatting while holding logs.
What we also learn is that there is a reason the same fellows grunting around campfires to establish their masculinity are eager viewers of Tucker Carlson: his news operation has provided a home for a number of them. Indeed, Snopes.com last year explored the striking extent to which Daily Caller writers have expressed white-nationalist views. Now it’s also clear why that is.
There is a reason that white nationalists avidly watch Carlson’s nightly Fox program in hopes of gleaning talking points and ideas. There is a reason the neo-Nazi website Daily Stormer’s favorite pundit is Carlson (Andrew Anglin calls him “literally our greatest ally”). There is a reason the chat boards and other white nationalist haunts positively hum with chatter over Carlson’s TV broadcasts (“Tucker is a national treasure and will be the catalyst for real social change”; “At best, he’s a gateway for us and they know it”).
Of course, Carlson is not alone in the Beltway media in promoting white nationalist talking points. His cohort at Fox Business, Lou Dobbs—one of Donald Trump’s favorite pundits--mouths an endless stream of white nationalist and authoritarian talking points as well. (see video above)
However, it’s obvious that Carlson’s sphere extends well beyond just the frame of the Fox network, and into a much darker world altogether. Nor is he alone.
People both inside and outside the media business often wind up scratching their heads in wonder that this sort of thing can happen even in an age when there is ample information on the toxicity that white nationalism represents. But the more we learn about the alt-right and its tentacles, the clearer it’s become that there are people situated within the media mainstream who in reality are silently sympathetic to these causes, and they are influencing the decisions over what gets covered and how.
A recent BuzzFeed piece by Rosie Gray does an excellent job of exposing how white nationalism has managed to insinuate itself inside the Beltway media ecosystem, mainly through a coterie of ostensibly mainstream conservatives who, it seems, are extraordinarily tolerant of neo-Nazism. It recounts the saga of Katie McHugh, an alt-right provocateur who moved in the right-wing Washington circles of Breitbart, The Daily Caller, GotNews, and WorldNetDaily, and who now deeply regrets the error of her ways.
It’s not entirely clear from the piece that McHugh has come to terms with the deeper issues around the work she did in helping propagate a vicious brand of white nationalism surreptitiously, under the guise of “conservatism.” It’s certainly not clear that she has yet reckoned with the real damage she did and her obligation now to do what she can to repair it, but time will tell on that front.
On the other hand, she clearly is regretful for her past actions, which is where everyone needs to start on the road to recovery from the grip of hateful ideologies. And she deserves credit for taking that biggest of all steps.
She also has started out by performing what is probably a huge public service in exposing much of the inner workings of the Beltway media white nationalist coterie. Editors and other reporters who operate with supposedly mainstream credentials are shown to be co-players in the white nationalist propaganda they all engaged in, though they all deny doing so.
Appropriately enough, the nexus of this coterie is none other than Tucker Carlson, both his Daily Caller news operation, of which he is co-founder but no longer publisher, as well as his daily Fox News program. As McHugh describes it, the vast majority of the surreptitious white nationalist organizing occurred within the ranks of Daily Caller staffers, heavily flanked by a full complement of Breitbart writers.
Some of the more prominent white nationalist movement figures—such as Kevin DeAnna, McHugh’s former boyfriend, who has long been on the radar of the Southern Poverty Law Center for his youthful organization of campus white nationalists in the 2000s—apparently operated more on the periphery, while their close friends occupied media positions inside the Beltway.
McHugh, you may recall, was fired from Breitbart for an overtly racist tweet about Muslims (“There would be no terror attacks in the UK if Muslims didn’t live there”). Of course, it was not actually the most racist thing she had ever tweeted out, but her timing was indiscreet, and she got caught in a media crossfire and was shown the door after having been a protégé of Steve Bannon’s, all while attending truly weird neopagan events:
McHugh sometimes accompanied DeAnna on weekend trips down to the Wolves’ headquarters for what they called a “moot” — a ceremony in which the assembled Wolves would smear ash on their bodies around a fire and give what McHugh described as “dramatic speeches” about self-sufficiency and relying on the other group members. They would then sit around the fire and drink beers.
The Wolves placed a heavy emphasis on masculinity. The women would prepare food for the gatherings earlier in the day before the moot commenced, according to McHugh. The Wolves were into a “Centurion Method” of physical fitness; a video still on YouTube shows DeAnna and Paul Waggener, one of the founders of the group who used the pseudonym “Grimnir,” taking turns lifting up the trunk of a car filled with cement blocks, scrambling around on a bunch of debris, and squatting while holding logs.
What we also learn is that there is a reason the same fellows grunting around campfires to establish their masculinity are eager viewers of Tucker Carlson: his news operation has provided a home for a number of them. Indeed, Snopes.com last year explored the striking extent to which Daily Caller writers have expressed white-nationalist views. Now it’s also clear why that is.
There is a reason that white nationalists avidly watch Carlson’s nightly Fox program in hopes of gleaning talking points and ideas. There is a reason the neo-Nazi website Daily Stormer’s favorite pundit is Carlson (Andrew Anglin calls him “literally our greatest ally”). There is a reason the chat boards and other white nationalist haunts positively hum with chatter over Carlson’s TV broadcasts (“Tucker is a national treasure and will be the catalyst for real social change”; “At best, he’s a gateway for us and they know it”).
Of course, Carlson is not alone in the Beltway media in promoting white nationalist talking points. His cohort at Fox Business, Lou Dobbs—one of Donald Trump’s favorite pundits--mouths an endless stream of white nationalist and authoritarian talking points as well. (see video above)
However, it’s obvious that Carlson’s sphere extends well beyond just the frame of the Fox network, and into a much darker world altogether. Nor is he alone.
home of the stupid!!!
Trump’s support comes almost entirely from Fox News viewers: report
Brad Reed - raw story
07 MAY 2019 AT 10:11 ET
President Donald Trump has been historically unpopular throughout his first term— but he has a rock-solid base of around 42 percent of the electorate that has generally stuck with him despite the constant swirl of scandal and controversy.
A new NBC News-Wall Street Journal survey shows that Fox News viewers have disproportionately skewed views of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.
According to the survey, a full 50 percent of Fox News viewers believe that Mueller’s report completely cleared Trump of any wrongdoing, even though the report itself specifically said that it could not exonerate the president from obstruction of justice charges.
In comparison, just 21 percent of people who get their news primarily from traditional network news broadcasts think the report cleared Trump, while just 14 percent of CNN viewers said the same.
The results hold up on other questions as well — 61 percent of Fox viewers said that Trump has been “honest” about the Russia probe, while just 24 percent of CNN viewers and 29 percent of network broadcast news viewers said the same.
Additionally, the survey found that Fox News viewers are the only segment of TV news watchers who actually approve of the president, as 73 percent of them said they approved of him. In comparison, 38 percent of broadcast news viewers approved of Trump, while just 34 percent of CNN viewers approved of the president.
A new NBC News-Wall Street Journal survey shows that Fox News viewers have disproportionately skewed views of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.
According to the survey, a full 50 percent of Fox News viewers believe that Mueller’s report completely cleared Trump of any wrongdoing, even though the report itself specifically said that it could not exonerate the president from obstruction of justice charges.
In comparison, just 21 percent of people who get their news primarily from traditional network news broadcasts think the report cleared Trump, while just 14 percent of CNN viewers said the same.
The results hold up on other questions as well — 61 percent of Fox viewers said that Trump has been “honest” about the Russia probe, while just 24 percent of CNN viewers and 29 percent of network broadcast news viewers said the same.
Additionally, the survey found that Fox News viewers are the only segment of TV news watchers who actually approve of the president, as 73 percent of them said they approved of him. In comparison, 38 percent of broadcast news viewers approved of Trump, while just 34 percent of CNN viewers approved of the president.
Study: Major media outlets' Twitter accounts amplify false Trump claims on average 19 times a day
MATT GERTZ & ROB SAVILLO - media matters
5/3/19
Major media outlets failed to rebut President Donald Trump's misinformation 65% of the time in their tweets about his false or misleading comments, according to a Media Matters review. That means the outlets amplified Trump's misinformation more than 400 times over the three-week period of the study -- a rate of 19 per day.
The data shows that news outlets are still failing to grapple with a major problem that media critics highlighted during the Trump transition: When journalists apply their traditional method of crafting headlines, tweets, and other social media posts to Trump, they end up passively spreading misinformation by uncritically repeating his falsehoods.
The way people consume information in the digital age makes the accuracy of a news outlet’s headlines and social media posts more important than ever, because research shows they are the only thing a majority of people actually read. But journalists are trained to treat a politician’s statements as intrinsically newsworthy, often quoting them without context in tweets and headlines and addressing whether the statement was accurate only in the body of the piece, if at all. When the politician’s statements are false, journalists who quote them in headlines and on social media without context end up amplifying the falsehoods.
Anecdotally, it’s been clear for some time that journalists have not adjusted their practices for the Trump era in which, according to The Washington Post, the president has already made more than 10,000 false or misleading claims. In recent months, Media Matters has explored how news outlets have passively misinformed the public by passing along misinformation from Trump administration figures on topics like threats of violence against journalists, special counsel Robert Mueller’s report, potential conflict with North Korea, Special Olympics funding, and whether the Obama administration was “spying” on Trump associates.
But in order to assess the scope of the problem, Media Matters reviewed the more than 2,000 tweets that 32 Twitter feeds controlled by major news outlets sent about Trump comments from January 26, when legislation took effect that ended a lengthy federal shutdown and temporarily funded the government, through February 15, when Trump agreed to a longer extension of federal funding and declared a national emergency on the border.
We coded all the tweets that referenced a Trump comment for whether it was false or misleading according to The Washington Post’s database, and if so, for whether the tweet had disputed the false or misleading claim. (Read the full methodology here.)
It's important to keep in mind the narrowness of our scope: We reviewed how media outlets treated false claims only from the president, not from members of his administration who mimic his disregard for the truth. But even then, the results were striking, demonstrating that media outlets have a serious, ongoing problem dealing with passive misinformation.
Key Takeaways:
(READ MORE)
The data shows that news outlets are still failing to grapple with a major problem that media critics highlighted during the Trump transition: When journalists apply their traditional method of crafting headlines, tweets, and other social media posts to Trump, they end up passively spreading misinformation by uncritically repeating his falsehoods.
The way people consume information in the digital age makes the accuracy of a news outlet’s headlines and social media posts more important than ever, because research shows they are the only thing a majority of people actually read. But journalists are trained to treat a politician’s statements as intrinsically newsworthy, often quoting them without context in tweets and headlines and addressing whether the statement was accurate only in the body of the piece, if at all. When the politician’s statements are false, journalists who quote them in headlines and on social media without context end up amplifying the falsehoods.
Anecdotally, it’s been clear for some time that journalists have not adjusted their practices for the Trump era in which, according to The Washington Post, the president has already made more than 10,000 false or misleading claims. In recent months, Media Matters has explored how news outlets have passively misinformed the public by passing along misinformation from Trump administration figures on topics like threats of violence against journalists, special counsel Robert Mueller’s report, potential conflict with North Korea, Special Olympics funding, and whether the Obama administration was “spying” on Trump associates.
But in order to assess the scope of the problem, Media Matters reviewed the more than 2,000 tweets that 32 Twitter feeds controlled by major news outlets sent about Trump comments from January 26, when legislation took effect that ended a lengthy federal shutdown and temporarily funded the government, through February 15, when Trump agreed to a longer extension of federal funding and declared a national emergency on the border.
We coded all the tweets that referenced a Trump comment for whether it was false or misleading according to The Washington Post’s database, and if so, for whether the tweet had disputed the false or misleading claim. (Read the full methodology here.)
It's important to keep in mind the narrowness of our scope: We reviewed how media outlets treated false claims only from the president, not from members of his administration who mimic his disregard for the truth. But even then, the results were striking, demonstrating that media outlets have a serious, ongoing problem dealing with passive misinformation.
Key Takeaways:
- 30% of the tweets by major media outlets’ Twitter accounts about Trump remarks referenced a false or misleading statement.
- Nearly two-thirds of the time, the outlets did not dispute that misinformation.
- That means the outlets amplified false or misleading Trump claims without disputing them 407 times over the three weeks of the study, an average of 19 times a day.
- The extent to which outlets’ Twitter feeds passively spread Trump’s misinformation depended on the platform in which Trump made his comments. For example:
- 92% of false or misleading Trump claims went undisputed when he was speaking at a press gaggle or pool spray.
- 49% of false or misleading Trump claims went undisputed when outlets were responding to comments he made during formal speeches.
- @TheHill was the worst actor and sent more than 40% of the tweets that pushed Trump’s misinformation without disputing it during our entire study.
(READ MORE)
CLIMATE CHANGE DENIER TELLS FOX & FRIENDS CARBON DIOXIDE 'NOT A POLLUTION'
BY BENJAMIN FEARNOW - newsweek
ON 4/30/19 AT 10:00 AM EDT
A former Republican aide who rejects the scientific community's consensus on climate change said carbon dioxide is not pollution, dredging up a decades-old defense of CO2 emissions in order to write off Beto O'Rourke's newly announced climate plan.
Speaking Tuesday morning with Fox & Friends, the longtime Fox News climate change denier Marc Morano joined host Jedediah Bila in ridiculing the former Texas congressman's $5 trillion climate change proposal, which seeks to provide a less ambitious alternative to the Democrats' Green New Deal. Morano, who has previously agreed that CO2 is nothing more than "plant food," immediately unearthed the longtime carbon claim among conservatives and labeled O'Rourke's climate plan a "boondoggle."
"First of all, pollution and carbon dioxide, humans, we inhale oxygen and we exhale carbon dioxide, so he's calling CO2 pollution, which it's not," Morano proclaimed Tuesday. "No, this plan is as pie-in-the-sky as the Green New Deal except it's a little bit more tepid."
In a December 2018 interview with Fox Business Network's Stuart Varney, Morano agreed with the host that excess CO2 in the atmosphere was not a negative result of human emissions, but rather a positive because it is just "plant food." In that interview, Morano bragged that several Nobel Prize-winning scientists have informed him "the earth is in a CO2 famine" and he attacked the United Nations position on climate change.
The Environmental Protection Agency classifies carbon dioxide emissions as a hazard to human health, although the EPA doesn't state that CO2 by itself is a pollutant given that humans and plants exhale it, but instead, they note increasing concentrations of the heat-trapping gas are deeply concerning. Carbon dioxide is widely considered to be a pollutant when it's put in context with the burning of fossil fuels such as gasoline, coal and natural gas.
The EPA previously ruled that modern concentrations of carbon dioxide are the "unambiguous result of human emissions," although CO2 levels have dramatically fluctuated in Earth's atmosphere for billions of years. Carbon dioxide levels are currently higher than they have been for more than 800,000 years, according to climate.gov.
O'Rourke's four-part climate framework announced this week seeks to start cutting pollution, mobilizing $5 trillion over ten years, guaranteeing net-zero emissions by 2050 and defending communities who are preparing for and fighting extreme weather.
Morano, who is author of the book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change," dismissed O'Rourke's plan as a watered down version of the Democratic proposal first put forward by New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Massachusetts Sen. Ed Markey.
"The US is one the world’s largest carbon pollution emitters. But a #GreenNewDeal holds the potential for us to be global clean energy leaders, w planet-saving technology being stamped 'Made in America'. Climate change is the economic and natl security issue of our time," Markey tweeted Tuesday.
Morano continued, "What's happened here is Beto O'Rourke is not satisfying the Democratic base, within minutes of him releasing this plan the Sunrise Movement, which was instrumental in the Green New Deal, is going after Beto O'Rourke for going back on his pledge for 2030 zero emissions to now 2050. They're saying Beto's plan could result in 100 million refugees and tens of million dead. So that's the thanks Beto O'Rourke gets for coming up with a lighter version of the Green New Deal."
Speaking Tuesday morning with Fox & Friends, the longtime Fox News climate change denier Marc Morano joined host Jedediah Bila in ridiculing the former Texas congressman's $5 trillion climate change proposal, which seeks to provide a less ambitious alternative to the Democrats' Green New Deal. Morano, who has previously agreed that CO2 is nothing more than "plant food," immediately unearthed the longtime carbon claim among conservatives and labeled O'Rourke's climate plan a "boondoggle."
"First of all, pollution and carbon dioxide, humans, we inhale oxygen and we exhale carbon dioxide, so he's calling CO2 pollution, which it's not," Morano proclaimed Tuesday. "No, this plan is as pie-in-the-sky as the Green New Deal except it's a little bit more tepid."
In a December 2018 interview with Fox Business Network's Stuart Varney, Morano agreed with the host that excess CO2 in the atmosphere was not a negative result of human emissions, but rather a positive because it is just "plant food." In that interview, Morano bragged that several Nobel Prize-winning scientists have informed him "the earth is in a CO2 famine" and he attacked the United Nations position on climate change.
The Environmental Protection Agency classifies carbon dioxide emissions as a hazard to human health, although the EPA doesn't state that CO2 by itself is a pollutant given that humans and plants exhale it, but instead, they note increasing concentrations of the heat-trapping gas are deeply concerning. Carbon dioxide is widely considered to be a pollutant when it's put in context with the burning of fossil fuels such as gasoline, coal and natural gas.
The EPA previously ruled that modern concentrations of carbon dioxide are the "unambiguous result of human emissions," although CO2 levels have dramatically fluctuated in Earth's atmosphere for billions of years. Carbon dioxide levels are currently higher than they have been for more than 800,000 years, according to climate.gov.
O'Rourke's four-part climate framework announced this week seeks to start cutting pollution, mobilizing $5 trillion over ten years, guaranteeing net-zero emissions by 2050 and defending communities who are preparing for and fighting extreme weather.
Morano, who is author of the book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change," dismissed O'Rourke's plan as a watered down version of the Democratic proposal first put forward by New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Massachusetts Sen. Ed Markey.
"The US is one the world’s largest carbon pollution emitters. But a #GreenNewDeal holds the potential for us to be global clean energy leaders, w planet-saving technology being stamped 'Made in America'. Climate change is the economic and natl security issue of our time," Markey tweeted Tuesday.
Morano continued, "What's happened here is Beto O'Rourke is not satisfying the Democratic base, within minutes of him releasing this plan the Sunrise Movement, which was instrumental in the Green New Deal, is going after Beto O'Rourke for going back on his pledge for 2030 zero emissions to now 2050. They're saying Beto's plan could result in 100 million refugees and tens of million dead. So that's the thanks Beto O'Rourke gets for coming up with a lighter version of the Green New Deal."
Facebook’s newest ‘fact checkers’ are Koch-funded climate deniers
The fatal flaw in Zuckerberg’s effort to deal with fake news.
JOE ROMM - thinkprogress
APR 27, 2019, 12:01 PM
Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg keeps dashing any hope that the world’s largest social media platform might be a positive force in the fight against catastrophic climate change.
In its latest disastrous move to fight the online epidemic of fake news, Facebook’s fact-checking effort announced last week that it was teaming up with CheckYourFact.com — an arm of the conservative, anti-science media site The Daily Caller.
The Daily Caller, which has published misinformation about climate science for years, was co-founded by the science-denying Fox News host Tucker Carlson and is backed by major conservative donors, including Charles and David Koch, the billionaire fossil fuel barons who are the single biggest funders of climate science misinformation.
“It is appalling that Facebook has teamed up with a Koch-funded organization that promotes climate change denial,” leading climatologist Michael Mann told ThinkProgress. Mann, whose own work has been misrepresented by The Daily Caller, added, “Facebook must disassociate itself from this organization.”
Following the 2016 election — and the growing realization that Russians, white supremacists, and many others have been using the site to promote hate speech, fake news, and misinformation — Facebook began partnering with independent fact checkers.
But this effort has been undermined by a series of missteps by Facebook and Zuckerberg.
In the fall of 2017, Facebook named the climate science-denying Weekly Standard an official fact-checking partner, against the advice of an independent report.
In May 2018, Zuckerberg brought in a right-wing think tank that spreads climate disinformation to figure out whether Facebook displays a liberal bias. Facebook even hired a PR firm with Republican ties to attack the company’s critics and competitors. It went on to smear philanthropist George Soros, who had been critical of Facebook, with anti-Semitic tropes and dog whistles.
Last July, Zuckerberg made news when he explained that Facebook wouldn’t explicitly ban even something as extreme as Holocaust denial. Then, in clarifying his remarks, he said that while he won’t block fake news from appearing on his site, his fact checkers would stop it from spreading widely.
In December, the Weekly Standard ceased publication, raising the prospect that Facebook my correct its mistake in hiring climate science deniers as fact checkers.
But then Facebook announced last week that it was partnering with the fact-checking arm of The Daily Caller, which was launched in 2010 with $3 million from GOP donor and climate science denier Foster Friess. Since then, many of The Daily Caller’s stories have been written by its News Foundation, which has received funding from both the Charles Koch Institute and the Koch Family Foundations.
It is beyond outrageous that in 2019 — when the science of human-caused climate change has been overwhelmingly verified and every other nation but ours is desperately working to avert catastrophic impacts — the world’s largest social media site is still partnering with climate science deniers.
Indeed, given how many outstanding nonpartisan organizations could serve as Facebook fact checkers, environmental sociologist Robert Brulle asked, “Why they are partnering with an organization that is part of the right wing echo chamber?”
In an email to ThinkProgress, Brulle, who has authored numerous studies on climate communications and lobbying, added, “This is one of the sites that needs to be fact checked, not used as a reliable source. Facebook should cancel this contract.”
In its latest disastrous move to fight the online epidemic of fake news, Facebook’s fact-checking effort announced last week that it was teaming up with CheckYourFact.com — an arm of the conservative, anti-science media site The Daily Caller.
The Daily Caller, which has published misinformation about climate science for years, was co-founded by the science-denying Fox News host Tucker Carlson and is backed by major conservative donors, including Charles and David Koch, the billionaire fossil fuel barons who are the single biggest funders of climate science misinformation.
“It is appalling that Facebook has teamed up with a Koch-funded organization that promotes climate change denial,” leading climatologist Michael Mann told ThinkProgress. Mann, whose own work has been misrepresented by The Daily Caller, added, “Facebook must disassociate itself from this organization.”
Following the 2016 election — and the growing realization that Russians, white supremacists, and many others have been using the site to promote hate speech, fake news, and misinformation — Facebook began partnering with independent fact checkers.
But this effort has been undermined by a series of missteps by Facebook and Zuckerberg.
In the fall of 2017, Facebook named the climate science-denying Weekly Standard an official fact-checking partner, against the advice of an independent report.
In May 2018, Zuckerberg brought in a right-wing think tank that spreads climate disinformation to figure out whether Facebook displays a liberal bias. Facebook even hired a PR firm with Republican ties to attack the company’s critics and competitors. It went on to smear philanthropist George Soros, who had been critical of Facebook, with anti-Semitic tropes and dog whistles.
Last July, Zuckerberg made news when he explained that Facebook wouldn’t explicitly ban even something as extreme as Holocaust denial. Then, in clarifying his remarks, he said that while he won’t block fake news from appearing on his site, his fact checkers would stop it from spreading widely.
In December, the Weekly Standard ceased publication, raising the prospect that Facebook my correct its mistake in hiring climate science deniers as fact checkers.
But then Facebook announced last week that it was partnering with the fact-checking arm of The Daily Caller, which was launched in 2010 with $3 million from GOP donor and climate science denier Foster Friess. Since then, many of The Daily Caller’s stories have been written by its News Foundation, which has received funding from both the Charles Koch Institute and the Koch Family Foundations.
It is beyond outrageous that in 2019 — when the science of human-caused climate change has been overwhelmingly verified and every other nation but ours is desperately working to avert catastrophic impacts — the world’s largest social media site is still partnering with climate science deniers.
Indeed, given how many outstanding nonpartisan organizations could serve as Facebook fact checkers, environmental sociologist Robert Brulle asked, “Why they are partnering with an organization that is part of the right wing echo chamber?”
In an email to ThinkProgress, Brulle, who has authored numerous studies on climate communications and lobbying, added, “This is one of the sites that needs to be fact checked, not used as a reliable source. Facebook should cancel this contract.”
Trump Reportedly Hounded Fox News Execs to Keep His Favorite Racist on Air
Jack Crosbie - splinter news
4/26/19
It should not come as a surprise that Donald Trump is intimately invested in the inner workings of Fox News, but a new report in Vanity Fair alleges that the president had a direct hand in helping host Jeanine Pirro stay on the air after she suggested that Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar supported Sharia law and was disloyal to America.
The report is centered around efforts by Rupert Murdoch’s son Lachlan to balance the growing discontent inside Fox News as it rapidly transforms itself into Trump TV. But one detail stands out from the Pirro episode: that rather than a few tweet-blasts, the president personally called Rupert Murdoch to ensure that Pirro would be allowed to continue spewing vitriol and bigotry.
Per Vanity Fair:
Inside Fox, staffers speculated Pirro would be fired, two sources told me, but Trump pre-empted such a move by calling Rupert Murdoch to complain about her suspension. Fox agreed to allow Pirro to come back on the air but cut her opening monologue, a venue for her most incendiary rhetoric. When Trump found out about that, he called Rupert again, a source said. A compromise was proposed: Pirro could return and deliver a shortened version of her opening statement. “Trump called Rupert, and Rupert put pressure on the executives,” a source briefed on the conversations told me. (The White House did not respond to a request for comment. A spokesperson for Fox News said the network’s management never discussed canceling Pirro’s show.)
We’ve reached out to the White House for comment and will update if we hear back.
The rest of the piece flirts with the idea that Lachlan is going to change or moderate the tone of Fox News, citing sources that point to his hiring of Donna Brazile and—lol—Paul Ryan as evidence that he’s “not a MAGA diehard.” Instead, these sources reassure readers that the younger Murdoch is a “libertarian conservative,” who doesn’t like Trump that much. Nothing about that, of course, will stop him from profiting wildly off of the president and all his shithead friends for as long as he possibly can, but sure.
The report is centered around efforts by Rupert Murdoch’s son Lachlan to balance the growing discontent inside Fox News as it rapidly transforms itself into Trump TV. But one detail stands out from the Pirro episode: that rather than a few tweet-blasts, the president personally called Rupert Murdoch to ensure that Pirro would be allowed to continue spewing vitriol and bigotry.
Per Vanity Fair:
Inside Fox, staffers speculated Pirro would be fired, two sources told me, but Trump pre-empted such a move by calling Rupert Murdoch to complain about her suspension. Fox agreed to allow Pirro to come back on the air but cut her opening monologue, a venue for her most incendiary rhetoric. When Trump found out about that, he called Rupert again, a source said. A compromise was proposed: Pirro could return and deliver a shortened version of her opening statement. “Trump called Rupert, and Rupert put pressure on the executives,” a source briefed on the conversations told me. (The White House did not respond to a request for comment. A spokesperson for Fox News said the network’s management never discussed canceling Pirro’s show.)
We’ve reached out to the White House for comment and will update if we hear back.
The rest of the piece flirts with the idea that Lachlan is going to change or moderate the tone of Fox News, citing sources that point to his hiring of Donna Brazile and—lol—Paul Ryan as evidence that he’s “not a MAGA diehard.” Instead, these sources reassure readers that the younger Murdoch is a “libertarian conservative,” who doesn’t like Trump that much. Nothing about that, of course, will stop him from profiting wildly off of the president and all his shithead friends for as long as he possibly can, but sure.
Fox News media critic laments supposed plight of white male presidential candidates — and gets torn to shreds
Brad Reed - raw story
23 APR 2019 AT 11:36 ET
Fox News media critic Howard Kurtz on Tuesday got hammered after he lamented the purported plight of white men who are running for the presidency in the Democratic primary.
Reacting to a New York Times report on the diverse field of Democratic candidates running in 2020, Kurtz wrote that he feared that “being a white male candidate may well be a liability for Democrats in 2020.” He then asked rhetorically, “How did we get to such a place?”
Despite Kurtz’s lamentation, however, polls have continuously shown white men such as former Vice President Joe Biden, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), and South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg are all among the top contenders.
In fact, two recent polls from Monmouth University and Morning Consult have found that Biden, Sanders and Buttigieg make up the top three most popular candidates among Democratic primary voters.
Given all this, Kurtz proceeded to get buried in mockery by his Twitter followers, many of whom accused him of shamelessly stoking panic about the supposed decline of white men.
Reacting to a New York Times report on the diverse field of Democratic candidates running in 2020, Kurtz wrote that he feared that “being a white male candidate may well be a liability for Democrats in 2020.” He then asked rhetorically, “How did we get to such a place?”
Despite Kurtz’s lamentation, however, polls have continuously shown white men such as former Vice President Joe Biden, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), and South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg are all among the top contenders.
In fact, two recent polls from Monmouth University and Morning Consult have found that Biden, Sanders and Buttigieg make up the top three most popular candidates among Democratic primary voters.
Given all this, Kurtz proceeded to get buried in mockery by his Twitter followers, many of whom accused him of shamelessly stoking panic about the supposed decline of white men.
Sean Hannity Guest Falsely Claims Ilhan Omar Is ‘Infatuated’ With Terrorism
The Muslim congresswoman has received death threats because conservative media took her comments about 9/11 out of context.
By Marina Fang - huff post
4/16/19
While appearing on Fox News host Sean Hannity’s show Monday, former NYPD commissioner Bernard Kerik falsely claimed Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) is “infatuated with Al Qaeda, with Hamas, Hezbollah,” continuing the stream of Islamophobic attacks from right-wing media and conservative politicians, including President Donald Trump, targeted at the Muslim congresswoman.
Hannity concurred with Kerik, who added that Omar “was the keynote speaker” for an event by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) — falsely claiming the group is “a terrorist organization,” a designation lobbed by some critics of the Muslim civil rights group.
Kerik served three years in prison for charges of corruption and lying to White House officials when he was considered for President George W. Bush’s cabinet.
Last week, conservative media latched onto an out-of-context comment Omar made at the CAIR event last month, in which she described 9/11 as “some people did something.”
Omar was discussing the ways Muslims in the U.S. were blamed for the attacks and experienced increased amounts of Islamophobic hate.
“CAIR was founded after 9/11 because they recognized that some people did something, and that all of us were starting to lose access to our civil liberties,” she said.
The organization, formed in 1994, stepped up its work in response to the Islamophobia following the Sept. 11 attacks.
“Far too long we have lived with the discomfort of being a second-class citizen,” Omar said during the speech. “Frankly, I’m tired of it, and every single Muslim in this country should be tired of it.”
Since last week, Omar, one of two Muslim women in Congress and the subject of repeated Islamophobic attacks, has received death threats in response to the uproar over the comments.
Hannity concurred with Kerik, who added that Omar “was the keynote speaker” for an event by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) — falsely claiming the group is “a terrorist organization,” a designation lobbed by some critics of the Muslim civil rights group.
Kerik served three years in prison for charges of corruption and lying to White House officials when he was considered for President George W. Bush’s cabinet.
Last week, conservative media latched onto an out-of-context comment Omar made at the CAIR event last month, in which she described 9/11 as “some people did something.”
Omar was discussing the ways Muslims in the U.S. were blamed for the attacks and experienced increased amounts of Islamophobic hate.
“CAIR was founded after 9/11 because they recognized that some people did something, and that all of us were starting to lose access to our civil liberties,” she said.
The organization, formed in 1994, stepped up its work in response to the Islamophobia following the Sept. 11 attacks.
“Far too long we have lived with the discomfort of being a second-class citizen,” Omar said during the speech. “Frankly, I’m tired of it, and every single Muslim in this country should be tired of it.”
Since last week, Omar, one of two Muslim women in Congress and the subject of repeated Islamophobic attacks, has received death threats in response to the uproar over the comments.
The right wing is bursting with unhinged — and bigoted — conspiracy theories about the Notre Dame fire
ALEX HENDERSON, ALTERNET
16 APR 2019 AT 11:42 ET
Over the years, Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris has survived everything from the French Revolution to the Black Plague (which killed tens of millions of Europeans in the 1340s/1350s) to two world wars—and on Monday, April 15, Parisians were shocked to see the historic Medieval building in flames. But the blaze has been extinguished, although Notre Dame suffered extensive damage and will need to be rebuilt. According to French authorities, there is no reason to suspect foul play; the blaze appeared to be the accidental result of renovations work—not terrorism or arson. But that hasn’t stopped far-right extremists and wingnuts from floating conspiracy theories about the Notre Dame fire.
One such extremist is Glenn Beck, founder of the right-wing media company Blaze TV and former AM talk radio host. On Blaze, Beck described the fire as a French equivalent of 9/11 and speculated that the Notre Dame blaze might have been started on purpose by Islamic terrorists—despite the lack of evidence of any type of foul play.
Blaze asserted, “If this was arson, this is going to be bad. It might have just been started by a cigarette; we don’t know. But if this was started by Islamists, I don’t think you’ll find out about it, because I think it would set the entire country on fire. They’ve had killings, they’ve had mass shootings, they’ve had people running people down in the streets. The tension is very high.”
The French government, according to Beck, will not notify the public if it finds evidence of terrorism. “This is their World Trade Center moment,” Beck said on Blaze TV. “And if this was done by terrorists, I think that they will keep it quiet.”
Guest Chad Robichaux concurred with Beck, telling him, “I’m with you” and claiming that French authorities will cover up any evidence of foul play because there “would be a slaughter in the streets” in France.
Beck’s 9/11 comparison is flawed. First, there is no question that the al-Qaeda attacks on the World Trade Center in New York City and the Pentagon in Washington, D.C. on September 11, 2001 were attacks of terrorism. The Twin Towers were destroyed on purpose; the Notre Dame blaze, French authorities are saying, was an accident. Second, no one died because of the Notre Dame fire, although one firefighter suffered serious injuries—whereas on 9/11, roughly 3000 people were murdered.
When far-right French politician Philippe Karsenty was interviewed on Fox News on Monday, he speculated that the Notre Dame blaze was set on purpose and that the French government would suppress evidence of foul play. Karsenty told Fox News’ Shepard Smith, “Even if nobody died, it’s like a 9/11. It’s a French 9/11, you know?…. Of course, you will hear the story of the political correctness, which will tell you it’s probably an accident.”
But Smith, who is among the more reasonable conservatives at Fox News, shut Karsenty down—telling him, “Sir, we’re not going to speculate here of the cause of something which we don’t know…. We’re not doing that here—not now, not on my watch.”
Alex Jones’ Infowars website, notorious for promoting outlandish conspiracy theories, also floated the claim that the fire was “deliberately” set. Infowars’ “source” was an alleged Notre Dame worker. And anti-Islam activist Pamela Geller claimed that the “Notre Dame Cathedral inferno” was “intentionally set” and implied that there was an ISIS (Islamic State, Iraq and Syria) connection.
A troll Twitter account, @CNNPolitics2020, pretended to be CNN and posted, “BREAKING: CNN can now confirm the Notre Dame fire was caused by act of terrorism.” But the account had no connection whatsoever to CNN, and Twitter shut @CNNPolitics2020 down when it learned of the disinformation it was spreading about the Notre Dame blaze.
One such extremist is Glenn Beck, founder of the right-wing media company Blaze TV and former AM talk radio host. On Blaze, Beck described the fire as a French equivalent of 9/11 and speculated that the Notre Dame blaze might have been started on purpose by Islamic terrorists—despite the lack of evidence of any type of foul play.
Blaze asserted, “If this was arson, this is going to be bad. It might have just been started by a cigarette; we don’t know. But if this was started by Islamists, I don’t think you’ll find out about it, because I think it would set the entire country on fire. They’ve had killings, they’ve had mass shootings, they’ve had people running people down in the streets. The tension is very high.”
The French government, according to Beck, will not notify the public if it finds evidence of terrorism. “This is their World Trade Center moment,” Beck said on Blaze TV. “And if this was done by terrorists, I think that they will keep it quiet.”
Guest Chad Robichaux concurred with Beck, telling him, “I’m with you” and claiming that French authorities will cover up any evidence of foul play because there “would be a slaughter in the streets” in France.
Beck’s 9/11 comparison is flawed. First, there is no question that the al-Qaeda attacks on the World Trade Center in New York City and the Pentagon in Washington, D.C. on September 11, 2001 were attacks of terrorism. The Twin Towers were destroyed on purpose; the Notre Dame blaze, French authorities are saying, was an accident. Second, no one died because of the Notre Dame fire, although one firefighter suffered serious injuries—whereas on 9/11, roughly 3000 people were murdered.
When far-right French politician Philippe Karsenty was interviewed on Fox News on Monday, he speculated that the Notre Dame blaze was set on purpose and that the French government would suppress evidence of foul play. Karsenty told Fox News’ Shepard Smith, “Even if nobody died, it’s like a 9/11. It’s a French 9/11, you know?…. Of course, you will hear the story of the political correctness, which will tell you it’s probably an accident.”
But Smith, who is among the more reasonable conservatives at Fox News, shut Karsenty down—telling him, “Sir, we’re not going to speculate here of the cause of something which we don’t know…. We’re not doing that here—not now, not on my watch.”
Alex Jones’ Infowars website, notorious for promoting outlandish conspiracy theories, also floated the claim that the fire was “deliberately” set. Infowars’ “source” was an alleged Notre Dame worker. And anti-Islam activist Pamela Geller claimed that the “Notre Dame Cathedral inferno” was “intentionally set” and implied that there was an ISIS (Islamic State, Iraq and Syria) connection.
A troll Twitter account, @CNNPolitics2020, pretended to be CNN and posted, “BREAKING: CNN can now confirm the Notre Dame fire was caused by act of terrorism.” But the account had no connection whatsoever to CNN, and Twitter shut @CNNPolitics2020 down when it learned of the disinformation it was spreading about the Notre Dame blaze.
Chuck Todd’s interview with Mitt Romney: A massive failure that shows exactly why Americans uninformed on healthcare
by Egberto Willies / Daily Kos - alternet
April 8, 2019
Chuck Todd reverted to form on Sunday’s Meet The Press. He interviewed Senator Mitt Romney with excellent questions. The problem is that he accepted Romney’s answers at face value. Sadly for the average American, after listening to the interview, they would have left more misinformed than when they started.
I am convinced that it is not only being wards of the Plutocracy that causes mainst+-ream media talking heads like Chuck Todd to allow the misinformation. There is a level of wanting to ingratiate with these people of power that may also be causal.
In the short interview, Todd allowed a lie, a spin, and a moral failure to go unchallenged. Ironically in the one with Mayor Pete before the Romney interview, he was holding the mayor to account for every word.
Chuck Todd, 3 strikes & you should be out on healthcare
Chuck Todd correctly pointed out that Obamacare was very similar to Massachusetts’ Romneycare. He then asked Romney if he wanted to start healthcare from scratch.
Before his bloviation, Romney lied. He said that Obamacare only affected 20% or so of Americans. Chuck Todd never pushed back. In not pushing back he left in the ethos that most Americans would not be affected by repeal. The reality is any repeal of Obamacare removes hard fought for protections like the elimination of caps, rescission, and discrimination against women. It also removes preexisting condition protections and the carrying of children up to age 26 on their parents’ policies.
Later when discussing private insurance, Romney claimed that Republicans wanted to create a plan more state-centered. He spoke about magically reducing with no specifics on how they would do it. Todd never reminded him that while in full control of the government, Republicans did absolutely nothing to ease the healthcare pain on Americans. They fought for repeal with nothing to offer in its place.
Lastly, The Utah voters voted for the Medicaid expansion to the Affordable Care Act. Their legislature is attempting to obstruct the people’s vote by getting waivers to be less generous. Romney gave the impression that the only issue was Utah wanted the ability to opt-out if the Federal Government did not fund their share of the program. That was a false statement. But there was a moral component that Chuck Todd did not follow up on at all. In effect, Romney was antiseptic in talking about the health of the people in his state. He just made it a cost issue instead of a human issue and Todd never call him on it.
There is no doubt that any average listener of that interview left much more misinformed than had they not watched it at all. And that is a shame, especially in these times. Our mainstream media is to blame for much of the failings in the body politic.
Chuck Todd is a good barometer of how mainstream press covers (or not) national and international events. Based on the pros vs. cons of his reporting, it isn’t all that good. And that is why as many of us as possible must become the new-media or assist in keeping a vibrant independent media. That is how we get a turn around.
I am convinced that it is not only being wards of the Plutocracy that causes mainst+-ream media talking heads like Chuck Todd to allow the misinformation. There is a level of wanting to ingratiate with these people of power that may also be causal.
In the short interview, Todd allowed a lie, a spin, and a moral failure to go unchallenged. Ironically in the one with Mayor Pete before the Romney interview, he was holding the mayor to account for every word.
Chuck Todd, 3 strikes & you should be out on healthcare
Chuck Todd correctly pointed out that Obamacare was very similar to Massachusetts’ Romneycare. He then asked Romney if he wanted to start healthcare from scratch.
Before his bloviation, Romney lied. He said that Obamacare only affected 20% or so of Americans. Chuck Todd never pushed back. In not pushing back he left in the ethos that most Americans would not be affected by repeal. The reality is any repeal of Obamacare removes hard fought for protections like the elimination of caps, rescission, and discrimination against women. It also removes preexisting condition protections and the carrying of children up to age 26 on their parents’ policies.
Later when discussing private insurance, Romney claimed that Republicans wanted to create a plan more state-centered. He spoke about magically reducing with no specifics on how they would do it. Todd never reminded him that while in full control of the government, Republicans did absolutely nothing to ease the healthcare pain on Americans. They fought for repeal with nothing to offer in its place.
Lastly, The Utah voters voted for the Medicaid expansion to the Affordable Care Act. Their legislature is attempting to obstruct the people’s vote by getting waivers to be less generous. Romney gave the impression that the only issue was Utah wanted the ability to opt-out if the Federal Government did not fund their share of the program. That was a false statement. But there was a moral component that Chuck Todd did not follow up on at all. In effect, Romney was antiseptic in talking about the health of the people in his state. He just made it a cost issue instead of a human issue and Todd never call him on it.
There is no doubt that any average listener of that interview left much more misinformed than had they not watched it at all. And that is a shame, especially in these times. Our mainstream media is to blame for much of the failings in the body politic.
Chuck Todd is a good barometer of how mainstream press covers (or not) national and international events. Based on the pros vs. cons of his reporting, it isn’t all that good. And that is why as many of us as possible must become the new-media or assist in keeping a vibrant independent media. That is how we get a turn around.
Fox & Friends dredges up Pete Buttigieg’s recently deceased father to smear candidate as ‘radical’
David Edwards - raw story
08 APR 2019 AT 11:27 ET
Fox News personality Rachel Campos-Duffy on Monday blasted Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg and his dead father, Joseph, as “radicals.”
During a segment on Fox & Friends, Campos-Duffy expressed outrage at Buttigieg because he had suggested that evangelical voters should pick him instead of President Donald Trump.
Campos-Duffy angrily pointed out that Buttigieg “blocked a pregnancy crisis center from opening up in his hometown.”
“One of the things mayor Pete said, they’re hypocrites, evangelicals and Catholics are hypocrites voting for President Trump because he doesn’t care about prisoners and immigrants and the poor,” the Fox News contributor said. “And I would say false on all claims. The poor, the poor don’t want handouts from the government. They want financial independence.”
She continued: “And I think that this economy has actually delivered on that. Two, prisoners, who delivered on criminal justice reform?
And three, immigration, very debatable for me to say that Democrats who want to do nothing to a system that is exploiting and leading to sexual abuse of children and women coming up to the border, not very Christian in my view.”
According to the Fox contributor, Buttigieg is a “radical” underneath his “mild-mannered” appearance.
“I think if you lift up the hood on Mayor Pete, you’ll see [Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez]. He’s radical, his dad is a radical — was, he recently died — Marxist professor,” Campos-Duffy remarked. “I think he puts a mild face just like Obama on some pretty radical policies.”
In fact, Joseph Buttigieg was a professor at the University of Notre Dame. During his time there, he was known for translating the prison diaries of Antonio Gramsci, an Italian Marxist. Joseph Buttigieg died on January 27, 2019.
During a segment on Fox & Friends, Campos-Duffy expressed outrage at Buttigieg because he had suggested that evangelical voters should pick him instead of President Donald Trump.
Campos-Duffy angrily pointed out that Buttigieg “blocked a pregnancy crisis center from opening up in his hometown.”
“One of the things mayor Pete said, they’re hypocrites, evangelicals and Catholics are hypocrites voting for President Trump because he doesn’t care about prisoners and immigrants and the poor,” the Fox News contributor said. “And I would say false on all claims. The poor, the poor don’t want handouts from the government. They want financial independence.”
She continued: “And I think that this economy has actually delivered on that. Two, prisoners, who delivered on criminal justice reform?
And three, immigration, very debatable for me to say that Democrats who want to do nothing to a system that is exploiting and leading to sexual abuse of children and women coming up to the border, not very Christian in my view.”
According to the Fox contributor, Buttigieg is a “radical” underneath his “mild-mannered” appearance.
“I think if you lift up the hood on Mayor Pete, you’ll see [Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez]. He’s radical, his dad is a radical — was, he recently died — Marxist professor,” Campos-Duffy remarked. “I think he puts a mild face just like Obama on some pretty radical policies.”
In fact, Joseph Buttigieg was a professor at the University of Notre Dame. During his time there, he was known for translating the prison diaries of Antonio Gramsci, an Italian Marxist. Joseph Buttigieg died on January 27, 2019.
Child Brides in Africa Are Advertised on Facebook and Sold to Old Men
In one Nigerian community, illiterate fathers have learned from their sons that Facebook is a good way to let buyers know their daughters are for sale.
Philip Obaji Jr. - daily beast
04.04.19 4:57 AM ET
OBANLIKU, Nigeria—Monica, 16, is one of two sisters sold as wives to men who found their photographs on their father's Facebook page and contacted him. She and her 14-year-old younger sister never wanted to get married until they completed their secondary education in Ogbakoko, a small village in Obanliku Local Government Area in Nigeria’s south-central Cross River state. But the teenage sisters fell victims to a culture which subjects little girls, some as young as 10, to de facto slavery through a tradition called “money marriage.”
The sisters belong to the Becheve community, a large tribe of 17 villages in Obanliku where there is a long tradition in which young girls—often referred to as “money women” or “money wives”—are sold in exchange for food or livestock or cash, or to settle debts.
Like hundreds, or perhaps thousands, of girls from the Becheve clan who are victims of money marriages, Monica and her sister were sold without their consent. Their father wanted to clear the debt he owed to a distant relative. The two sisters got married a month apart to men whom they did not know at all and who were old enough to be their grandfathers.
Their respective husbands got in touch with their father after seeing the Facebook page where he posted photos of his six daughters to draw the attention of his tribesmen. The men of the clan have found the new technology helps to extend and expand their old, exploitative traditions.
“My father knew nothing about Facebook until my elder brother bought him a smartphone and convinced him to join Facebook and post our photographs whenever he likes,” Monica told The Daily Beast. “He'll buy new clothes and force me and my sisters to put them on before taking photographs of us.”
Usually in the Becheve community, parents of the money brides take the girls to men who can afford to pay for their daughters whenever they think they are fit for marriage, or wait for interested men to request their daughter's hand in marriage. But in recent months, families who are so desperate to give their children away for money turn to Facebook so their kinsmen can check them out.
“It is young people who convince old men to look for wives on Facebook,” said Monica, who ran away from her husband to live with a friend less than a year after she got married. “The man I married said his oldest son showed him my photo on Facebook and directed him to my father.”
In effect, they use Facebook, quite literally, as a face book, although the actual exchange of money or goods does not take place online.
Spokespeople for Facebook, when contacted by The Daily Beast, were not familiar with the phenomenon as practiced in the Becheve community.
In other cultures where brides have been auctioned online, measures have been taken to stop the transactions.
Reports of Facebook being used as a tool to facilitate child marriage aren’t unique to Nigeria. Last November, the social media platform came under fire after posts discussing the sale of a 16-year-old girl in South Sudan. The victim was married in the process after her father, in exchange for his daughter, received 530 cows, three Land Cruiser V8 cars and $10,000. The teenager reportedly was bid on by five men, including senior officials in the South Sudanese government.
Facebook said it took down the post as soon it learned of of it on Nov. 9, but that wasn't until after the victim, Nyalong Ngong Deng Jalang, had been married off as the 10th wife of Kok Alat, a wealthy businessman from the country’s capital city of Juba, on Nov. 3. The post seeking bids for the teenager reportedly was published on Oct. 25.
After publication of the winning bid, Jalang achieved a certain notoriety in local media as “the most expensive woman in South Sudan.”
But the money wives of Becheve rarely receive any publicity, and often endure very difficult times as, in effect, chattel servants. They are usually not allowed to go to school and could be given out to another man if their husbands so desire. If the husband of a money wife dies, his next-of-kin becomes her new husband. The Becheve custom demands that if a money wife dies without bearing any child, her parents can bring another girl in the family to replace her. Regardless of the treatment she gets in her husband's house, a money wife is not to run back to her parents.
“The practice is meant to boost the status of the men in Becheve community,” Magnus Ejikang, a local chief in Ogbakoko, told The Daily Beast. “The more brides you have, the more respect you gain in the community.”
But for many money wives in the Becheve community, the experience in their husband's home is often disastrous, with reports of marital abuse and exploitation.
“Once he married me, he turned me into his slave and punching bag,” said Monica, who—just like her sister—was given away to her husband for 20,000 Nigerian naira (about $50), along with two goats, a pig and some yams. “He said he paid so much to marry me and so I had to labor hard by working for hours everyday in the farm to prove that I'm a grateful wife.”
Monica and her sister, who is still married to her 65-year-old husband, aren't the only girls to have ended up in forced marriage after their photos appeared on Facebook. Regina, another teenager from the Becheve tribe, was sold in January by her parents to a man already married with two wives and 11 children. Her husband found her photo on the Facebook page of her uncle, who is notorious for putting photographs of his female relatives on the social media site to draw the attention of men from Becheve seeking child brides. She was then forced into marriage after her uncle pressured her parents, to the dismay of her older brother.
“Our greedy uncle, in his usual way of manipulating his brothers into selling their daughters, convinced my parents [to give out their daughter in marriage] because he wanted a share of the bride price money,” John Ashua, brother of 15-year-old Regina, told The Daily Beast. “He earns a living by looking for husbands for the girls in the family even when they are not ready to get married.”
Married life has been difficult for Regina herself. Besides having to drop out of school and carrying out most of the chores at home, she has to look after her husband's livestock, which includes dozens of goats and pigs, and she is punished if she doesn't work as demanded.
“He beat me last night because I said I was tired and couldn't have sex with him,” Regina, who is now pregnant, complained to her brother on the telephone. “Whenever he returns home at night, he demands sex.”
Facebook is hugely popular in Nigeria with about a fifth of the country's 98 million internet users connected to the site. But in rural areas like the Becheve community, where literacy levels are not so high among the elderly, the social media platform is mostly common among young people, who are the greatest owners of smart phones. Activists say youths in the clan are actually the brain behind men searching for money wives on Facebook.
“The majority of Becheve men knew nothing about Facebook until their sons and other young relatives began to show them photos of young Becheve girls on the platform,” Queen Eteng, a researcher with the Nigerian women's rights NGO, Our Women Network, told The Daily Beast. “Most fathers don't run the Facebook pages opened in their names. Rather it is younger family members who create the pages and post the photos.”
In the Becheve community, the practice of child marriage is deeply rooted in its customs and tradition. While rights campaigners admit it will be challenging changing the age-old tradition, they do nevertheless believe that the scale of the practice could easily be reduced.
“Young people have a huge role to play in putting a stop to this brutal tradition,” said Odey, whose organization works to end child marriage in Cross River state. “We are reaching out to young men in Becheve community to put a stop to the use of Facebook to display photos of girls for the purpose of having them married.”
The sisters belong to the Becheve community, a large tribe of 17 villages in Obanliku where there is a long tradition in which young girls—often referred to as “money women” or “money wives”—are sold in exchange for food or livestock or cash, or to settle debts.
Like hundreds, or perhaps thousands, of girls from the Becheve clan who are victims of money marriages, Monica and her sister were sold without their consent. Their father wanted to clear the debt he owed to a distant relative. The two sisters got married a month apart to men whom they did not know at all and who were old enough to be their grandfathers.
Their respective husbands got in touch with their father after seeing the Facebook page where he posted photos of his six daughters to draw the attention of his tribesmen. The men of the clan have found the new technology helps to extend and expand their old, exploitative traditions.
“My father knew nothing about Facebook until my elder brother bought him a smartphone and convinced him to join Facebook and post our photographs whenever he likes,” Monica told The Daily Beast. “He'll buy new clothes and force me and my sisters to put them on before taking photographs of us.”
Usually in the Becheve community, parents of the money brides take the girls to men who can afford to pay for their daughters whenever they think they are fit for marriage, or wait for interested men to request their daughter's hand in marriage. But in recent months, families who are so desperate to give their children away for money turn to Facebook so their kinsmen can check them out.
“It is young people who convince old men to look for wives on Facebook,” said Monica, who ran away from her husband to live with a friend less than a year after she got married. “The man I married said his oldest son showed him my photo on Facebook and directed him to my father.”
In effect, they use Facebook, quite literally, as a face book, although the actual exchange of money or goods does not take place online.
Spokespeople for Facebook, when contacted by The Daily Beast, were not familiar with the phenomenon as practiced in the Becheve community.
In other cultures where brides have been auctioned online, measures have been taken to stop the transactions.
Reports of Facebook being used as a tool to facilitate child marriage aren’t unique to Nigeria. Last November, the social media platform came under fire after posts discussing the sale of a 16-year-old girl in South Sudan. The victim was married in the process after her father, in exchange for his daughter, received 530 cows, three Land Cruiser V8 cars and $10,000. The teenager reportedly was bid on by five men, including senior officials in the South Sudanese government.
Facebook said it took down the post as soon it learned of of it on Nov. 9, but that wasn't until after the victim, Nyalong Ngong Deng Jalang, had been married off as the 10th wife of Kok Alat, a wealthy businessman from the country’s capital city of Juba, on Nov. 3. The post seeking bids for the teenager reportedly was published on Oct. 25.
After publication of the winning bid, Jalang achieved a certain notoriety in local media as “the most expensive woman in South Sudan.”
But the money wives of Becheve rarely receive any publicity, and often endure very difficult times as, in effect, chattel servants. They are usually not allowed to go to school and could be given out to another man if their husbands so desire. If the husband of a money wife dies, his next-of-kin becomes her new husband. The Becheve custom demands that if a money wife dies without bearing any child, her parents can bring another girl in the family to replace her. Regardless of the treatment she gets in her husband's house, a money wife is not to run back to her parents.
“The practice is meant to boost the status of the men in Becheve community,” Magnus Ejikang, a local chief in Ogbakoko, told The Daily Beast. “The more brides you have, the more respect you gain in the community.”
But for many money wives in the Becheve community, the experience in their husband's home is often disastrous, with reports of marital abuse and exploitation.
“Once he married me, he turned me into his slave and punching bag,” said Monica, who—just like her sister—was given away to her husband for 20,000 Nigerian naira (about $50), along with two goats, a pig and some yams. “He said he paid so much to marry me and so I had to labor hard by working for hours everyday in the farm to prove that I'm a grateful wife.”
Monica and her sister, who is still married to her 65-year-old husband, aren't the only girls to have ended up in forced marriage after their photos appeared on Facebook. Regina, another teenager from the Becheve tribe, was sold in January by her parents to a man already married with two wives and 11 children. Her husband found her photo on the Facebook page of her uncle, who is notorious for putting photographs of his female relatives on the social media site to draw the attention of men from Becheve seeking child brides. She was then forced into marriage after her uncle pressured her parents, to the dismay of her older brother.
“Our greedy uncle, in his usual way of manipulating his brothers into selling their daughters, convinced my parents [to give out their daughter in marriage] because he wanted a share of the bride price money,” John Ashua, brother of 15-year-old Regina, told The Daily Beast. “He earns a living by looking for husbands for the girls in the family even when they are not ready to get married.”
Married life has been difficult for Regina herself. Besides having to drop out of school and carrying out most of the chores at home, she has to look after her husband's livestock, which includes dozens of goats and pigs, and she is punished if she doesn't work as demanded.
“He beat me last night because I said I was tired and couldn't have sex with him,” Regina, who is now pregnant, complained to her brother on the telephone. “Whenever he returns home at night, he demands sex.”
Facebook is hugely popular in Nigeria with about a fifth of the country's 98 million internet users connected to the site. But in rural areas like the Becheve community, where literacy levels are not so high among the elderly, the social media platform is mostly common among young people, who are the greatest owners of smart phones. Activists say youths in the clan are actually the brain behind men searching for money wives on Facebook.
“The majority of Becheve men knew nothing about Facebook until their sons and other young relatives began to show them photos of young Becheve girls on the platform,” Queen Eteng, a researcher with the Nigerian women's rights NGO, Our Women Network, told The Daily Beast. “Most fathers don't run the Facebook pages opened in their names. Rather it is younger family members who create the pages and post the photos.”
In the Becheve community, the practice of child marriage is deeply rooted in its customs and tradition. While rights campaigners admit it will be challenging changing the age-old tradition, they do nevertheless believe that the scale of the practice could easily be reduced.
“Young people have a huge role to play in putting a stop to this brutal tradition,” said Odey, whose organization works to end child marriage in Cross River state. “We are reaching out to young men in Becheve community to put a stop to the use of Facebook to display photos of girls for the purpose of having them married.”
HOW THE MEDIA LAUNDERS FOSSIL FUEL INDUSTRY PROPAGANDA THROUGH BRANDED CONTENT
Sharon Lerner - the intercept
April 3 2019, 10:32 a.m.
THERE IT WAS in black and white — or black, white, and a palette of gentle greens and blues. With a headline predicting that natural gas “will thrive in the age of renewables,” the article made the case that there are limitations on solar and wind power and that — as a subhead spelled out in aquamarine type — natural gas “is part of the solution.” Why was the Washington Post weighing in on the need for continued production of this fossil fuel in the face of climate change?
Or was it? On closer inspection, the report wasn’t coming from the D.C. paper’s newsroom. Though the link takes you to a page published by WashingtonPost.com, the story is actually a publication of WP BrandStudio, the paper’s branded content platform. In other words, the article is really an advertisement, and the copy was paid for by the American Petroleum Institute. The tagline — “Content from American Petroleum Institute” — is plain to see if you’re looking for it, though easy to miss if you’re not.
It’s not surprising that the trade group representing the oil and gas industry would want to leap to the defense of natural gas now. The notion that the energy source is a “bridge fuel” that will somehow safely deliver us to wind and solar — and past the threat of climate change — has been vaporized by recent science.
The combustion of natural gas does in fact create less carbon dioxide than the burning of coal, as the API “article” notes, pointing out that “new natural gas plants emit 50 to 60 percent less carbon into the atmosphere than new coal facilities.”
But what the piece doesn’t mention is that the drilling, extraction, and transport of natural gas also releases methane. And though carbon dioxide is the best-known greenhouse gas and stays in the atmosphere longer than methane, methane traps at least 86 times more heat than carbon dioxide before it degrades.
Nor does it reference the fact that the amount of methane in the atmosphere has increased sharply in the past few years and, scientists warn, threatens to derail efforts to limit warming. While there are questions as to which of several global sources of methane — including cows, wetlands, and coal mines — is driving the recent spike in emissions, evidence has tied it to the boom of natural gas production. And that in turn has led many scientists to assail the idea that natural gas is a “greener” fuel. In fact, depending on the leakage rate during production, natural gas may be even worse for the climate than coal.
“This idea that natural gas is better than coal is just a distraction,” said Robert Howarth, a biogeochemist at Cornell whose research has tied the particular type of methane newly found in the atmosphere to shale gas production. “If you’re serious about keeping the planet below 2 degrees of warming, you can’t do that without cutting down on methane. We need to move away from all fossil fuels as quickly as we can.”
Not surprisingly, the Washington Post piece — or rather, the American Petroleum Institute piece in the Washington Post — doesn’t include any comments from independent scientists like Howarth. Instead, it quotes Wayne Winegarden, a businessperson affiliated with climate-denying organizations such as the Heartland Institute and the Pacific Research Institute.
Fossil fuel companies aren’t the only ones using stories that appear to be part of a journalistic publication, but are actually paid for by advertisers in attempt to improve an image suffering in the coverage done by actual journalists. Native advertising, as it’s called, has spread misinformation on everything from the “superfood” moringa to Thai seafood slavery, and has raised serious questions about journalistic ethics.
And WP BrandStudio, which has also produced spots for BP and Lockheed Martin, is hardly the only example of a branded content shop associated with a mainstream newspaper helping fossil fuel companies spin their message. T Brand Studio, a brand marketing unit within the New York Times, has produced pieces for Chevron, Exxon Mobil, and Shell.
At a time when many publications are struggling to stay afloat — and cover the costs of environmental reporting — native advertising is an increasingly important piece of the financial puzzle. The paid features that mimic actual reporting brought in 20 percent of all advertising income for news media organizations in 2017, according to the World Association of Newspapers and News Publishers and the Native Advertising Institute.
But the issue of fossil fuel companies’ massive spending to greenwash their image is quickly heating up as scientific evidence — and unbiased reporting on it — is pointing to the need to phase out fossil fuels as soon as possible. Industry trade groups spent almost $1.4 billion on PR, advertising and communications contractors over the past decade, according to the Climate Investigations Center, almost half of which came from the American Petroleum Institute.
The five largest publicly traded oil and gas companies have spent some $1 billion on “narrative capture” and lobbying since the Paris Agreement was struck in 2016, according to a report published this month by Influence Map. That spending includes $195 million on “often misleading branding campaigns.”
Even before they kicked into high gear to counter the growing public awareness of climate change, some oil and gas companies were engaged in sly, aggressive, and destructive media efforts to counter their opponents.
In 2014, Chevron launched a publication that appears to exist for the sole purpose of defending its refinery in Richmond, California. The refinery had a long history of chemical leaks, fires, dangerous emissions, and unsafe conditions before a leak led to a massive explosion in 2012. The incident sent a “toxic fireball of smoke” over Richmond and prompted 15,000 residents to seek medical help, as the East Bay Express reported after the federal Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board issued its final report on the incident in 2015.
But the Richmond Standard, a local publication Chevron launched in 2013, didn’t cover the report that way — and doesn’t appear to have covered it at all. The Standard “produces news about what is going on in the surrounding community,” according to Braden Reddall, an external affairs advisor for Chevron. And a recent edition of the site, which included an article on the announcement of a date for the coming Little League parade and a review of the local hot dog joint, bears that out.
Despite appearing to be an unbiased news source, the Standard also includes a section of feel-good news about the refinery that includes no mention of the health and safety issues other publications have reported as linked to the refinery. Chevron’s Reddall pointed out in an email that the section on the refinery is “clearly marked as editorial under the ‘Chevron Speaks’ heading.” His email also noted that “The West Contra Costa County region has embraced the publication.”
But not all locals have a positive view of the Standard. “They created it so they could control the narrative,” said Greg Karras, senior scientist at Communities for a Better Environment, a group that has been calling attention to health impacts of the refinery for decades. “When there’s something they want or don’t want and is really important to the business, they want their story about it to get out, rather than rely on independent reporting.”
Chevron seems to have had an even darker purpose in mind when it created the Amazon Post. The website, which has a “breaking news” column and “most read” section, identifies itself in small type as “Chevron’s Views and Opinions on the Ecuador Lawsuit.” But the Post’s real purpose appears to be the targeting of Steven Donziger — an attorney with whom the company has been engaged in a pitched legal battle over massive pollution in the Amazon rainforest in Ecuador for more than two decades.
Chevron’s Reddall says that the company maintains the Amazon Post “to express the company’s views and opinions on a fraudulent lawsuit against the company in Ecuador” and that “the information about Steven Donziger chronicles his long history of illegal activity.”
For his part, Donziger, who was part of a legal team that won a $9.5 billion judgment in the Ecuadorian courts against Chevron over the pollution, says that the Post is just one of the tools the giant energy company has used to personally and professionally destroy him. While three Ecuadorian courts, including the highest court in the land, upheld the judgment, U.S. District Court Judge Lewis A. Kaplan ruled that it should not be enforced because parts of it were “corruptly ghostwritten” in return for the promise of a bribe.
Chevron, which has employed at least 2,000 lawyers and legal personnel from more than 60 firms to work on litigation around the pollution in Ecuador, also filed a lawsuit against Donziger in 2011 alleging that he won the judgment in Ecuador through fraud and racketeering. Kaplan decided the case in Chevron’s favor in a trial held without a jury. And recently that decision was the basis for Donziger having his legal license suspended without a hearing and his bank account frozen. While Donziger has denied that he committed misconduct and contested his suspension in court, the company has delighted over his suffering in the Amazon Post.
There may soon be more fossil fuel company publications entirely devoted to smearing the reputation of individuals, according to Robert Brulle. “They’re likely going to attack Alexandria Ocasio Cortez personally and demonize her. They’ve already begun that,” said Brulle, a sociologist and visiting professor of environment and society at Brown University. “It’s an old strategy — to delegitimize your opponents.”
Brulle also thinks that there will soon be more native advertising from oil and gas companies, which he classifies as “classic propaganda.” “We’re going to see a lot more from API, Exxon Mobil, and other companies,” said Brulle, who notes that the share of oil and gas industry spending on think tanks, such as Heartland, is about a tenth of its expenditures on communications. “As the threat of possible change to the fossil fuel industry increases, they ramp up their resources.”
And of course, change to our energy system is not just possible — it’s necessary.
“Nations have barely a decade to take ‘unprecedented’ actions and cut their emissions in half by 2030 to prevent the worst consequences of climate change,” as a December article about the climate talks in Poland explained. That article appeared in the Washington Post — the real one.
Or was it? On closer inspection, the report wasn’t coming from the D.C. paper’s newsroom. Though the link takes you to a page published by WashingtonPost.com, the story is actually a publication of WP BrandStudio, the paper’s branded content platform. In other words, the article is really an advertisement, and the copy was paid for by the American Petroleum Institute. The tagline — “Content from American Petroleum Institute” — is plain to see if you’re looking for it, though easy to miss if you’re not.
It’s not surprising that the trade group representing the oil and gas industry would want to leap to the defense of natural gas now. The notion that the energy source is a “bridge fuel” that will somehow safely deliver us to wind and solar — and past the threat of climate change — has been vaporized by recent science.
The combustion of natural gas does in fact create less carbon dioxide than the burning of coal, as the API “article” notes, pointing out that “new natural gas plants emit 50 to 60 percent less carbon into the atmosphere than new coal facilities.”
But what the piece doesn’t mention is that the drilling, extraction, and transport of natural gas also releases methane. And though carbon dioxide is the best-known greenhouse gas and stays in the atmosphere longer than methane, methane traps at least 86 times more heat than carbon dioxide before it degrades.
Nor does it reference the fact that the amount of methane in the atmosphere has increased sharply in the past few years and, scientists warn, threatens to derail efforts to limit warming. While there are questions as to which of several global sources of methane — including cows, wetlands, and coal mines — is driving the recent spike in emissions, evidence has tied it to the boom of natural gas production. And that in turn has led many scientists to assail the idea that natural gas is a “greener” fuel. In fact, depending on the leakage rate during production, natural gas may be even worse for the climate than coal.
“This idea that natural gas is better than coal is just a distraction,” said Robert Howarth, a biogeochemist at Cornell whose research has tied the particular type of methane newly found in the atmosphere to shale gas production. “If you’re serious about keeping the planet below 2 degrees of warming, you can’t do that without cutting down on methane. We need to move away from all fossil fuels as quickly as we can.”
Not surprisingly, the Washington Post piece — or rather, the American Petroleum Institute piece in the Washington Post — doesn’t include any comments from independent scientists like Howarth. Instead, it quotes Wayne Winegarden, a businessperson affiliated with climate-denying organizations such as the Heartland Institute and the Pacific Research Institute.
Fossil fuel companies aren’t the only ones using stories that appear to be part of a journalistic publication, but are actually paid for by advertisers in attempt to improve an image suffering in the coverage done by actual journalists. Native advertising, as it’s called, has spread misinformation on everything from the “superfood” moringa to Thai seafood slavery, and has raised serious questions about journalistic ethics.
And WP BrandStudio, which has also produced spots for BP and Lockheed Martin, is hardly the only example of a branded content shop associated with a mainstream newspaper helping fossil fuel companies spin their message. T Brand Studio, a brand marketing unit within the New York Times, has produced pieces for Chevron, Exxon Mobil, and Shell.
At a time when many publications are struggling to stay afloat — and cover the costs of environmental reporting — native advertising is an increasingly important piece of the financial puzzle. The paid features that mimic actual reporting brought in 20 percent of all advertising income for news media organizations in 2017, according to the World Association of Newspapers and News Publishers and the Native Advertising Institute.
But the issue of fossil fuel companies’ massive spending to greenwash their image is quickly heating up as scientific evidence — and unbiased reporting on it — is pointing to the need to phase out fossil fuels as soon as possible. Industry trade groups spent almost $1.4 billion on PR, advertising and communications contractors over the past decade, according to the Climate Investigations Center, almost half of which came from the American Petroleum Institute.
The five largest publicly traded oil and gas companies have spent some $1 billion on “narrative capture” and lobbying since the Paris Agreement was struck in 2016, according to a report published this month by Influence Map. That spending includes $195 million on “often misleading branding campaigns.”
Even before they kicked into high gear to counter the growing public awareness of climate change, some oil and gas companies were engaged in sly, aggressive, and destructive media efforts to counter their opponents.
In 2014, Chevron launched a publication that appears to exist for the sole purpose of defending its refinery in Richmond, California. The refinery had a long history of chemical leaks, fires, dangerous emissions, and unsafe conditions before a leak led to a massive explosion in 2012. The incident sent a “toxic fireball of smoke” over Richmond and prompted 15,000 residents to seek medical help, as the East Bay Express reported after the federal Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board issued its final report on the incident in 2015.
But the Richmond Standard, a local publication Chevron launched in 2013, didn’t cover the report that way — and doesn’t appear to have covered it at all. The Standard “produces news about what is going on in the surrounding community,” according to Braden Reddall, an external affairs advisor for Chevron. And a recent edition of the site, which included an article on the announcement of a date for the coming Little League parade and a review of the local hot dog joint, bears that out.
Despite appearing to be an unbiased news source, the Standard also includes a section of feel-good news about the refinery that includes no mention of the health and safety issues other publications have reported as linked to the refinery. Chevron’s Reddall pointed out in an email that the section on the refinery is “clearly marked as editorial under the ‘Chevron Speaks’ heading.” His email also noted that “The West Contra Costa County region has embraced the publication.”
But not all locals have a positive view of the Standard. “They created it so they could control the narrative,” said Greg Karras, senior scientist at Communities for a Better Environment, a group that has been calling attention to health impacts of the refinery for decades. “When there’s something they want or don’t want and is really important to the business, they want their story about it to get out, rather than rely on independent reporting.”
Chevron seems to have had an even darker purpose in mind when it created the Amazon Post. The website, which has a “breaking news” column and “most read” section, identifies itself in small type as “Chevron’s Views and Opinions on the Ecuador Lawsuit.” But the Post’s real purpose appears to be the targeting of Steven Donziger — an attorney with whom the company has been engaged in a pitched legal battle over massive pollution in the Amazon rainforest in Ecuador for more than two decades.
Chevron’s Reddall says that the company maintains the Amazon Post “to express the company’s views and opinions on a fraudulent lawsuit against the company in Ecuador” and that “the information about Steven Donziger chronicles his long history of illegal activity.”
For his part, Donziger, who was part of a legal team that won a $9.5 billion judgment in the Ecuadorian courts against Chevron over the pollution, says that the Post is just one of the tools the giant energy company has used to personally and professionally destroy him. While three Ecuadorian courts, including the highest court in the land, upheld the judgment, U.S. District Court Judge Lewis A. Kaplan ruled that it should not be enforced because parts of it were “corruptly ghostwritten” in return for the promise of a bribe.
Chevron, which has employed at least 2,000 lawyers and legal personnel from more than 60 firms to work on litigation around the pollution in Ecuador, also filed a lawsuit against Donziger in 2011 alleging that he won the judgment in Ecuador through fraud and racketeering. Kaplan decided the case in Chevron’s favor in a trial held without a jury. And recently that decision was the basis for Donziger having his legal license suspended without a hearing and his bank account frozen. While Donziger has denied that he committed misconduct and contested his suspension in court, the company has delighted over his suffering in the Amazon Post.
There may soon be more fossil fuel company publications entirely devoted to smearing the reputation of individuals, according to Robert Brulle. “They’re likely going to attack Alexandria Ocasio Cortez personally and demonize her. They’ve already begun that,” said Brulle, a sociologist and visiting professor of environment and society at Brown University. “It’s an old strategy — to delegitimize your opponents.”
Brulle also thinks that there will soon be more native advertising from oil and gas companies, which he classifies as “classic propaganda.” “We’re going to see a lot more from API, Exxon Mobil, and other companies,” said Brulle, who notes that the share of oil and gas industry spending on think tanks, such as Heartland, is about a tenth of its expenditures on communications. “As the threat of possible change to the fossil fuel industry increases, they ramp up their resources.”
And of course, change to our energy system is not just possible — it’s necessary.
“Nations have barely a decade to take ‘unprecedented’ actions and cut their emissions in half by 2030 to prevent the worst consequences of climate change,” as a December article about the climate talks in Poland explained. That article appeared in the Washington Post — the real one.
Google resists pressure to pull LGBT "conversion therapy" app
axios
3/21/19
Google has so far refused to take down an app, already barred by Apple, Amazon and Microsoft, that aims to convince people that their same-sex sexual attractions are both sinful and changeable.
Why it matters: The app, from Living Hope Ministries, amounts to a form of conversion therapy, say LGBTQ rights groups that have urged Google to change its stance.
Details:
The big picture: The practice of conversion therapy is roundly opposed by the mainstream medical community as both ineffective and dangerous.
Yes, but: Supporters of the app maintain it isn't endorsing or practicing conversion therapy.
Between the lines: While Apple and Amazon were able to ban the apps due to policies against objectionable content, the wording of Google's terms of service are less broad. Advocacy groups, however, argue the app is tantamount to encouraging self-harm and child endangerment, both of which do violate Google's terms of service.
What they're saying: Several major LGBTQ rights groups told Axios they have written letters to Google CEO Sundar Pichai and have been trying, unsuccessfully, to meet with company executives face-to-face to voice their concerns.
"We are hopeful that technology companies recognize the harm of apps that promote conversion therapy. The Trevor Project hears from conversion therapy survivors in crisis every day, and we remain committed to ending the harmful practice in every state because we know it contributes to an increased risk of suicidal behavior among LGBTQ youth."
— Trevor Project CEO Amit Paley
"We have been urging Google to remove this app because it is life-threatening to LGBTQ youth and also clearly violates the company’s own standards. Amazon, Apple and Microsoft have taken action to remove the app from their platforms, but so far Google has refused despite our warnings about the dangers."
— Human Rights Campaign spokesperson
Google, meanwhile, isn't commenting on its decision.
The bottom line: Pressure will likely continue to mount on Google.
That said, Google could face a backlash from the other side of the ideological divide if it reverses course.
Why it matters: The app, from Living Hope Ministries, amounts to a form of conversion therapy, say LGBTQ rights groups that have urged Google to change its stance.
Details:
- The app offers testimonials and articles and includes sections for men, women, young people, and parents.
- More than 139,000 people have signed a Change.org petition calling on Google to ban the app, which has been downloaded at least 1,000 times. (The Google Play app store no longer gives specific download numbers but reports rough tiers.)
- A separate petition, calling on Apple to reinstate the app, has 20 signatures.
The big picture: The practice of conversion therapy is roundly opposed by the mainstream medical community as both ineffective and dangerous.
- Conversion therapy is opposed by prominent professional medical associations including the American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association, and the American Academy of Pediatrics.
- A 2018 study by The Family Acceptance Project found rates of attempted suicide by LGBT youth whose parents tried to change their sexual orientation were more than double the rate of LGBT youth who reported no such attempts to change their orientation.
- Efforts are under way to ban the practice in all 50 states.
Yes, but: Supporters of the app maintain it isn't endorsing or practicing conversion therapy.
Between the lines: While Apple and Amazon were able to ban the apps due to policies against objectionable content, the wording of Google's terms of service are less broad. Advocacy groups, however, argue the app is tantamount to encouraging self-harm and child endangerment, both of which do violate Google's terms of service.
What they're saying: Several major LGBTQ rights groups told Axios they have written letters to Google CEO Sundar Pichai and have been trying, unsuccessfully, to meet with company executives face-to-face to voice their concerns.
"We are hopeful that technology companies recognize the harm of apps that promote conversion therapy. The Trevor Project hears from conversion therapy survivors in crisis every day, and we remain committed to ending the harmful practice in every state because we know it contributes to an increased risk of suicidal behavior among LGBTQ youth."
— Trevor Project CEO Amit Paley
"We have been urging Google to remove this app because it is life-threatening to LGBTQ youth and also clearly violates the company’s own standards. Amazon, Apple and Microsoft have taken action to remove the app from their platforms, but so far Google has refused despite our warnings about the dangers."
— Human Rights Campaign spokesperson
Google, meanwhile, isn't commenting on its decision.
The bottom line: Pressure will likely continue to mount on Google.
- With letters and requests for meetings having gone unheeded, sources say Human Rights Campaign is weighing whether the decision should impact Google's score in the group's annual Corporate Equality Index, an influential rating of a company's stances on LGBTQ issues. That index is due out late this month.
That said, Google could face a backlash from the other side of the ideological divide if it reverses course.
|
|
The Empty Piety of the American Press
Chris Hedges - truthdig
3/12/18
The press, giddy with its newfound sense of mission and purpose, is carrying out a moral crusade against Donald Trump. The airwaves and print have shed their traditional claims of “impartiality” and “objectivity.” They fulminate against Trump, charging—falsely—that he was elected because of Russian interference and calling him a liar, ignorant and incompetent. They give airtime to his bitterest critics and bizarre associates, such as Omarosa Manigault-Newman, a onetime star of “The Apprentice” and now a fired White House aide, and Stormy Daniels, the porn actress who says she had a sexual relationship with Trump. It is great entertainment. It is great for ratings. It is great for profits. But it is not moral, and it is not journalism.
The empty piety is a mask for self-interest. It is accompanied by the veneration of the establishment politicians, generals, intelligence chiefs, corporate heads and hired apologists who carried out the corporate coup d’état that created our system of “inverted totalitarianism.” The corporate structures that have a stranglehold on the country and have overseen deindustrialization and the evisceration of democratic institutions, plunging over half the country into chronic poverty and misery, are unassailable. They are portrayed as forces of progress. The criminals on Wall Street, including the heads of financial firms such as Goldman Sachs, are treated with reverence. Free trade is equated with freedom. Democratic politicians such as Barack Obama—who assaulted civil liberties, transferred trillions of dollars upward to reigning oligarchs, expanded the drone wars to include targeted assassinations of American citizens, and used the Espionage Act to silence investigative journalism—are hailed as champions of democracy. Deference is paid to democratic processes, liberties, electoral politics and rights enshrined in our Constitution, from due process to privacy, that no longer exist. It is a vast game of deception under the cover of a vacuous morality.
Those cast aside by corporate capitalism—Noam Chomsky calls them “unpeople”—are rendered invisible and reviled at the same time. The “experts” whose opinions are amplified on every issue, from economics to empire and politics, are drawn from corporate-funded think tanks, such as the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute, or are former military and intelligence officials or politicians who are responsible for the failure of our democracy and usually in the employ of corporations. Cable news also has the incestuous habit of interviewing its own news celebrities. Former CIA Director John Brennan, one of many former officials now on the airwaves, has morphed into a senior national security and intelligence analyst for NBC and MSNBC. Brennan was the architect of the disastrous attempt to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to arm “moderate” rebels in Syria, oversaw the huge expansion of our drone wars and instigated the canard that Russia stole the last U.S. presidential election. The most astute critics of empire, including Andrew Bacevich, are banished, as are critics of corporate power, including Ralph Nader and Chomsky. Those who decry the waste within the military, such as MIT Professor Emeritus Ted Postol, who has exposed the useless $13 billion anti-ballistic missile program, are unheard. Advocates of universal health care, such as Dr. Margaret Flowers, are locked out of national health care debates. There is a long list of the censored. The acceptable range of opinion is so narrow it is almost nonexistent.
Where is the flood of stories about families being evicted or losing their homes because of foreclosures and bank repossessions? Where are the stories about the banks and lending agencies that prey on recent college graduates burdened with crippling loans and unable to find work? Where are the stories about families going into bankruptcy because they cannot pay medical bills and the soaring premiums of for-profit health care? Where are the stories about the despair that drives middle-aged white men to suicide and millions of Americans into the deadly embrace of opioid addiction? Where are the stories on the cruelty of mass incarceration, the collapse of our court system and the reign of terror by police in marginal communities? Where are the investigative pieces on the fraud and the tax boycott that have been legalized for Wall Street, the poisoning of the ecosystem by the fossil fuel and animal agriculture industries? Why is climate change a forbidden subject, even as extreme weather devastates the nation and much of the rest of the planet? Why are the atrocities we commit or abet in Iraq, Afghanistan and Yemen ignored? Why are the war crimes carried out by Israel against the Palestinians erased from news coverage?
The relentless pillorying of Trump is news-as-reality-television. Trump fills in for Richard Hatch of the old “Survivor” show. Trump’s imbecility, dishonesty, narcissism and incompetence are at once revolting and riveting. The press, ostensibly seeking a more polished brand to improve the public presentation of empire and corporate capitalism, is in fact further empowering the lunatics who will dominate the political landscape.
“America is ceasing to be a nation,” reporter and author Matt Taibbi writes in his book “Insane Clown President: Dispatches From the 2016 Circus,” “and turning into a giant television show.”
The stunts pulled during the last presidential election—Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul wearing goggles as he chain-sawed the tax code in half, Trump inviting women who accused Bill Clinton of sexual assault to a presidential debate and Ben Carson having to defend himself against allegations he lied when he wrote that as a child he attempted to stab another boy—will become staples of political campaigning. Voters, stripped of all meaningful power or control over their own destiny, used only as stage props in rallies and at party conventions, are permitted to vote only for a system they hate. And the winners are those who can give the best and most entertaining expression of that hatred. “Trump found the flaw in the American Death Star,” Taibbi writes. “It doesn’t know how to turn the cameras off, even when it’s filming its own demise.”
If the press sided with citizens and exposed the corporate systems of power that hold them captive, its advertising income would dwindle and it would be treated as an enemy of the state. Since corporations own the airwaves and declining city newspapers, this will not happen. Journalism will remain burlesque. The Public Broadcasting System, along with National Public Radio dependent on corporate money, including the Koch brothers, is as loath to take on the corporate establishment as its for-profit competitors. Dissenters and critics exist only on the margins of the internet, and the abolition of net neutrality will see them silenced.
CNN’s Jake Tapper, one of the high priests in the Trump Inquisition, was quite open about the narrowness of the assault. Being interviewed on “The Axe Files” podcast, hosted by former Obama White House aide David Axelrod, Tapper addressed charges that he opposes Trump’s policies by saying, “Whenever anybody says that to me, I say, you can’t find any evidence about what I think about his tax plan or repealing Obamacare or DACA or immigration or trade or any of these issues—terrorism or ISIS or Syria. I’m agnostic on that. I want to have full and interesting and provocative debates and call balls and strikes. But I’m not putting out there an immigration proposal.”
The corporate airwaves have a depressing habit of taking political hacks like Axelrod or the former Clinton strategist George Stephanopoulos and transforming them into journalists. Even Chelsea Clinton got a shot at journalism, being paid $600,000 a year to do fluff pieces for NBC. The fusion of news and celebrity, with figures like Tapper appearing on late night talk shows, fits with the reality-television presidency the corporate press empowers.
The press, like the Democratic Party, is playing a very dangerous game. It is banking, as Hillary Clinton did, on Trump being so repugnant he and those who support him will be replaced with Democrats. It relies on polls to guide its tactics and strategy, forgetting that every national poll offered assurance that Trump would lose in 2016. This gamble may work. But it may not. Policy issues accounted for only 10 percent of the media coverage during the 2016 presidential race. News reports concentrated on the latest polls, scandals, publicity stunts, campaign tactics and strategy as well as Trump’s bombastic remarks, according to a report issued by the Shorenstein Center at Harvard University. In short, there was little substance to the coverage. This will only get worse. The gossip, trivia and invective masquerading as news are not only irrelevant to most of the electorate but reinforce the image of liberal elites being out of touch with the pain and rage rippling across the nation.
Corporations that own the press look at news as a revenue stream. The news division competes against other revenue streams. If news does not produce comparable profits, its managers are replaced and its content is altered and distorted to draw in more viewers. Journalism is irrelevant. The disease of celebrity and greed, which warps and deforms the personality of Trump, warps and deforms celebrities in the media. They share Trump’s most distasteful characteristics. The consequences are ominous. An ignored, impoverished and frustrated underclass will turn to increasingly bizarre politicians and more outlandish con artists and purveyors of hate. Trump is only the beginning. The grotesque mutations to come, ones that will make Trump look reasonable, are being spawned in newsrooms across the country.
The empty piety is a mask for self-interest. It is accompanied by the veneration of the establishment politicians, generals, intelligence chiefs, corporate heads and hired apologists who carried out the corporate coup d’état that created our system of “inverted totalitarianism.” The corporate structures that have a stranglehold on the country and have overseen deindustrialization and the evisceration of democratic institutions, plunging over half the country into chronic poverty and misery, are unassailable. They are portrayed as forces of progress. The criminals on Wall Street, including the heads of financial firms such as Goldman Sachs, are treated with reverence. Free trade is equated with freedom. Democratic politicians such as Barack Obama—who assaulted civil liberties, transferred trillions of dollars upward to reigning oligarchs, expanded the drone wars to include targeted assassinations of American citizens, and used the Espionage Act to silence investigative journalism—are hailed as champions of democracy. Deference is paid to democratic processes, liberties, electoral politics and rights enshrined in our Constitution, from due process to privacy, that no longer exist. It is a vast game of deception under the cover of a vacuous morality.
Those cast aside by corporate capitalism—Noam Chomsky calls them “unpeople”—are rendered invisible and reviled at the same time. The “experts” whose opinions are amplified on every issue, from economics to empire and politics, are drawn from corporate-funded think tanks, such as the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute, or are former military and intelligence officials or politicians who are responsible for the failure of our democracy and usually in the employ of corporations. Cable news also has the incestuous habit of interviewing its own news celebrities. Former CIA Director John Brennan, one of many former officials now on the airwaves, has morphed into a senior national security and intelligence analyst for NBC and MSNBC. Brennan was the architect of the disastrous attempt to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to arm “moderate” rebels in Syria, oversaw the huge expansion of our drone wars and instigated the canard that Russia stole the last U.S. presidential election. The most astute critics of empire, including Andrew Bacevich, are banished, as are critics of corporate power, including Ralph Nader and Chomsky. Those who decry the waste within the military, such as MIT Professor Emeritus Ted Postol, who has exposed the useless $13 billion anti-ballistic missile program, are unheard. Advocates of universal health care, such as Dr. Margaret Flowers, are locked out of national health care debates. There is a long list of the censored. The acceptable range of opinion is so narrow it is almost nonexistent.
Where is the flood of stories about families being evicted or losing their homes because of foreclosures and bank repossessions? Where are the stories about the banks and lending agencies that prey on recent college graduates burdened with crippling loans and unable to find work? Where are the stories about families going into bankruptcy because they cannot pay medical bills and the soaring premiums of for-profit health care? Where are the stories about the despair that drives middle-aged white men to suicide and millions of Americans into the deadly embrace of opioid addiction? Where are the stories on the cruelty of mass incarceration, the collapse of our court system and the reign of terror by police in marginal communities? Where are the investigative pieces on the fraud and the tax boycott that have been legalized for Wall Street, the poisoning of the ecosystem by the fossil fuel and animal agriculture industries? Why is climate change a forbidden subject, even as extreme weather devastates the nation and much of the rest of the planet? Why are the atrocities we commit or abet in Iraq, Afghanistan and Yemen ignored? Why are the war crimes carried out by Israel against the Palestinians erased from news coverage?
The relentless pillorying of Trump is news-as-reality-television. Trump fills in for Richard Hatch of the old “Survivor” show. Trump’s imbecility, dishonesty, narcissism and incompetence are at once revolting and riveting. The press, ostensibly seeking a more polished brand to improve the public presentation of empire and corporate capitalism, is in fact further empowering the lunatics who will dominate the political landscape.
“America is ceasing to be a nation,” reporter and author Matt Taibbi writes in his book “Insane Clown President: Dispatches From the 2016 Circus,” “and turning into a giant television show.”
The stunts pulled during the last presidential election—Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul wearing goggles as he chain-sawed the tax code in half, Trump inviting women who accused Bill Clinton of sexual assault to a presidential debate and Ben Carson having to defend himself against allegations he lied when he wrote that as a child he attempted to stab another boy—will become staples of political campaigning. Voters, stripped of all meaningful power or control over their own destiny, used only as stage props in rallies and at party conventions, are permitted to vote only for a system they hate. And the winners are those who can give the best and most entertaining expression of that hatred. “Trump found the flaw in the American Death Star,” Taibbi writes. “It doesn’t know how to turn the cameras off, even when it’s filming its own demise.”
If the press sided with citizens and exposed the corporate systems of power that hold them captive, its advertising income would dwindle and it would be treated as an enemy of the state. Since corporations own the airwaves and declining city newspapers, this will not happen. Journalism will remain burlesque. The Public Broadcasting System, along with National Public Radio dependent on corporate money, including the Koch brothers, is as loath to take on the corporate establishment as its for-profit competitors. Dissenters and critics exist only on the margins of the internet, and the abolition of net neutrality will see them silenced.
CNN’s Jake Tapper, one of the high priests in the Trump Inquisition, was quite open about the narrowness of the assault. Being interviewed on “The Axe Files” podcast, hosted by former Obama White House aide David Axelrod, Tapper addressed charges that he opposes Trump’s policies by saying, “Whenever anybody says that to me, I say, you can’t find any evidence about what I think about his tax plan or repealing Obamacare or DACA or immigration or trade or any of these issues—terrorism or ISIS or Syria. I’m agnostic on that. I want to have full and interesting and provocative debates and call balls and strikes. But I’m not putting out there an immigration proposal.”
The corporate airwaves have a depressing habit of taking political hacks like Axelrod or the former Clinton strategist George Stephanopoulos and transforming them into journalists. Even Chelsea Clinton got a shot at journalism, being paid $600,000 a year to do fluff pieces for NBC. The fusion of news and celebrity, with figures like Tapper appearing on late night talk shows, fits with the reality-television presidency the corporate press empowers.
The press, like the Democratic Party, is playing a very dangerous game. It is banking, as Hillary Clinton did, on Trump being so repugnant he and those who support him will be replaced with Democrats. It relies on polls to guide its tactics and strategy, forgetting that every national poll offered assurance that Trump would lose in 2016. This gamble may work. But it may not. Policy issues accounted for only 10 percent of the media coverage during the 2016 presidential race. News reports concentrated on the latest polls, scandals, publicity stunts, campaign tactics and strategy as well as Trump’s bombastic remarks, according to a report issued by the Shorenstein Center at Harvard University. In short, there was little substance to the coverage. This will only get worse. The gossip, trivia and invective masquerading as news are not only irrelevant to most of the electorate but reinforce the image of liberal elites being out of touch with the pain and rage rippling across the nation.
Corporations that own the press look at news as a revenue stream. The news division competes against other revenue streams. If news does not produce comparable profits, its managers are replaced and its content is altered and distorted to draw in more viewers. Journalism is irrelevant. The disease of celebrity and greed, which warps and deforms the personality of Trump, warps and deforms celebrities in the media. They share Trump’s most distasteful characteristics. The consequences are ominous. An ignored, impoverished and frustrated underclass will turn to increasingly bizarre politicians and more outlandish con artists and purveyors of hate. Trump is only the beginning. The grotesque mutations to come, ones that will make Trump look reasonable, are being spawned in newsrooms across the country.
worthless media funnies
|
|
https://teespring.com/fox-news-toilet-2#pid=369&cid=6513&sid=front
|
|
