TO COMMENT CLICK HERE
Worthless Media
WELCOME TO WORTHLESS MEDIA WHERE THE FAILURE OF REAL JOURNALISM IS
EXPOSED
the white-wing media
aug 3, 2020
“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: crooks & liars, raw story, alternet, newshounds)
*Trump official snaps at CNN host for calling hydroxychloroquine ‘dangerous’ – then gets schooled by a doctor
*Right-wing media claims reporter swore at Kayleigh McEnany — except she didn’t
Are we witnessing the final collapse of "objective" political reporting? Let's hope so
Elite newsroom rationales for phony objectivity began to crumble long before Trump. But now there's no excuse
DAN FROOMKIN - salon
AUGUST 3, 2020 11:00AM (UTC)
There are two main reasons why the leaders of America's elite newsrooms are so devoted to the journalistic practice commonly referred to as "objectivity," which precludes reporters from "taking sides" in their political coverage — even when one side is an obvious lie, or an affront to core journalistic values like pluralism and democracy.
The official reason is that they sincerely believe that press neutrality leads to a more informed electorate. They argue that voters will trust their news sources more if those sources are "unbiased," and that accurate information is more likely to be accepted as the truth if readers come to their own conclusions rather than being told what to think. A news organization perceived as objective, they say, has an increased power to persuade.
The unofficial reason, which New York University journalism professor Jay Rosen pithily calls "refuge seeking," is that the "objective" approach protects editors and reporters from criticism – specifically, from accusations of bias. It also allows them to feel superior to partisans and activists, because they remain "above the fray."
OK, let's review. Our leading journalistic institutions engage in "objectivity" to achieve two major goals:
So, here's my question to New York Times executive editor Dean Baquet, Washington Post executive editor Marty Baron, Associated Press executive editor Sally Buzbee and the other proclaimed and self-proclaimed guardians of our biggest, finest news organizations:
How's that working out for you?
Not so great, huh?
The obvious answer is that "objectivity" has failed miserably to achieve either goal — and is more likely having the opposite effect.
Informed electorate? Some four out of 10 Americans currently believe all sorts of things that aren't remotely true, like that the Black Lives Matter protests have been mostly violent, or that voter fraud is a problem and that mail-in voting makes it worse, or — despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary — that Trump is doing a good job. Nearly three in 10 believe COVID-19 was made in a lab and that Bill Gates wants to use vaccination to implant trackable microchips in people.
Immune from accusations of bias? Those misinformed voters believe these things because they heard them from Fox News or some other right-wing super-spreader of conspiracy theories, after having decided that the "mainstream press" is, as their president tells them, so biased that it has become "fake news" and the "enemy of the people."
And before you simply blame social media and filter bubbles — which of course are factors here — ask yourself this: Could it be that the "objective" approach to covering major political issues is simply too anodyne to convince anyone who's on the fence?
What if the mainstream, reality-based media armed its audience with facts as emphatically and effectively as Fox News arms its audience with misinformation? What if the New York Times aggressively advocated for the truth, rather than just putting it out there for the record?
A large fraction of America has tuned out the elite media, treating it like so much white noise. What if the Washington Post more assertively said in its news stories: "Here's what we believe are the facts, and why"? What if they said: "Here's where we're coming from"? What if they said: "Here's our best explanation of why all this crazy stuff is happening and why you're so screwed"?
And what if the mainstream media provided its audience with a true, overarching narrative in which to situate the day-to-day stories — true, evidence-based narratives as compelling as the false ones that Fox and OAN and others are selling — rather than throwing their hands up in the air and saying "you decide"?
The only thing hard about this would be overcoming decades of self-censorship.
Reality-based reporters know the truth: Economic stories exist within a narrative of grotesque inequality sustained by the people who benefit from it; the earth is in grave danger from climate change but fossil-fuel interests have blocked necessary action; law enforcement is only one of many institutions that devalue Black lives; and Donald Trump doesn't fix problems, he exploits them.
People hunger for compelling, explanatory narratives — that's why they respond so strongly to people like George Conway and books like those by Mary Trump and Michael Wolff.
---
Moral clarity in news journalism isn't partisan or polemic.
Journalists shouldn't pretend they know the answers. We should just stop pretending we don't know what the problems are.
Heck, maybe "moral clarity" just means having an occasional open discussion in diverse newsrooms about how to do the work, rather than just doing it the way it's always been done.
"What I argue for is a more deliberate process that acknowledges that there are morals and ethics at all," Lowery told newsletter journalist Luke O'Neil in early July. "All these folks get off on saying 'We don't make any decisions ever. This is what it's always been' as a way of shielding the fact that they are constantly making decisions, and those decisions are subject to their biases."[...]
The official reason is that they sincerely believe that press neutrality leads to a more informed electorate. They argue that voters will trust their news sources more if those sources are "unbiased," and that accurate information is more likely to be accepted as the truth if readers come to their own conclusions rather than being told what to think. A news organization perceived as objective, they say, has an increased power to persuade.
The unofficial reason, which New York University journalism professor Jay Rosen pithily calls "refuge seeking," is that the "objective" approach protects editors and reporters from criticism – specifically, from accusations of bias. It also allows them to feel superior to partisans and activists, because they remain "above the fray."
OK, let's review. Our leading journalistic institutions engage in "objectivity" to achieve two major goals:
- An informed electorate
- Immunity from accusations of bias
So, here's my question to New York Times executive editor Dean Baquet, Washington Post executive editor Marty Baron, Associated Press executive editor Sally Buzbee and the other proclaimed and self-proclaimed guardians of our biggest, finest news organizations:
How's that working out for you?
Not so great, huh?
The obvious answer is that "objectivity" has failed miserably to achieve either goal — and is more likely having the opposite effect.
Informed electorate? Some four out of 10 Americans currently believe all sorts of things that aren't remotely true, like that the Black Lives Matter protests have been mostly violent, or that voter fraud is a problem and that mail-in voting makes it worse, or — despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary — that Trump is doing a good job. Nearly three in 10 believe COVID-19 was made in a lab and that Bill Gates wants to use vaccination to implant trackable microchips in people.
Immune from accusations of bias? Those misinformed voters believe these things because they heard them from Fox News or some other right-wing super-spreader of conspiracy theories, after having decided that the "mainstream press" is, as their president tells them, so biased that it has become "fake news" and the "enemy of the people."
And before you simply blame social media and filter bubbles — which of course are factors here — ask yourself this: Could it be that the "objective" approach to covering major political issues is simply too anodyne to convince anyone who's on the fence?
What if the mainstream, reality-based media armed its audience with facts as emphatically and effectively as Fox News arms its audience with misinformation? What if the New York Times aggressively advocated for the truth, rather than just putting it out there for the record?
A large fraction of America has tuned out the elite media, treating it like so much white noise. What if the Washington Post more assertively said in its news stories: "Here's what we believe are the facts, and why"? What if they said: "Here's where we're coming from"? What if they said: "Here's our best explanation of why all this crazy stuff is happening and why you're so screwed"?
And what if the mainstream media provided its audience with a true, overarching narrative in which to situate the day-to-day stories — true, evidence-based narratives as compelling as the false ones that Fox and OAN and others are selling — rather than throwing their hands up in the air and saying "you decide"?
The only thing hard about this would be overcoming decades of self-censorship.
Reality-based reporters know the truth: Economic stories exist within a narrative of grotesque inequality sustained by the people who benefit from it; the earth is in grave danger from climate change but fossil-fuel interests have blocked necessary action; law enforcement is only one of many institutions that devalue Black lives; and Donald Trump doesn't fix problems, he exploits them.
People hunger for compelling, explanatory narratives — that's why they respond so strongly to people like George Conway and books like those by Mary Trump and Michael Wolff.
---
Moral clarity in news journalism isn't partisan or polemic.
Journalists shouldn't pretend they know the answers. We should just stop pretending we don't know what the problems are.
Heck, maybe "moral clarity" just means having an occasional open discussion in diverse newsrooms about how to do the work, rather than just doing it the way it's always been done.
"What I argue for is a more deliberate process that acknowledges that there are morals and ethics at all," Lowery told newsletter journalist Luke O'Neil in early July. "All these folks get off on saying 'We don't make any decisions ever. This is what it's always been' as a way of shielding the fact that they are constantly making decisions, and those decisions are subject to their biases."[...]
Washington Post stopped Bob Woodward from outing Brett Kavanaugh as lying anonymous source: report
Woodward was set to reveal that Kavanaugh publicly lied about what he privately told him before The Post intervened
IGOR DERYSH - salon
JUNE 29, 2020 7:20PM (UTC)
The Washington Post stopped veteran journalist Bob Woodward from outing Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh as one of the sources for his 1999 book, according to New York Times media critic Ben Smith.
Woodward was set to expose Kavanaugh as an anonymous source for his book, "Shadow: Five Presidents and the Legacy of Watergate," which was written when Kavanaugh served as a member of independent counsel Ken Starr's team during its investigation into former President Bill Clinton. But Martin Baron, the executive editor of The Post, stopped him from doing so, sources at the outlet told Smith.
The revelation was discovered when journalists at The Post dug into Kavanaugh's history in the outlet's publishing system during his 2018 Supreme Court confirmation process.
The journalists found an article in which Woodward, who protected the identity of the Watergate source "Deep Throat" for three decades, "was going to unmask" Kavanaugh as one of the sources quoted in the book.
"Mr. Woodward was planning to expose Mr. Kavanaugh, because the judge had publicly denied — in a huffy letter in 1999 to The Post — an account about Kenneth Starr's investigation of President Bill Clinton that he had himself, confidentially, provided to Mr. Woodward for his book," Smith wrote. "The article, described by two Post journalists who read it, would have been explosive, arriving as the nominee battled a decades-old sexual assault allegation and was fighting to prove his integrity."
The article was "nearly ready" when Baron urged Woodward not to breach his arrangement with Kavanaugh to protect his identity, according to Smith. Baron and other editors "persuaded Mr. Woodward that it would be bad for The Post and 'bad for Bob' to disclose a source."
The story never ran as a result.
Smith wrote on Twitter that most of his sources at The Post agreed that Baron was right to protect the source but some journalists disagreed.
"If an anonymous source publicly disputes information they provided, journalists have absolutely no obligation to uphold a deal that's already been broken," Slate's Ashley Feinberg wrote.
"The Washington Post should explain what its policy is regarding unnamed sources," The Intercept's Jon Schwarz tweeted. "Do they grant anonymity on the condition that the sources are telling them the truth? Or do they grant anonymity that's irrevocable even if a source lies to them and they publish the lie?"
"Bob Woodward was sitting on clear evidence that seems to show Brett Kavanaugh had a history of brazen, shameless public lying—and the Post never ran the story," Reuters reporter Avi Ascher-Schapiro said.
It remains unclear how much the story would have influenced Kavanaugh's confirmation. The judge faced decades-old allegations of sexual assault and questions about his impartiality during the confirmation process. He was confirmed by a 50-48 in a mostly party-line vote.
Woodward was set to expose Kavanaugh as an anonymous source for his book, "Shadow: Five Presidents and the Legacy of Watergate," which was written when Kavanaugh served as a member of independent counsel Ken Starr's team during its investigation into former President Bill Clinton. But Martin Baron, the executive editor of The Post, stopped him from doing so, sources at the outlet told Smith.
The revelation was discovered when journalists at The Post dug into Kavanaugh's history in the outlet's publishing system during his 2018 Supreme Court confirmation process.
The journalists found an article in which Woodward, who protected the identity of the Watergate source "Deep Throat" for three decades, "was going to unmask" Kavanaugh as one of the sources quoted in the book.
"Mr. Woodward was planning to expose Mr. Kavanaugh, because the judge had publicly denied — in a huffy letter in 1999 to The Post — an account about Kenneth Starr's investigation of President Bill Clinton that he had himself, confidentially, provided to Mr. Woodward for his book," Smith wrote. "The article, described by two Post journalists who read it, would have been explosive, arriving as the nominee battled a decades-old sexual assault allegation and was fighting to prove his integrity."
The article was "nearly ready" when Baron urged Woodward not to breach his arrangement with Kavanaugh to protect his identity, according to Smith. Baron and other editors "persuaded Mr. Woodward that it would be bad for The Post and 'bad for Bob' to disclose a source."
The story never ran as a result.
Smith wrote on Twitter that most of his sources at The Post agreed that Baron was right to protect the source but some journalists disagreed.
"If an anonymous source publicly disputes information they provided, journalists have absolutely no obligation to uphold a deal that's already been broken," Slate's Ashley Feinberg wrote.
"The Washington Post should explain what its policy is regarding unnamed sources," The Intercept's Jon Schwarz tweeted. "Do they grant anonymity on the condition that the sources are telling them the truth? Or do they grant anonymity that's irrevocable even if a source lies to them and they publish the lie?"
"Bob Woodward was sitting on clear evidence that seems to show Brett Kavanaugh had a history of brazen, shameless public lying—and the Post never ran the story," Reuters reporter Avi Ascher-Schapiro said.
It remains unclear how much the story would have influenced Kavanaugh's confirmation. The judge faced decades-old allegations of sexual assault and questions about his impartiality during the confirmation process. He was confirmed by a 50-48 in a mostly party-line vote.
the network for the stupid!!!
Rudy Giuliani on Fox News: "Black Lives Matter wants to come and take your house away from you"
"Yep," Fox News host Laura Ingraham responded
ROGER SOLLENBERGER - salon
JUNE 24, 2020 12:47AM (UTC)
Rudy Giuliani, the former spokesman for identity theft protection service LifeLock, told Fox News host Laura Ingraham in a Monday interview that the Black Lives Matter social justice movement "wants to come and take your house away from you."
Giuliani, also the former mayor of the city of New York, made the observation after the interview departed from his realm of expertise — the inner workings of the Justice Department's Southern District of New York, an office which he once helmed — and took up the issue of activists attempting to remove statues of controversial figures in history.
Ingraham asked Giuliani about the "planned and well-funded attack going on" in Washington, alluding to the group effort to topple a statue of former President Andrew Jackson on government property.
"It has to be protected, otherwise, the Washington Monument, the Lincoln Memorial, the World War II Memorial — what's next?" she asked, the last two words echoing audibly as Giuliani's lapel mic picked up the playback from his earpiece.
"Well, over this weekend it should be quite plain to every American who can see through the propaganda that antifa, Black Lives Matter, the communists and their allies are executing a plan they wrote about four or five years ago," Giuliani claimed, blowing past the guardrails of Ingraham's question.
"Just go back and read what they wrote in the manifestos that they wrote, including Black Lives Matter," Trump's personal lawyer and fixer continued.
Giuliani, whose off-the-books foreign policy interference in Ukraine led directly to his client's impeachment by the House of Representatives, then rattled off a litany of institutions which antifa, Black Lives Matter, the communists and their allies supposedly want to "destroy," including the government itself, the police and prisons.
"They want to internationalize our government," he claimed, without further explanation nor inquiry from Ingraham. "They want to do away with our system of courts, and they want to take your property away and give it to other people."
Giuliani added that "they" were no longer concerned with what he characterized as "Mr. Floyd," meaning the protests against police violence and racial injustice which have rocked the country in the wake of George Floyd's death in the custody of Minneapolis police.
"That ended a long time ago," the former face of Fraud Guarantee LLC said. "This is an anarchist — organized anarchists, supported with a lot of money," he claimed, without offering either factual evidence or rhetorical support.
"There were well over 100 people wounded with guns and 25 Americans killed over the weekend. That didn't happen accidentally, Laura," he claimed. "That's part of a plan — and we better wake up to it, and we better stop being silly."
Giuliani last week took to the airwaves of the president's favorite network to try to explain why Americans misunderstand the police threat to the Black community.
"The unarmed shooters, which are the ones that are troublesome — there are only nine of them against Blacks, 20 against whites in 2019," he told Fox News host Ed Henry. "So that will give you a sense. Meanwhile, there were 9,000 murders of Blacks, 7,500 of which were Black-on-Black."
A Mediaite analysis found that this claim was quite far from accurate.
But on Monday, Giuliani, whom earlier this month conservative media personality Piers Morgan called "completely barking mad" in a discussion about race relations, eventually stripped away all complicating factors like communists and anarchists, pinning the blame solely on one group.
"People who say they are favorable to Black Lives Matter — Black Lives Matter wants to come and take your house away from you," he said. "They want to take your property away from you."
"Yep," Ingraham said.
"They want to let criminals out of prison — all criminals out of prison," Giuliani continued.
"Well, groups . . . groups . . . groups," Ingraham said.
"They are anarchists, and they are anti-American," the man formerly known as "America's mayor" concluded.
Giuliani did not respond to Salon's request for comment.
Giuliani, also the former mayor of the city of New York, made the observation after the interview departed from his realm of expertise — the inner workings of the Justice Department's Southern District of New York, an office which he once helmed — and took up the issue of activists attempting to remove statues of controversial figures in history.
Ingraham asked Giuliani about the "planned and well-funded attack going on" in Washington, alluding to the group effort to topple a statue of former President Andrew Jackson on government property.
"It has to be protected, otherwise, the Washington Monument, the Lincoln Memorial, the World War II Memorial — what's next?" she asked, the last two words echoing audibly as Giuliani's lapel mic picked up the playback from his earpiece.
"Well, over this weekend it should be quite plain to every American who can see through the propaganda that antifa, Black Lives Matter, the communists and their allies are executing a plan they wrote about four or five years ago," Giuliani claimed, blowing past the guardrails of Ingraham's question.
"Just go back and read what they wrote in the manifestos that they wrote, including Black Lives Matter," Trump's personal lawyer and fixer continued.
Giuliani, whose off-the-books foreign policy interference in Ukraine led directly to his client's impeachment by the House of Representatives, then rattled off a litany of institutions which antifa, Black Lives Matter, the communists and their allies supposedly want to "destroy," including the government itself, the police and prisons.
"They want to internationalize our government," he claimed, without further explanation nor inquiry from Ingraham. "They want to do away with our system of courts, and they want to take your property away and give it to other people."
Giuliani added that "they" were no longer concerned with what he characterized as "Mr. Floyd," meaning the protests against police violence and racial injustice which have rocked the country in the wake of George Floyd's death in the custody of Minneapolis police.
"That ended a long time ago," the former face of Fraud Guarantee LLC said. "This is an anarchist — organized anarchists, supported with a lot of money," he claimed, without offering either factual evidence or rhetorical support.
"There were well over 100 people wounded with guns and 25 Americans killed over the weekend. That didn't happen accidentally, Laura," he claimed. "That's part of a plan — and we better wake up to it, and we better stop being silly."
Giuliani last week took to the airwaves of the president's favorite network to try to explain why Americans misunderstand the police threat to the Black community.
"The unarmed shooters, which are the ones that are troublesome — there are only nine of them against Blacks, 20 against whites in 2019," he told Fox News host Ed Henry. "So that will give you a sense. Meanwhile, there were 9,000 murders of Blacks, 7,500 of which were Black-on-Black."
A Mediaite analysis found that this claim was quite far from accurate.
But on Monday, Giuliani, whom earlier this month conservative media personality Piers Morgan called "completely barking mad" in a discussion about race relations, eventually stripped away all complicating factors like communists and anarchists, pinning the blame solely on one group.
"People who say they are favorable to Black Lives Matter — Black Lives Matter wants to come and take your house away from you," he said. "They want to take your property away from you."
"Yep," Ingraham said.
"They want to let criminals out of prison — all criminals out of prison," Giuliani continued.
"Well, groups . . . groups . . . groups," Ingraham said.
"They are anarchists, and they are anti-American," the man formerly known as "America's mayor" concluded.
Giuliani did not respond to Salon's request for comment.
Fox News lawyer tells judge that Tucker Carlson's audience doesn't expect him to report the facts
"It's not the front page of the New York Times," a network attorney says in court. "It's 'Tucker Carlson Tonight'"
ROGER SOLLENBERGER - salon
JUNE 18, 2020 8:46PM (UTC)
An attorney for Fox News told a New York federal judge at a preliminary hearing that Tucker Carlson's audience does not expect him to report the facts — even when Carlson tells his audience that he is doing so.
And the attorney further argued that Carlson has no duty to look into whether his statements are truthful.
"What we're talking about here, it's not the front page of the New York Times," Erin Murphy, the attorney, said. "It's 'Tucker Carlson Tonight,' which is a commentary show."
The statements come amid a slander lawsuit brought against the right-leaning network by Karen McDougal, the former Playmate model who was paid $150,000 by the National Enquirer in a "catch-and-kill" sting to silence her allegations about an affair with then-candidate Donald Trump, who at the time of the alleged incident was a reality TV competition host.
McDougal claims that Carlson defamed her on a December 2018 edition of his primetime show, at which time the host accused McDougal and Stephanie Clifford (aka Stormy Daniels) of "extorting" Trump.
"Remember the facts of the story: These are undisputed," Carlson said in the segment. "Two women approached Donald Trump and threatened to ruin his career and humiliate his family if he doesn't give them money."
"Now, that sounds like a classic case of extortion," Carlson continued. "Yet, for whatever reason, Trump caves to it, and he directs Michael Cohen to pay the ransom. Now, more than two years later, Trump is a felon for doing this. It doesn't seem to make any sense."
"Oh, but you're not a federal prosecutor on a political mission," Carlson added. "If you were a federal prosecutor on a political mission, you would construe those extortion payments as campaign contributions."
The network wants the court to throw out the case on the argument that Carlson cannot defame anyone on his show, because his viewers do not expect him to state and verify facts. That would hinder McDougal's ability to prove that Carlson acted "with malice," which is the high bar of proof she must meet as a public figure.
Murphy, the Fox attorney, told the court that Carlson simply stirs the pot on his show — and a reasonable viewer would be able to discern between his "provocative things that will help me think harder" and straight news. The network airing Carlson's show also broadcasts news programming — and the word "news" is even in its name.
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil asked Murphy, "Does somebody in Mr. Carlson's position have the duty of inquiry?" (In other words: Would it be grossly negligent for a primetime host on a news network to accuse someone of a felony on his program without looking into whether facts support such an allegation?)
"Not as to an actual malice standard," Murphy answered. "The Supreme Court could not be clearer."
Negligence is not malice, and Carlson's mere "failure to investigate" does not cut it, she argued.
McDougal's lawyer, Eric Bernstein, pointed out that Carlson prefaced the false accusation by literally telling viewers it was a fact: "Remember the facts of the story: These are undisputed."
Even if you concede the point that Carlson's audience knows not to take him seriously as a source for information on which to reliably base decisions impacting the course of our democracy, his declaration in that moment sent a clear message, Bernstein argued.
"It's a beat change, if you're an actor," he said. "You can even see it on his face. He gets serious. He's not being dramatic."
In contrast to Murphy's argument — "What we're talking about here, it's not the front page of The New York Times" — Bernstein pointed out that Carlson had told viewers he was delivering the "gist" of a New York Times news report earlier in the segment.
Carlson added that he would assume — "for the sake of argument" — that Trump's former "fixer" Michael Cohen had told the truth. However, he cautioned that it was not a good idea to make such an assumption.
Carlson then said the "undisputed" facts were that McDougal had committed the crime of extortion.
Though the judge ultimately accepted the case, the jury is still out on whether Fox News primetime hosts are journalists, even among themselves.
"We have to give some credit to the American people that they are somewhat intelligent and that they know the difference between an opinion show and a news show," Sean Hannity once said.
When asked about possible professional conflicts from his friendship with Trump in 2016, Hannity told the told the New York Times: "I never claimed to be a journalist,"
"I'm not a journalist," Hannity tweeted that same year. "I'm a talk host."
The FBI did not consider Hannity a journalist for the purposes of the Mueller investigation, writing in one memo: "During the campaign, Hannity tailored his shows to the agenda Manafort suggested. Hannity called himself a 'pundit,' not a journalist."
But in a 2017 NYT interview, Hannity said: "I'm a journalist, but I'm an advocacy journalist, or an opinion journalist."
Former Fox News anchor Shepard Smith told Time magazine in 2018 that the opinion side of the network doesn't "really have rules" and exists "strictly to be entertaining."
"We serve different masters," he said. "We work for different reporting chains. We have different rules. They don't really have rules on the opinion side. They can say whatever they want — if it's their opinion."
Hannity then called Smith "clueless about what we do every day." Laura Ingraham weighed in to claim that her show reports things.
And in another shot at Smith, Hannity tweeted: "Hannity breaks news daily. Warrant on a Trump assoc, the unmasking scandal, leaking intel, Fisa abuse, HRC lawbreaking, dossier and more REAL NEWS!"
Tucker Carlson revealed last week that he sold off his stake in The Daily Caller — the news site he co-founded — last year. Salon exclusively reported Wednesday that The Daily Caller appears to have operated in violation of tax law, according to a complaint filed Tuesday with the IRS by a public transparency watchdog.
And the attorney further argued that Carlson has no duty to look into whether his statements are truthful.
"What we're talking about here, it's not the front page of the New York Times," Erin Murphy, the attorney, said. "It's 'Tucker Carlson Tonight,' which is a commentary show."
The statements come amid a slander lawsuit brought against the right-leaning network by Karen McDougal, the former Playmate model who was paid $150,000 by the National Enquirer in a "catch-and-kill" sting to silence her allegations about an affair with then-candidate Donald Trump, who at the time of the alleged incident was a reality TV competition host.
McDougal claims that Carlson defamed her on a December 2018 edition of his primetime show, at which time the host accused McDougal and Stephanie Clifford (aka Stormy Daniels) of "extorting" Trump.
"Remember the facts of the story: These are undisputed," Carlson said in the segment. "Two women approached Donald Trump and threatened to ruin his career and humiliate his family if he doesn't give them money."
"Now, that sounds like a classic case of extortion," Carlson continued. "Yet, for whatever reason, Trump caves to it, and he directs Michael Cohen to pay the ransom. Now, more than two years later, Trump is a felon for doing this. It doesn't seem to make any sense."
"Oh, but you're not a federal prosecutor on a political mission," Carlson added. "If you were a federal prosecutor on a political mission, you would construe those extortion payments as campaign contributions."
The network wants the court to throw out the case on the argument that Carlson cannot defame anyone on his show, because his viewers do not expect him to state and verify facts. That would hinder McDougal's ability to prove that Carlson acted "with malice," which is the high bar of proof she must meet as a public figure.
Murphy, the Fox attorney, told the court that Carlson simply stirs the pot on his show — and a reasonable viewer would be able to discern between his "provocative things that will help me think harder" and straight news. The network airing Carlson's show also broadcasts news programming — and the word "news" is even in its name.
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil asked Murphy, "Does somebody in Mr. Carlson's position have the duty of inquiry?" (In other words: Would it be grossly negligent for a primetime host on a news network to accuse someone of a felony on his program without looking into whether facts support such an allegation?)
"Not as to an actual malice standard," Murphy answered. "The Supreme Court could not be clearer."
Negligence is not malice, and Carlson's mere "failure to investigate" does not cut it, she argued.
McDougal's lawyer, Eric Bernstein, pointed out that Carlson prefaced the false accusation by literally telling viewers it was a fact: "Remember the facts of the story: These are undisputed."
Even if you concede the point that Carlson's audience knows not to take him seriously as a source for information on which to reliably base decisions impacting the course of our democracy, his declaration in that moment sent a clear message, Bernstein argued.
"It's a beat change, if you're an actor," he said. "You can even see it on his face. He gets serious. He's not being dramatic."
In contrast to Murphy's argument — "What we're talking about here, it's not the front page of The New York Times" — Bernstein pointed out that Carlson had told viewers he was delivering the "gist" of a New York Times news report earlier in the segment.
Carlson added that he would assume — "for the sake of argument" — that Trump's former "fixer" Michael Cohen had told the truth. However, he cautioned that it was not a good idea to make such an assumption.
Carlson then said the "undisputed" facts were that McDougal had committed the crime of extortion.
Though the judge ultimately accepted the case, the jury is still out on whether Fox News primetime hosts are journalists, even among themselves.
"We have to give some credit to the American people that they are somewhat intelligent and that they know the difference between an opinion show and a news show," Sean Hannity once said.
When asked about possible professional conflicts from his friendship with Trump in 2016, Hannity told the told the New York Times: "I never claimed to be a journalist,"
"I'm not a journalist," Hannity tweeted that same year. "I'm a talk host."
The FBI did not consider Hannity a journalist for the purposes of the Mueller investigation, writing in one memo: "During the campaign, Hannity tailored his shows to the agenda Manafort suggested. Hannity called himself a 'pundit,' not a journalist."
But in a 2017 NYT interview, Hannity said: "I'm a journalist, but I'm an advocacy journalist, or an opinion journalist."
Former Fox News anchor Shepard Smith told Time magazine in 2018 that the opinion side of the network doesn't "really have rules" and exists "strictly to be entertaining."
"We serve different masters," he said. "We work for different reporting chains. We have different rules. They don't really have rules on the opinion side. They can say whatever they want — if it's their opinion."
Hannity then called Smith "clueless about what we do every day." Laura Ingraham weighed in to claim that her show reports things.
And in another shot at Smith, Hannity tweeted: "Hannity breaks news daily. Warrant on a Trump assoc, the unmasking scandal, leaking intel, Fisa abuse, HRC lawbreaking, dossier and more REAL NEWS!"
Tucker Carlson revealed last week that he sold off his stake in The Daily Caller — the news site he co-founded — last year. Salon exclusively reported Wednesday that The Daily Caller appears to have operated in violation of tax law, according to a complaint filed Tuesday with the IRS by a public transparency watchdog.
Corporate media is focusing on racism at last — but ducking economic injustice
Black people in America are subjected to grinding economic cruelty. We can't understand racism without facing that
NORMAN SOLOMON - salon
JUNE 13, 2020 10:00AM (UTC)
Grassroots outrage and nationwide protests after Minneapolis cops murdered George Floyd have pushed much of U.S. corporate media into focusing on deadly police mistreatment of black people. The coverage is far from comprehensive on the subject of racism in the "criminal justice" system — we're still hearing very little about the routine violations of basic rights in courtrooms and behind bars — yet there's no doubt that a breakthrough has occurred. The last two weeks have opened up a lot more media space for illuminating racial cruelty.
But what about economic cruelty?
Media outlets routinely detour around reasons why African Americans and other people of color are so disproportionately poor — and, as a result of poverty, are dying much younger than white people. The media ruts bypass confronting how the wealthy gain more wealth and large corporations reap more profits at the expense of poor and middle-income people.
The statistics are grim. For every black person killed by police, vastly more are dying because of a threadbare safety net, a lack of adequate employment and scant access to health care or social services.
Readily available numbers are indictments of systemic racism. At the same time, numbers tell us virtually nothing about the human essence of widespread, tragic and fully preventable suffering that, in the words of Marvin Gaye's brilliant song "Inner City Blues," make me wanna holler.
News media habitually tiptoe around deadly realities of economic oppression that are hidden in plain sight — so normalized that they're apt to seem perversely natural. Meanwhile, government is routinely portrayed as inherently hamstrung, lacking in funds and unable to cope. But from city halls and state legislatures to corridors of power in Washington, the priorities that hold sway are largely imposed by leverage from big corporations and the wealthy who want their financial interests protected.
"When we say #DefundPolice," Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., tweeted days ago, "what we mean is people are dying and we need to invest in people's livelihoods instead. Example: Detroit spent $294 million on police last year, and $9 million on health. This is systemic oppression in numbers."
The official city bar chart that accompanied Tlaib's tweet amounts to a smoking gun of ceaseless class war raging across the United States and far beyond. Huge numbers of people whose names we'll never know are casualties of that profit-driven war.
From from the slavery era onward, vicious economic exploitation has been central to the oppression of African Americans. In spite of that reality — and because of it — the prevailing power structure and its dominant media arms are eager to separate racial justice from economic justice.
Yet the separation is absurd and disingenuous. "A close examination of wealth in the U.S. finds evidence of staggering racial disparities," the Brookings Institution reported this year. The latest figures show that "the net worth of a typical white family is nearly 10 times greater than that of a black family." Those wealth gaps "reveal the effects of accumulated inequality and discrimination, as well as differences in power and opportunity that can be traced back to this nation's inception."
It's symbolic that while we've often heard that the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. gave his famous "I have a dream" speech at the historic march on Washington in 1963, the fact that it was called the "March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom" isn't often mentioned. Five years later, King was murdered while in Memphis to support a union struggle by exploited sanitation workers as he was immersed in planning the next stages of the Poor People's Campaign.
Today, the humongous gaps between wealth and poverty — and the lethal consequences of those gaps — are rarely in the mass media's focus. Empathy for low-income people might be fine in MediaLand, but they're commonly portrayed as victims of bad luck or personal failings, rather than the prey of victimizers who profit from immiseration.
As a practical matter, the economic ladder that keeps some people trapped on the lowest rungs is central to the health vulnerabilities of so many African Americans. Economic injustice is vital to the entire U.S. power structure. While many people of all races suffer as a result, people of color are at much greater risk.
In effect, corporate capitalism has proven itself to be fully capable of methodical sadism in the pursuit of maximizing profits. That ongoing reality, 24/7/365, is so routine — and so powerfully entrenched that even U.S. news outlets doing decent coverage of police violence can rarely supply clarity about the "free enterprise" economic violence that is taking countless lives.
But what about economic cruelty?
Media outlets routinely detour around reasons why African Americans and other people of color are so disproportionately poor — and, as a result of poverty, are dying much younger than white people. The media ruts bypass confronting how the wealthy gain more wealth and large corporations reap more profits at the expense of poor and middle-income people.
The statistics are grim. For every black person killed by police, vastly more are dying because of a threadbare safety net, a lack of adequate employment and scant access to health care or social services.
Readily available numbers are indictments of systemic racism. At the same time, numbers tell us virtually nothing about the human essence of widespread, tragic and fully preventable suffering that, in the words of Marvin Gaye's brilliant song "Inner City Blues," make me wanna holler.
News media habitually tiptoe around deadly realities of economic oppression that are hidden in plain sight — so normalized that they're apt to seem perversely natural. Meanwhile, government is routinely portrayed as inherently hamstrung, lacking in funds and unable to cope. But from city halls and state legislatures to corridors of power in Washington, the priorities that hold sway are largely imposed by leverage from big corporations and the wealthy who want their financial interests protected.
"When we say #DefundPolice," Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., tweeted days ago, "what we mean is people are dying and we need to invest in people's livelihoods instead. Example: Detroit spent $294 million on police last year, and $9 million on health. This is systemic oppression in numbers."
The official city bar chart that accompanied Tlaib's tweet amounts to a smoking gun of ceaseless class war raging across the United States and far beyond. Huge numbers of people whose names we'll never know are casualties of that profit-driven war.
From from the slavery era onward, vicious economic exploitation has been central to the oppression of African Americans. In spite of that reality — and because of it — the prevailing power structure and its dominant media arms are eager to separate racial justice from economic justice.
Yet the separation is absurd and disingenuous. "A close examination of wealth in the U.S. finds evidence of staggering racial disparities," the Brookings Institution reported this year. The latest figures show that "the net worth of a typical white family is nearly 10 times greater than that of a black family." Those wealth gaps "reveal the effects of accumulated inequality and discrimination, as well as differences in power and opportunity that can be traced back to this nation's inception."
It's symbolic that while we've often heard that the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. gave his famous "I have a dream" speech at the historic march on Washington in 1963, the fact that it was called the "March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom" isn't often mentioned. Five years later, King was murdered while in Memphis to support a union struggle by exploited sanitation workers as he was immersed in planning the next stages of the Poor People's Campaign.
Today, the humongous gaps between wealth and poverty — and the lethal consequences of those gaps — are rarely in the mass media's focus. Empathy for low-income people might be fine in MediaLand, but they're commonly portrayed as victims of bad luck or personal failings, rather than the prey of victimizers who profit from immiseration.
As a practical matter, the economic ladder that keeps some people trapped on the lowest rungs is central to the health vulnerabilities of so many African Americans. Economic injustice is vital to the entire U.S. power structure. While many people of all races suffer as a result, people of color are at much greater risk.
In effect, corporate capitalism has proven itself to be fully capable of methodical sadism in the pursuit of maximizing profits. That ongoing reality, 24/7/365, is so routine — and so powerfully entrenched that even U.S. news outlets doing decent coverage of police violence can rarely supply clarity about the "free enterprise" economic violence that is taking countless lives.
The Cesspool That Spat Out Trump’s New Conspiracy About Cops
A TREE GROWS IN TRUMPLAND
Here is how Trump got the idea that a 75-year-old protester who was pushed to the ground and bled out of his head may have been antifa. It’s as crazy as you can imagine.
Adam Rawnsley, Will Sommer - daily beast
Updated Jun. 09, 2020 5:04PM ET
Out of all the blogs on the pro-Trump internet, The Conservative Treehouse might be the strangest and most underappreciated in terms of its influence.
Its fans describe the comment section as “branches,” where they hang out to discuss the latest twist in the “Russiagate” saga or speculate feverishly about Donald Trump’s critics. The site’s owner, who has previously been identified as Florida resident Mark Bradman, rose to prominence during the George Zimmerman trial, outing an anonymous witness and declaring that Trayvon Martin, the Florida teenager Zimmerman shot, was an “undisciplined punk thug, drug dealing, thief and wannabe gangsta.”
Since then, the site has been Patient Zero for a number of hoaxes that have percolated through right-wing media ecosystem, claiming that Puerto Rican truck drivers were withholding hurricane relief, or that a top official at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention was “weaponizing” the coronavirus to hurt Trump. Despite those hoaxes being quickly debunked, however, The Conservative Treehouse now ranks at roughly the 4,000th most-visited website in the United States, according to Alexa analytics.
Its zeal for the conspiratorial is so pronounced that even some of Donald Trump’s staunchest allies in right-wing media find the site’s devoted commenters and its pseudonymous operator, “Sundance,” bizarre. Talk radio host Mark Levin has called it a “kook site.” Former Breitbart reporter Lee Stranahan dubbed the site’s owner an “egocentric lunatic” with “cult-like followers.”
And yet, despite its reputation (or, perhaps, because of it) The Conservative Treehouse has the president’s ear.
On Tuesday, Trump tweeted a conspiracy theory that originated on the site about Martin Gugino, the 75-year-old New York man who bled from his head after he was shoved down by Buffalo police officers while attending a protest. Trump claimed that Gugino, who remains in the hospital in serious but stable condition, wasn’t the peaceful protester he appeared to be but rather a potential “antifa provocateur” trying to “scan police communications in order to black out the equipment.”
“I watched, he fell harder than was pushed,” Trump tweeted. “Was aiming scanner. Could be a set up?”
The tweet was sparked by a segment on the Trump-fawning cable news network OAN, which was based on a blog post from The Conservative Treehouse. And it represented yet another instance of how the president’s penchant for uncritically amplifying those willing to flatter or absolve his views has vaulted the dregs of the Internet’s conspiracy theorists into national prominence.
The OAN segment was reported by Kristian Rouz, a Russian journalist who pulled double duty working for the Russian state propaganda channel Sputnik as well as OAN. In it, Rouz claimed Gugino was using “common antifa tactics” and that the incident was "a false flag provocation by far-left group antifa." He cited The Conservative Treehouse as evidence that Gugino was using a “police tracker” on his phone during the encounter.
The Conservative Treehouse post had, indeed, falsely claimed that Gugino used a sophisticated communications device to “scan the mic” of one policeman. “Once the frequency is captured (ie cloned) you can track the device, duplicate the signal and/or listen to a transmission,” the post reads.
And a Twitter thread preceding the article, The Conservative Treehouse’s Twitter account, @TheLastRefuge2, warned its nearly 180,000 followers that the same technology is used by “trackers” who use it to “electronically rob you without ever going in your house.”
There are plenty of holes in the theory that Gugino was committing high-tech espionage for antifa. For one thing, Gugino is not a member of antifa, but rather a longtime activist with the Catholic Worker movement and other community-based social justice activist groups. And the supposed “scanning” he is accused of conducting is technological gibberish, unsupported by evidence.
That context, naturally, never made it into The Conservative Treehouse post. And Trump’s amplification of their claims only underscored the payoff that can come with the spreading of disinformation aimed at undermining liberals and firing up the right. The website and Bradman, its purported owner, didn’t return requests for comment.
The Conservative Treehouse gained prominence during the Tea Party movement and the Zimmerman trial, with Zimmerman’s father praising its commenters’ research as “astonishing.” During the racially-charged trial, The Conservative Treehouse owner “Sundance” went by “Sundance Cracker,” an alias he later dropped.
During the Zimmerman trial, The Conservative Treehouse’s unusually intense commenting community, which drives much of the narratives eventually featured on the site, began to emerge. The amateur-sleuth commenters had such an outsized influence that Zimmerman’s defense attorney corresponded with one of the commenters, who referred to themselves as a member of the “the treehouse think tank.”
Since the trial, The Conservative Treehouse has embraced a wide variety of right-wing causes, including Republican investigations in the 2012 attack on an American compound in Benghazi, Libya, and the Bundy family’s Malheur wildlife refuge takeover in Oregon. In the Trump era, The Conservative Treehouse became a hub for the conspiracy theory that the Russia investigation was cooked up to undermine Trump by nefarious members of the deep-state, with Sundance and his commenters weaving elaborate stories about then-Special Counsel Robert Mueller or, later, the Ukraine impeachment.
The Conservative Treehouse has long been a fan of Trump and the president has returned the favor, dating back to Trump’s days as a Republican presidential hopeful in 2015.
As Trump’s campaign moved from sideshow to frontrunner status, The Conservative Treehouse’s Twitter account trumpeted poll after poll showing the former real estate mogul besting the other candidates in the race for the nomination—earning retweets and shoutouts from the candidate himself. Trump took particular pleasure in citing the author’s attacks on his rivals in Florida: former Governor Jeb Bush and Sen. Marco Rubio.
The Conservative Treehouse’s operator and loyal audience have frequently clashed with other conservative personalities. Stranahan has tweeted that Breitbart founder Andrew Breitbart would have hated the site’s pseudonymous operator, “Sundance,” even though the late conservative provocateur’s image tops The Conservative Treehouse’s website banner.
The site has also been slammed by Levin, the conservative talk radio host. After The Conservative Treehouse published stories suggesting the talk radio host was in the tank for Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) during the 2016 Republican primary, Levin taunted Bradman, a former Publix supermarket employee, calling him a “disgruntled former grocery clerk” in Facebook posts.
“The more we learn about Bradman and his ‘Conservative Treehouse’ site, the more you wonder what this kook is up to,” Levin wrote.
Despite the opposition, though, The Conservative Treehouse has made inroads into more mainstream right-wing media outlets. It’s been praised on-air by Fox Business Network anchor Lou Dobbs, who urged his viewers to check out the site’s blog posts about the FBI investigation into the Trump campaign and Russia.
"I want to give a shout-out to TheConservativeTreehouse.com,” Dobbs said. “They have done an amazing job of chronicling, cataloguing the content — just a terrific job."
Its fans describe the comment section as “branches,” where they hang out to discuss the latest twist in the “Russiagate” saga or speculate feverishly about Donald Trump’s critics. The site’s owner, who has previously been identified as Florida resident Mark Bradman, rose to prominence during the George Zimmerman trial, outing an anonymous witness and declaring that Trayvon Martin, the Florida teenager Zimmerman shot, was an “undisciplined punk thug, drug dealing, thief and wannabe gangsta.”
Since then, the site has been Patient Zero for a number of hoaxes that have percolated through right-wing media ecosystem, claiming that Puerto Rican truck drivers were withholding hurricane relief, or that a top official at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention was “weaponizing” the coronavirus to hurt Trump. Despite those hoaxes being quickly debunked, however, The Conservative Treehouse now ranks at roughly the 4,000th most-visited website in the United States, according to Alexa analytics.
Its zeal for the conspiratorial is so pronounced that even some of Donald Trump’s staunchest allies in right-wing media find the site’s devoted commenters and its pseudonymous operator, “Sundance,” bizarre. Talk radio host Mark Levin has called it a “kook site.” Former Breitbart reporter Lee Stranahan dubbed the site’s owner an “egocentric lunatic” with “cult-like followers.”
And yet, despite its reputation (or, perhaps, because of it) The Conservative Treehouse has the president’s ear.
On Tuesday, Trump tweeted a conspiracy theory that originated on the site about Martin Gugino, the 75-year-old New York man who bled from his head after he was shoved down by Buffalo police officers while attending a protest. Trump claimed that Gugino, who remains in the hospital in serious but stable condition, wasn’t the peaceful protester he appeared to be but rather a potential “antifa provocateur” trying to “scan police communications in order to black out the equipment.”
“I watched, he fell harder than was pushed,” Trump tweeted. “Was aiming scanner. Could be a set up?”
The tweet was sparked by a segment on the Trump-fawning cable news network OAN, which was based on a blog post from The Conservative Treehouse. And it represented yet another instance of how the president’s penchant for uncritically amplifying those willing to flatter or absolve his views has vaulted the dregs of the Internet’s conspiracy theorists into national prominence.
The OAN segment was reported by Kristian Rouz, a Russian journalist who pulled double duty working for the Russian state propaganda channel Sputnik as well as OAN. In it, Rouz claimed Gugino was using “common antifa tactics” and that the incident was "a false flag provocation by far-left group antifa." He cited The Conservative Treehouse as evidence that Gugino was using a “police tracker” on his phone during the encounter.
The Conservative Treehouse post had, indeed, falsely claimed that Gugino used a sophisticated communications device to “scan the mic” of one policeman. “Once the frequency is captured (ie cloned) you can track the device, duplicate the signal and/or listen to a transmission,” the post reads.
And a Twitter thread preceding the article, The Conservative Treehouse’s Twitter account, @TheLastRefuge2, warned its nearly 180,000 followers that the same technology is used by “trackers” who use it to “electronically rob you without ever going in your house.”
There are plenty of holes in the theory that Gugino was committing high-tech espionage for antifa. For one thing, Gugino is not a member of antifa, but rather a longtime activist with the Catholic Worker movement and other community-based social justice activist groups. And the supposed “scanning” he is accused of conducting is technological gibberish, unsupported by evidence.
That context, naturally, never made it into The Conservative Treehouse post. And Trump’s amplification of their claims only underscored the payoff that can come with the spreading of disinformation aimed at undermining liberals and firing up the right. The website and Bradman, its purported owner, didn’t return requests for comment.
The Conservative Treehouse gained prominence during the Tea Party movement and the Zimmerman trial, with Zimmerman’s father praising its commenters’ research as “astonishing.” During the racially-charged trial, The Conservative Treehouse owner “Sundance” went by “Sundance Cracker,” an alias he later dropped.
During the Zimmerman trial, The Conservative Treehouse’s unusually intense commenting community, which drives much of the narratives eventually featured on the site, began to emerge. The amateur-sleuth commenters had such an outsized influence that Zimmerman’s defense attorney corresponded with one of the commenters, who referred to themselves as a member of the “the treehouse think tank.”
Since the trial, The Conservative Treehouse has embraced a wide variety of right-wing causes, including Republican investigations in the 2012 attack on an American compound in Benghazi, Libya, and the Bundy family’s Malheur wildlife refuge takeover in Oregon. In the Trump era, The Conservative Treehouse became a hub for the conspiracy theory that the Russia investigation was cooked up to undermine Trump by nefarious members of the deep-state, with Sundance and his commenters weaving elaborate stories about then-Special Counsel Robert Mueller or, later, the Ukraine impeachment.
The Conservative Treehouse has long been a fan of Trump and the president has returned the favor, dating back to Trump’s days as a Republican presidential hopeful in 2015.
As Trump’s campaign moved from sideshow to frontrunner status, The Conservative Treehouse’s Twitter account trumpeted poll after poll showing the former real estate mogul besting the other candidates in the race for the nomination—earning retweets and shoutouts from the candidate himself. Trump took particular pleasure in citing the author’s attacks on his rivals in Florida: former Governor Jeb Bush and Sen. Marco Rubio.
The Conservative Treehouse’s operator and loyal audience have frequently clashed with other conservative personalities. Stranahan has tweeted that Breitbart founder Andrew Breitbart would have hated the site’s pseudonymous operator, “Sundance,” even though the late conservative provocateur’s image tops The Conservative Treehouse’s website banner.
The site has also been slammed by Levin, the conservative talk radio host. After The Conservative Treehouse published stories suggesting the talk radio host was in the tank for Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) during the 2016 Republican primary, Levin taunted Bradman, a former Publix supermarket employee, calling him a “disgruntled former grocery clerk” in Facebook posts.
“The more we learn about Bradman and his ‘Conservative Treehouse’ site, the more you wonder what this kook is up to,” Levin wrote.
Despite the opposition, though, The Conservative Treehouse has made inroads into more mainstream right-wing media outlets. It’s been praised on-air by Fox Business Network anchor Lou Dobbs, who urged his viewers to check out the site’s blog posts about the FBI investigation into the Trump campaign and Russia.
"I want to give a shout-out to TheConservativeTreehouse.com,” Dobbs said. “They have done an amazing job of chronicling, cataloguing the content — just a terrific job."
BUSTED: Key Trump aide caught pushing racist vigilantism on social media
June 6, 2020
By Bob Brigham - raw story
Video of a chainsaw-wielding Texas man threatening protesters while shouting the n-word went viral on Friday.
While many people were shocked by the video, one of President Donald Trump’s top advisors supported the racism and vigilantism in documented in the video, according to a new report.
“President Donald Trump and his allies for years have amplified racist messages on Twitter while simultaneously reaching out to black and Hispanic voters, a dissonant balancing act that’s now rocking the GOP amid nationwide racial-justice protests,” Politico reported Saturday. “The two competing forces collided Saturday on the Twitter feed of Trump campaign senior adviser Mercedes Schlapp, when she boosted a tweet that lauded a man in Texas in a viral video as he yelled the n-word and wielded a chainsaw to chase away anti-racism demonstrators.”
Apparently Schlapp thought her post wouldn’t be as offensive if the n-word were edited out.
“After POLITICO reached out to her and the campaign, Schlapp then retweeted another account that posted a version of the video that muted the racist slur,” Politico noted. It appears both posts have subsequently been scrubbed from her Twitter account.
“Beyond Trump’s inner circle, Republicans have been under fire over racist social-media posts in Texas, where the chainsaw incident happened, triggering strife within GOP circles,” Politico explained. “Against this backdrop, Schlapp‘s retweet highlighted how the Trump campaign operates in contradictory worlds of its own making. On one hand, Schlapp favorably promoted a man spewing anti-black racism and on the other she urged black people to vote for Trump just three days prior in an online campaign discussion on race.”
While many people were shocked by the video, one of President Donald Trump’s top advisors supported the racism and vigilantism in documented in the video, according to a new report.
“President Donald Trump and his allies for years have amplified racist messages on Twitter while simultaneously reaching out to black and Hispanic voters, a dissonant balancing act that’s now rocking the GOP amid nationwide racial-justice protests,” Politico reported Saturday. “The two competing forces collided Saturday on the Twitter feed of Trump campaign senior adviser Mercedes Schlapp, when she boosted a tweet that lauded a man in Texas in a viral video as he yelled the n-word and wielded a chainsaw to chase away anti-racism demonstrators.”
Apparently Schlapp thought her post wouldn’t be as offensive if the n-word were edited out.
“After POLITICO reached out to her and the campaign, Schlapp then retweeted another account that posted a version of the video that muted the racist slur,” Politico noted. It appears both posts have subsequently been scrubbed from her Twitter account.
“Beyond Trump’s inner circle, Republicans have been under fire over racist social-media posts in Texas, where the chainsaw incident happened, triggering strife within GOP circles,” Politico explained. “Against this backdrop, Schlapp‘s retweet highlighted how the Trump campaign operates in contradictory worlds of its own making. On one hand, Schlapp favorably promoted a man spewing anti-black racism and on the other she urged black people to vote for Trump just three days prior in an online campaign discussion on race.”
Fox News Lies In Support Of Trump: 'Tear Gas Was Not Used' In DC
Fox news reporters primary job is to lie and lie and lie for Trump. The gas used in Lafayette Square was actually teargas according to CDC definitions.
By John Amato - crooks & liars
6/03/20 10:17am
The Trump administration is so chaotic that their attempts to pretend what you actually saw did not happen, sometimes works to divert the national conversation.
Gaslighting is the norm for Trump and his sycophants.
On Tuesday's Fox and Friends, reporter Griff Jenkins did not refute Steve Doocy or any of the reports saying teargas, flash bangs and rubber bullets were used against peaceful protesters. Instead, he justified the use of force against civilians by the fact that Trump is the leader of the free world and they should've moved out of the way.
"So, there's criticism on the force that should have perhaps been used but when you're talking about the leader of the free world in the president of the United States -- you don't want to be in the way and disobey their efforts to clear this area. I understand this criticism coming but this is (as he pointed behind him) a very secure area right now it is locked down."
Fast forward to today and now he's singing a different song.
Forget about what all our eyes saw, because if Trump says it didn't happen, well then.
Fox and Friends co-host Ainsley Earhardt asked Jenkins if teargas was actually used since now the White House is claiming they did not use it against peaceful protesters.
"Is that accurate?" she asked.
Here comes Griff to the rescue, all in on the newest lie from the White house.
Jenkins replied, "There is clarity on that point. And, no, tear gas was not used. The park police issuing a statement saying they did not use tear gas. They used the pepper spray that they use, far less lethal. And we also know, Ainsley, that Attorney General Bill Barr now saying that he ordered that park be cleared after projectiles were thrown, not only yesterday but in previous days.
After defending the use of force against the protesters, he said, "And so we are learning more about it. But the park police very much wanting to say that the accusations of tear gas not accurate."
And the CDC is calling what law enforcement used on the peaceful protestors, teargas.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: “Riot control agents (sometimes referred to as “tear gas”) are chemical compounds that temporarily make people unable to function by causing irritation to the eyes, mouth, throat, lungs, and skin.”And, according to the CDC, “several different compounds” fall under this definition, and are employed by security forces, including military and police, in riot control situations.Among others, they include chloroacetophenone (CN), more commonly referred to as “mace,” or pepper sprays — in other words, the compound that was deployed in Lafayette Square — and chlorobenzylidenemalononitrile (CS), “one of the most commonly used tear gases in the world,” according to an article in the British Medical Journal.
Gaslighting is the norm for Trump and his sycophants.
On Tuesday's Fox and Friends, reporter Griff Jenkins did not refute Steve Doocy or any of the reports saying teargas, flash bangs and rubber bullets were used against peaceful protesters. Instead, he justified the use of force against civilians by the fact that Trump is the leader of the free world and they should've moved out of the way.
"So, there's criticism on the force that should have perhaps been used but when you're talking about the leader of the free world in the president of the United States -- you don't want to be in the way and disobey their efforts to clear this area. I understand this criticism coming but this is (as he pointed behind him) a very secure area right now it is locked down."
Fast forward to today and now he's singing a different song.
Forget about what all our eyes saw, because if Trump says it didn't happen, well then.
Fox and Friends co-host Ainsley Earhardt asked Jenkins if teargas was actually used since now the White House is claiming they did not use it against peaceful protesters.
"Is that accurate?" she asked.
Here comes Griff to the rescue, all in on the newest lie from the White house.
Jenkins replied, "There is clarity on that point. And, no, tear gas was not used. The park police issuing a statement saying they did not use tear gas. They used the pepper spray that they use, far less lethal. And we also know, Ainsley, that Attorney General Bill Barr now saying that he ordered that park be cleared after projectiles were thrown, not only yesterday but in previous days.
After defending the use of force against the protesters, he said, "And so we are learning more about it. But the park police very much wanting to say that the accusations of tear gas not accurate."
And the CDC is calling what law enforcement used on the peaceful protestors, teargas.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: “Riot control agents (sometimes referred to as “tear gas”) are chemical compounds that temporarily make people unable to function by causing irritation to the eyes, mouth, throat, lungs, and skin.”And, according to the CDC, “several different compounds” fall under this definition, and are employed by security forces, including military and police, in riot control situations.Among others, they include chloroacetophenone (CN), more commonly referred to as “mace,” or pepper sprays — in other words, the compound that was deployed in Lafayette Square — and chlorobenzylidenemalononitrile (CS), “one of the most commonly used tear gases in the world,” according to an article in the British Medical Journal.
greedy fools never understand!!!
Black leader ‘stunned’ after phone call with Facebook’s Zuckerberg: He ‘lacks the ability to understand’ race issues
June 2, 2020
By Tom Boggioni - raw story
According to a report from Bloomberg, Black civil rights leaders who participated in a conference call with Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg walked away afterward “disappointed and stunned” at the tech billionaire’s seeming inability to understand issues that impact African-Americans.
The report notes that part of the discussion involved Zuckerberg’s decision to ignore and dismiss comments made by Donald Trump about police brutality protesters — with one Black leader calling the exec’s explanation “incomprehensible.”
According to Bloomberg’s Jeff Green, “Mark Zuckerberg hosted a nearly hour-long video call with U.S. civil rights leaders to discuss ongoing issues around his company’s policies as they relate to race, elections and other topics,” before adding it didn’t go well based on comments from Color of Change President Rashad Robinson.
In an interview, Robinson lamented, “… the problem with my ongoing conversations with Mark, is that I feel like I spent a lot of time, and my colleagues spent a lot of time, explaining to him why these things are a problem, and I think he just very much lacks the ability to understand it.”
Pointing out that Zuckerberg’s hands-off approach when it comes to Trump is baffling in light of the president’s threat that “when the looting starts, the shooting starts” with regard to George Floyd protesters, Robinson noted that the Facebook executive is bucking his own employees who are furious with him.
“His employees are outraged,” explained Robinson. “I’ve got outreach from some of them. Saying Black Lives Matter, saying I’m going to give money, but having your policies actually hurt black people, people will know the difference.”
While a spokesperson for Facebook praised the get-together by issuing a statement saying the tech giant is “… grateful that leaders in the civil rights community took the time to share candid, honest feedback,” Robinson differed with their appraisal of how it went with the company’s founder.
“He continues to do things and make decisions that hurt communities and put people in harm’s way and is not accountable for it,” explained Robinson.
You can read more here (subscription required).
The report notes that part of the discussion involved Zuckerberg’s decision to ignore and dismiss comments made by Donald Trump about police brutality protesters — with one Black leader calling the exec’s explanation “incomprehensible.”
According to Bloomberg’s Jeff Green, “Mark Zuckerberg hosted a nearly hour-long video call with U.S. civil rights leaders to discuss ongoing issues around his company’s policies as they relate to race, elections and other topics,” before adding it didn’t go well based on comments from Color of Change President Rashad Robinson.
In an interview, Robinson lamented, “… the problem with my ongoing conversations with Mark, is that I feel like I spent a lot of time, and my colleagues spent a lot of time, explaining to him why these things are a problem, and I think he just very much lacks the ability to understand it.”
Pointing out that Zuckerberg’s hands-off approach when it comes to Trump is baffling in light of the president’s threat that “when the looting starts, the shooting starts” with regard to George Floyd protesters, Robinson noted that the Facebook executive is bucking his own employees who are furious with him.
“His employees are outraged,” explained Robinson. “I’ve got outreach from some of them. Saying Black Lives Matter, saying I’m going to give money, but having your policies actually hurt black people, people will know the difference.”
While a spokesperson for Facebook praised the get-together by issuing a statement saying the tech giant is “… grateful that leaders in the civil rights community took the time to share candid, honest feedback,” Robinson differed with their appraisal of how it went with the company’s founder.
“He continues to do things and make decisions that hurt communities and put people in harm’s way and is not accountable for it,” explained Robinson.
You can read more here (subscription required).
Facebook pulled ‘thriving’ white supremacist accounts after being called out in new report
May 23, 2020
By Bob Brigham - raw story
Facebook took down dozens of white supremacist pages after being contacted by the Huffington Post.
“A new study reported that white supremacist groups are “thriving” on Facebook, despite repeated assurances from the company that it doesn’t allow extremists on its platform,” Huffington Post reported. “The watchdog group Tech Transparency Project released a study Thursday that found more than 100 white supremacist groups had a presence on Facebook.”
The report is titled “White Supremacist Groups Are Thriving on Facebook” (PDF).
“Dozens of white supremacist groups are operating freely on Facebook, allowing them to spread their message and recruit new members, according to a Tech Transparency Project (TTP) investigation, which found the activity is continuing despite years of promises by the social network that it bans hate organizations,” the report explained. “TTP recently documented how online extremists, including many with white supremacist views, are using Facebook to plan for a militant uprising dubbed the ‘boogaloo,’ as they stoke fears that coronavirus lockdowns are a sign of rising government repression. But TTP’s latest investigation reveals Facebook’s broader problems with white supremacist groups, which are using the social network’s unmatched reach to build their movement.”
The report explained that TTP “conducted searches on Facebook for the names of 221 white supremacist organizations that have been designated as hate groups by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) and the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), two leading anti-hate organizations.”
“Of the 221 designated white supremacist organizations, more than half—51%, or 113 groups—had a presence on Facebook,” the report noted. “Those organizations are associated with a total of 153 Facebook Pages and four Facebook Groups. Roughly one third of the organizations (34) had two or more Pages or Groups on Facebook. Some had Pages that have been active on the platform for a decade.”
Some of those pages have since been removed from the social networking platform.
“After HuffPost emailed a Facebook spokesperson about TTP’s report this week, project researchers noticed the company had removed pages for 55 white supremacist groups identified in its report,” the site noted. “Still, many white supremacist organizations identified in TTP’s report remain on Facebook. One user-created page for Arktos Media — the fascist European publishing house with close ties to American white supremacist Richard Spencer — is still active. More than 42,000 people have liked the page. A page for the hate group Fight White Genocide, which has more than 1,000 likes, is still active. A trio of years-old pages or groups called Right Wing Death Squad are also still online.”
“A new study reported that white supremacist groups are “thriving” on Facebook, despite repeated assurances from the company that it doesn’t allow extremists on its platform,” Huffington Post reported. “The watchdog group Tech Transparency Project released a study Thursday that found more than 100 white supremacist groups had a presence on Facebook.”
The report is titled “White Supremacist Groups Are Thriving on Facebook” (PDF).
“Dozens of white supremacist groups are operating freely on Facebook, allowing them to spread their message and recruit new members, according to a Tech Transparency Project (TTP) investigation, which found the activity is continuing despite years of promises by the social network that it bans hate organizations,” the report explained. “TTP recently documented how online extremists, including many with white supremacist views, are using Facebook to plan for a militant uprising dubbed the ‘boogaloo,’ as they stoke fears that coronavirus lockdowns are a sign of rising government repression. But TTP’s latest investigation reveals Facebook’s broader problems with white supremacist groups, which are using the social network’s unmatched reach to build their movement.”
The report explained that TTP “conducted searches on Facebook for the names of 221 white supremacist organizations that have been designated as hate groups by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) and the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), two leading anti-hate organizations.”
“Of the 221 designated white supremacist organizations, more than half—51%, or 113 groups—had a presence on Facebook,” the report noted. “Those organizations are associated with a total of 153 Facebook Pages and four Facebook Groups. Roughly one third of the organizations (34) had two or more Pages or Groups on Facebook. Some had Pages that have been active on the platform for a decade.”
Some of those pages have since been removed from the social networking platform.
“After HuffPost emailed a Facebook spokesperson about TTP’s report this week, project researchers noticed the company had removed pages for 55 white supremacist groups identified in its report,” the site noted. “Still, many white supremacist organizations identified in TTP’s report remain on Facebook. One user-created page for Arktos Media — the fascist European publishing house with close ties to American white supremacist Richard Spencer — is still active. More than 42,000 people have liked the page. A page for the hate group Fight White Genocide, which has more than 1,000 likes, is still active. A trio of years-old pages or groups called Right Wing Death Squad are also still online.”
Fox And Friends Urges New Yorkers To Disobey COVID19 Lock Down
They said while being safely sequestered in their homes and other isolated locations. Hypocrites!
By John Amato - crooks & liars
5/21/20 9:17am
Fox News and many other Trumpian outlets, worried about Trump's reelection prospects, have been demanding that the public defy all stay-at-home orders.
Everyone should go "back to normal," except those recommending it are definitely not.
This morning Fox News went ballistic over an OpEd in the New York Post because the writer wants NY's stay-at-home orders to end NOW NOW NOW!!!
Andrew Napolitano did a great job during the Trump impeachment, but he is a civil libertarian who hates the government "interfering with our personal lives." His voice against stay-at-home orders agreed with the three-headed sycophants at Fox and Friends.
Co-host Ainsley Earhardt read a portion of the idiotic New York Post OpEd to him.
"‘The Big Apple is dying. Its streets are empty, tens of thousands have been plunged into poverty. Our leaders have no plans, no answers, New Yorkers have already learned to socially distance, businesses can adjust, the elderly and infirm can continue to be isolated.’ And then in bold letters, ‘It needs to end now!'”
Judge Napolitano agreed. "Enough is enough, " he said.
They seem to believe that every person in the United States will be 100% compliant with the CDC guidelines of wearing masks and social distancing in the pandemic.
Oh, yeah, we're in the midst of a pandemic, a**holes.
They attacked Mayor De Blasio and Gov Cuomo (familiar targets for them) as if all they want is to drink the blood of New York City. It's ridiculous.
Brian Kilmeade was ecstatic, “Judge, you’re 100% right." He attacked the NYC mayor again for trying to stop the spread of the virus.
"It nuts what's going on here," he screeched.
Kilmeade was furious that New Yorkers are complying with the stay-at-home order, and said the Post article is "calling for people just to massively open up their businesses throughout the city. They can’t stop everyone.”
But the en masse screaming by Fox News to have all city residents ( except for the sick and elderly because their job is to die already to help the economy) refuse to comply with state and city stay-at-home laws is outrageous and will end up getting more Americans infected -- as we've already seen in the states that have reopened.
An as Tommy Christopher noted, "The denizens of Fox & Friends urged New York businesses to reopen en masse despite lockdown orders and a still-deadly coronavirus pandemic, but they did so from the safety of their own homes and secure locations.
Why aren't Doocy, Kilmeade and Earhardt doing their show with a full audience in their studio?
It's okay for YOU to die for Trump, but not them.
A reminder:
Ted
@trom771
Fox "news" has been downplaying the effects of a virus that's now killing thousands of Americans every day. They just sent a memo to all their employees telling them they should work from home until at least June 15th. Because of the virus.
9:45 AM - May 14, 2020
Everyone should go "back to normal," except those recommending it are definitely not.
This morning Fox News went ballistic over an OpEd in the New York Post because the writer wants NY's stay-at-home orders to end NOW NOW NOW!!!
Andrew Napolitano did a great job during the Trump impeachment, but he is a civil libertarian who hates the government "interfering with our personal lives." His voice against stay-at-home orders agreed with the three-headed sycophants at Fox and Friends.
Co-host Ainsley Earhardt read a portion of the idiotic New York Post OpEd to him.
"‘The Big Apple is dying. Its streets are empty, tens of thousands have been plunged into poverty. Our leaders have no plans, no answers, New Yorkers have already learned to socially distance, businesses can adjust, the elderly and infirm can continue to be isolated.’ And then in bold letters, ‘It needs to end now!'”
Judge Napolitano agreed. "Enough is enough, " he said.
They seem to believe that every person in the United States will be 100% compliant with the CDC guidelines of wearing masks and social distancing in the pandemic.
Oh, yeah, we're in the midst of a pandemic, a**holes.
They attacked Mayor De Blasio and Gov Cuomo (familiar targets for them) as if all they want is to drink the blood of New York City. It's ridiculous.
Brian Kilmeade was ecstatic, “Judge, you’re 100% right." He attacked the NYC mayor again for trying to stop the spread of the virus.
"It nuts what's going on here," he screeched.
Kilmeade was furious that New Yorkers are complying with the stay-at-home order, and said the Post article is "calling for people just to massively open up their businesses throughout the city. They can’t stop everyone.”
But the en masse screaming by Fox News to have all city residents ( except for the sick and elderly because their job is to die already to help the economy) refuse to comply with state and city stay-at-home laws is outrageous and will end up getting more Americans infected -- as we've already seen in the states that have reopened.
An as Tommy Christopher noted, "The denizens of Fox & Friends urged New York businesses to reopen en masse despite lockdown orders and a still-deadly coronavirus pandemic, but they did so from the safety of their own homes and secure locations.
Why aren't Doocy, Kilmeade and Earhardt doing their show with a full audience in their studio?
It's okay for YOU to die for Trump, but not them.
A reminder:
Ted
@trom771
Fox "news" has been downplaying the effects of a virus that's now killing thousands of Americans every day. They just sent a memo to all their employees telling them they should work from home until at least June 15th. Because of the virus.
9:45 AM - May 14, 2020
Fox Biz Host PushesTo 'Open Businesses Up Fast' Despite Pandemic
Stuart Varney told his fellow Fox host Steve Doocy that we need to "open up businesses as fast as possible to avoid economic catastrophe," the lessons from history be damned.
By Heather - crooks & liars
5/12/20 5:17am
Before discussing a report from Moody Analytics examining which cities are most likely to have the strongest economic recoveries from the coronavirus pandemic, Fox Business host Stuart Varney joined this Monday's Fox & Friends, and continued the network's push to get all of the peons back to work (or church) as quickly as possible as they broadcast from the safety of their homes, consequences to their health and safety be damned.
Host Steve Doocy asked Varney about the "jaw-dropping" unemployment numbers, which are probably going to get worse before they get better, and Varney responded by bringing up the very real social costs of forcing people to stay at home, such as increases in domestic abuse and alcoholism, but then proceeded to completely ignore the lessons from history when it comes to economic recovery from a pandemic:
VARNEY: Look there are two reasons why we really need to get back to work and end the lockdown, as much as possible, in the immediate future.
Reason number one, there is an enormous social cost to the lockdown—child abuse, alcoholism, drug abuse, people being stuck and clamped down in their houses in an abusive relationship. There is untold cost, a social cost to continuing the lockdown indefinitely. It's a big cost.
The other point is, we've got to open up our businesses as fast as possible to avoid absolute economic catastrophe. Those number predictions on how high the unemployment rate is going to go are not unrealistic. That's why we have got to get back to work quickly.
Now look, it's not going to be easy, Steve. Point number one, there are some people making more money staying home than if they went back to work. That's disincentive to go back. Secondly, some people will be unwilling to return to work, because they fear infection. And then there is a third reason, some businesses will indeed slim down because of this lockdown and won't require all of their workers back again.
So look, you've got to open up, but it will be an uphill struggle, but we've got to do that struggle to limit the loss—the social damage and the economic damage.
As the Independent reported last month, during the Spanish Flu pandemic of 1918, cities that had stronger social distancing measures and longer lockdown measures, actually recovered faster than those that didn't, as discussed in this article comparing the difference in the response in the twin cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul:
The comparison between the twin cities is instructive today not just for what it tells us about the health benefits of social distancing, but also for what it says about any economic costs that come with it.
In 1918, cities that committed earlier and longer to interventions like banning public gatherings and closing schools didn’t fare worse for disrupting their economies for longer. Many of those cities actually had relatively larger gains in manufacturing employment, manufacturing output and bank assets in 1919 and into the next few years, according to a new study from researchers at the Federal Reserve of New York and Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). This is particularly clear among Western cities that had more time to prepare for a pandemic that hit the east coast first.
For cities with the most aggressive interventions, there’s no trade-off apparent in this data between saving lives and hurting the economy.
“If anything, these places do better,” said Emil Verner, an economist at MIT, who wrote the paper with Sergio Correia and Stephan Luck of the Federal Reserve.[...]
The outlook today is clearly grimmer. The economy is now global, leaving local communities susceptible to coronavirus effects on the other side of the world. And so much of the modern service-sector economy in the US is contingent on people getting together — on planes, in restaurants, at theatres, in tourism hubs.
But this lesson from 1918 is probably still true today: It’s the pandemic that really hurts the economy, not the things we do to try to contain it.
Opening up too quickly in areas where the number of cases is still on the rise is a recipe for disaster on all levels, and the decision by many states to do it may very well backfire, and quickly.
Host Steve Doocy asked Varney about the "jaw-dropping" unemployment numbers, which are probably going to get worse before they get better, and Varney responded by bringing up the very real social costs of forcing people to stay at home, such as increases in domestic abuse and alcoholism, but then proceeded to completely ignore the lessons from history when it comes to economic recovery from a pandemic:
VARNEY: Look there are two reasons why we really need to get back to work and end the lockdown, as much as possible, in the immediate future.
Reason number one, there is an enormous social cost to the lockdown—child abuse, alcoholism, drug abuse, people being stuck and clamped down in their houses in an abusive relationship. There is untold cost, a social cost to continuing the lockdown indefinitely. It's a big cost.
The other point is, we've got to open up our businesses as fast as possible to avoid absolute economic catastrophe. Those number predictions on how high the unemployment rate is going to go are not unrealistic. That's why we have got to get back to work quickly.
Now look, it's not going to be easy, Steve. Point number one, there are some people making more money staying home than if they went back to work. That's disincentive to go back. Secondly, some people will be unwilling to return to work, because they fear infection. And then there is a third reason, some businesses will indeed slim down because of this lockdown and won't require all of their workers back again.
So look, you've got to open up, but it will be an uphill struggle, but we've got to do that struggle to limit the loss—the social damage and the economic damage.
As the Independent reported last month, during the Spanish Flu pandemic of 1918, cities that had stronger social distancing measures and longer lockdown measures, actually recovered faster than those that didn't, as discussed in this article comparing the difference in the response in the twin cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul:
The comparison between the twin cities is instructive today not just for what it tells us about the health benefits of social distancing, but also for what it says about any economic costs that come with it.
In 1918, cities that committed earlier and longer to interventions like banning public gatherings and closing schools didn’t fare worse for disrupting their economies for longer. Many of those cities actually had relatively larger gains in manufacturing employment, manufacturing output and bank assets in 1919 and into the next few years, according to a new study from researchers at the Federal Reserve of New York and Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). This is particularly clear among Western cities that had more time to prepare for a pandemic that hit the east coast first.
For cities with the most aggressive interventions, there’s no trade-off apparent in this data between saving lives and hurting the economy.
“If anything, these places do better,” said Emil Verner, an economist at MIT, who wrote the paper with Sergio Correia and Stephan Luck of the Federal Reserve.[...]
The outlook today is clearly grimmer. The economy is now global, leaving local communities susceptible to coronavirus effects on the other side of the world. And so much of the modern service-sector economy in the US is contingent on people getting together — on planes, in restaurants, at theatres, in tourism hubs.
But this lesson from 1918 is probably still true today: It’s the pandemic that really hurts the economy, not the things we do to try to contain it.
Opening up too quickly in areas where the number of cases is still on the rise is a recipe for disaster on all levels, and the decision by many states to do it may very well backfire, and quickly.
Hydroxychloroquine truther Laura Ingraham attempts to discredit promising new coronavirus treatment
After touting a drug studies have found to be ineffective and possibly dangerous, Ingraham dismisses remdesivir
IGOR DERYSH - salon
APRIL 30, 2020 4:09PM (UTC)
Fox News host Laura Ingraham dismissed a study that found promising results in coronavirus patients treated with the Ebola drug remdesivir and once again touted the unproven malaria drug hydroxychloroquine as a potential treatment despite criticism.
Ingraham, who was among the first Fox hosts to promote hydroxychloroquine for coronavirus patients despite questions about its efficacy and even met with President Donald Trump at the White House to discuss the drug, raised questions about remdesivir after Dr. Anthony Fauci, the top infectious disease expert in the country, touted the early results.
Ingraham, who does not have a medical degree, said the drug "certainly sounds encouraging." But she questioned whether it was safe and why Fauci was not as optimistic about the unproven drug treatment she has repeatedly hyped on her opinion program.
The Fox News host did not seem to share the same concern when she promoted hydroxychloroquine, which doctors have warned has significant side effects and could even lead to death when combined with the antibiotic azithromycin.
"The hydroxychloroquine and the Z-pack, I think, as a combination, probably, it's looking very, very good," Trump said March 23 during a White House briefing.
"We don't know," Ingraham mused Wednesday night. "It hasn't been approved by the FDA. They might do emergency authorization. Hydroxychloroquine was approved decades ago."
Though hydroxychloroquine was approved as an anti-malarial medication and is also used to treat patients with lupus and rheumatoid arthritis, a large study in New York suggested that it had no benefit for coronavirus patients after a retrospective study found that veterans treated with the drug had a higher rate of death than those who only received routine care. The Food and Drug Administration warned against the widespread use of hydroxychloroquine last week, citing potential side effects. Though Trump has frequently touted the drug, he has largely stopped mentioning it.
Ingraham argued that remdesivir was expensive and difficult to mass-produce while claiming that hydroxychloroquine was "cheap and already widely available." She did not mention that the hype around the drug has led to lupus and arthritis patients facing shortages.
The Fox News host then brought on regular guest Dr. Ramin Oskui, who cited a French researcher whose early study of the drug had been discredited. Oskui claimed that while hydroxychloroquine had a "very favorable safety profile," he was concerned that remdesivir might not be as safe because of "its history with Ebola."
A clinical trial sponsored by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases that included 1,063 patients found that the drug may help reduce recovery time in patients infected with the coronavirus. The average recovery time was 11 days for patients who were given the drug, compared to 15 days among patients who got a placebo.
"The data shows that remdesivir has a clear-cut, significant positive effect in diminishing the time to recover," Fauci told reporters Wednesday, adding that the early results were significant because "what it has proven is that a drug can block this virus."
Trump, who was joined by Fauci in the Oval Office, agreed that the early results were "very positive." The Food and Drug Administration is expected to announce an emergency approval for the drug, a senior administration official told The New York Times.
"Remdesivir is not a magic bullet, but it's as good as we get right now," Dr. Peter Chin-Hong, an infectious disease expert at the University of California, San Francisco who participated in the trial, told the outlet. "Patients come to the hospital thinking we have a treatment, and by treatment, they mean a drug. We have been impotent in not having any options."
But remdesivir is not a 100% "knockout," Fauci warned, and other studies have found different results. A separate study published in the medical journal The Lancet found no benefit to the drug when compared to a placebo.
"Unfortunately, our trial found that while safe and adequately tolerated, remdesivir did not provide significant benefits over placebo," Dr. Bin Cao, the study's lead investigator told The Times. "This is not the outcome we hoped for."
Peter Bach, an intensive care unit physician and researcher at Memorial Sloan Kettering said that while the NIH study was promising, the drug's limited efficacy and the fact that it likely works best before symptoms get serious limits how helpful it would be in the fight against the virus.
"Its availability is not going to move the needle on social distancing relaxation," he tweeted.
But as the number of deaths from the virus continued to rise, the FDA said it is working at "lightning speed" to determine whether to issue an emergency approval.
"We're working with the company to emphasize the necessity of speed while at the same time to understand the data," FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn told Bloomberg News. "There will be a lot of factors that go into all the regulatory decisions. We want to look at the totality of data to make sure that remdesivir is targeted to the right patients."
Ingraham, who was among the first Fox hosts to promote hydroxychloroquine for coronavirus patients despite questions about its efficacy and even met with President Donald Trump at the White House to discuss the drug, raised questions about remdesivir after Dr. Anthony Fauci, the top infectious disease expert in the country, touted the early results.
Ingraham, who does not have a medical degree, said the drug "certainly sounds encouraging." But she questioned whether it was safe and why Fauci was not as optimistic about the unproven drug treatment she has repeatedly hyped on her opinion program.
The Fox News host did not seem to share the same concern when she promoted hydroxychloroquine, which doctors have warned has significant side effects and could even lead to death when combined with the antibiotic azithromycin.
"The hydroxychloroquine and the Z-pack, I think, as a combination, probably, it's looking very, very good," Trump said March 23 during a White House briefing.
"We don't know," Ingraham mused Wednesday night. "It hasn't been approved by the FDA. They might do emergency authorization. Hydroxychloroquine was approved decades ago."
Though hydroxychloroquine was approved as an anti-malarial medication and is also used to treat patients with lupus and rheumatoid arthritis, a large study in New York suggested that it had no benefit for coronavirus patients after a retrospective study found that veterans treated with the drug had a higher rate of death than those who only received routine care. The Food and Drug Administration warned against the widespread use of hydroxychloroquine last week, citing potential side effects. Though Trump has frequently touted the drug, he has largely stopped mentioning it.
Ingraham argued that remdesivir was expensive and difficult to mass-produce while claiming that hydroxychloroquine was "cheap and already widely available." She did not mention that the hype around the drug has led to lupus and arthritis patients facing shortages.
The Fox News host then brought on regular guest Dr. Ramin Oskui, who cited a French researcher whose early study of the drug had been discredited. Oskui claimed that while hydroxychloroquine had a "very favorable safety profile," he was concerned that remdesivir might not be as safe because of "its history with Ebola."
A clinical trial sponsored by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases that included 1,063 patients found that the drug may help reduce recovery time in patients infected with the coronavirus. The average recovery time was 11 days for patients who were given the drug, compared to 15 days among patients who got a placebo.
"The data shows that remdesivir has a clear-cut, significant positive effect in diminishing the time to recover," Fauci told reporters Wednesday, adding that the early results were significant because "what it has proven is that a drug can block this virus."
Trump, who was joined by Fauci in the Oval Office, agreed that the early results were "very positive." The Food and Drug Administration is expected to announce an emergency approval for the drug, a senior administration official told The New York Times.
"Remdesivir is not a magic bullet, but it's as good as we get right now," Dr. Peter Chin-Hong, an infectious disease expert at the University of California, San Francisco who participated in the trial, told the outlet. "Patients come to the hospital thinking we have a treatment, and by treatment, they mean a drug. We have been impotent in not having any options."
But remdesivir is not a 100% "knockout," Fauci warned, and other studies have found different results. A separate study published in the medical journal The Lancet found no benefit to the drug when compared to a placebo.
"Unfortunately, our trial found that while safe and adequately tolerated, remdesivir did not provide significant benefits over placebo," Dr. Bin Cao, the study's lead investigator told The Times. "This is not the outcome we hoped for."
Peter Bach, an intensive care unit physician and researcher at Memorial Sloan Kettering said that while the NIH study was promising, the drug's limited efficacy and the fact that it likely works best before symptoms get serious limits how helpful it would be in the fight against the virus.
"Its availability is not going to move the needle on social distancing relaxation," he tweeted.
But as the number of deaths from the virus continued to rise, the FDA said it is working at "lightning speed" to determine whether to issue an emergency approval.
"We're working with the company to emphasize the necessity of speed while at the same time to understand the data," FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn told Bloomberg News. "There will be a lot of factors that go into all the regulatory decisions. We want to look at the totality of data to make sure that remdesivir is targeted to the right patients."
Fox News hosts try to discredit study that finds no benefit from unproven drug therapy for COVID-19
After touting a discredited French study to hype the drug, Fox hosts criticize "shockingly irresponsible" research
IGOR DERYSH - salon
APRIL 23, 2020 2:49PM (UTC)
Fox News hosts Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham attempted to discredit a large retrospective study, which found that more COVID-19 patients who took the anti-malarial drug hydroxychloroquine died than those who only received standard care.
Unlike "experiments," where researchers typically study the differences between the experimental group and a control group, retrospective studies look at existing data to find trends. A retrospective study by researchers at the Columbia VA Health Care System in South Carolina, the University of South Carolina and the University of Virginia School of Medicine of 368 veterans in the Veterans Health Administration medical centers found that COVID-19 patients who took the drug died at a higher rate than those who did not.
About 28% of veterans who received hydroxychloroquine and standard care and 22% of veterans who received a combination of hydroxychloroquine and the antibiotic azithromycin died compared to only 11% of patients who received standard care alone, according to the study, which was submitted to the New England Journal of Medicine but has yet to be peer-reviewed.
Though the study looked at actual patients treated in the VA health system, Hannity and Ingraham claimed that it was bogus because it was not a "rigorous experiment" (as noted by the Associated Press). The Fox News hosts, meanwhile, first touted the drug as they cited a tiny French study later discredited by its publisher after researchers omitted patients who died or were taken to an intensive care unit from their results. After repeatedly hyping the drug for weeks, Fox News hosts had largely gone silent on hydroxychloroquine until Wednesday.
"Notice the mob and media, you know, going with this VA study," Hannity said Wednesday on his radio show. "It's even in the write-ups of it by the AP — they're acknowledging it's flawed from the get-go and not a rigorous experiment."
The Fox News host, who has repeatedly touted the drug, focused on that single study even though a panel convened by the National Institutes of Health issued guidelines this week warning doctors against using the drug as a treatment for COVID-19, especially in combination with azithromycin, which President Donald Trump has also urged.
Ingraham, who is not a doctor, went a step further, citing the same French researcher behind the earlier discredited study in an apparent attempt to debunk the latest findings.
"When we use the phrase 'scientific study' in a headline or on TV, it's meant to convey a sense of seriousness — of scientific rigor," she said Wednesday on her show. ". . . The manner in which that data is organized, examined and then reported can determine a lot about whether a study is credible or not."
Ingraham, who repeatedly touted the discredited French study, claimed that the VA study "shockingly irresponsible" and "perhaps even agenda-driven."
The Fox News host, whose tweets promoting the drug ran afoul of Twitter's misinformation policy, mockingly played clips of CNN hosts using the study to criticize Fox News and the president for promoting the unproven drug therapy as she claimed that they had "zero credibility."
"Well, the jackals at Media Matters thought they had their prey trapped. And now, journalism is such a joke that even The Washington Post and tonight the New York Times reflexively joined the pig pile. It's just pathetic," she said. "Now, I'm not a doctor. I don't play one on TV, but renowned French virologist Dr. Didier Raoult released his own study on hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin just a few weeks ago. It demonstrated 91% effectiveness in more than 1,000 patients with zero side effects. There was one outcome that was not good, but in the patients that recovered, there was zero side effects."
While Ingraham touted the research of the doctor behind the earlier discredited study, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently removed guidelines for doctors using the drug, warning that "there are no drugs or other therapeutics approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to prevent or treat COVID-19." Though there has been what Dr. Anthony Fauci, the top infectious disease expert in the country, calls "anecdotal evidence" that the drug can be helpful, there have similarly been reports of patients suffering severe side effects and even death in certain situations.
Even Trump toned down his hype of the drug when asked about the study at a White House news briefing on Tuesday.
"I don't know the report," Trump said. "We're looking at it."
Other cable news networks who did not rush to promote an unproven drug therapy noted that the new findings follow a "drumbeat of studies" showing similar results.
"We're going to get large data studies, so we have to take all these studies with a grain of salt. This one was not peer-reviewed. It was not randomized. Nevertheless . . . the patients who in this study got hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin — that's the Z-Pak, the antibiotic — did worse," CNN medical correspondent Sanjay Gupta said. "They had a 22 % death rate as compared to patients who didn't get those medications, who had an 11.4% death rate. So it doesn't look very promising, you know? This is another study among a drumbeat of studies now — again, all of them pretty small. We're still waiting for the larger studies, but if you look at France, you look at Brazil, you look at Sweden, you're hearing similar things."
MSNBC host Rachel Maddow criticized Fox News for suddenly going quiet about a drug therapy which it had so frequently hyped.
"Beginning in middle of March, hydroxychloroquine was mentioned hundreds, and hundreds and hundreds of times on the Fox News channel — particularly by its primetime hosts and by the president, from the White House podium," she said. "They just stopped bringing it up, and we don't know why it is."
Maddow said it was irresponsible to broadcast misinformation which could harm the public.
"If somebody is repeatedly misinforming the American public about important things having to do with this disease, don't broadcast that," she said. "Don't listen to people who are lying to you about this disease. Don't broadcast their comments. Certainly don't keep doing it day after day, when they've proven themselves to be lying day after day. And honestly, it doesn't matter who it is — show some responsibility, honestly."
Unlike "experiments," where researchers typically study the differences between the experimental group and a control group, retrospective studies look at existing data to find trends. A retrospective study by researchers at the Columbia VA Health Care System in South Carolina, the University of South Carolina and the University of Virginia School of Medicine of 368 veterans in the Veterans Health Administration medical centers found that COVID-19 patients who took the drug died at a higher rate than those who did not.
About 28% of veterans who received hydroxychloroquine and standard care and 22% of veterans who received a combination of hydroxychloroquine and the antibiotic azithromycin died compared to only 11% of patients who received standard care alone, according to the study, which was submitted to the New England Journal of Medicine but has yet to be peer-reviewed.
Though the study looked at actual patients treated in the VA health system, Hannity and Ingraham claimed that it was bogus because it was not a "rigorous experiment" (as noted by the Associated Press). The Fox News hosts, meanwhile, first touted the drug as they cited a tiny French study later discredited by its publisher after researchers omitted patients who died or were taken to an intensive care unit from their results. After repeatedly hyping the drug for weeks, Fox News hosts had largely gone silent on hydroxychloroquine until Wednesday.
"Notice the mob and media, you know, going with this VA study," Hannity said Wednesday on his radio show. "It's even in the write-ups of it by the AP — they're acknowledging it's flawed from the get-go and not a rigorous experiment."
The Fox News host, who has repeatedly touted the drug, focused on that single study even though a panel convened by the National Institutes of Health issued guidelines this week warning doctors against using the drug as a treatment for COVID-19, especially in combination with azithromycin, which President Donald Trump has also urged.
Ingraham, who is not a doctor, went a step further, citing the same French researcher behind the earlier discredited study in an apparent attempt to debunk the latest findings.
"When we use the phrase 'scientific study' in a headline or on TV, it's meant to convey a sense of seriousness — of scientific rigor," she said Wednesday on her show. ". . . The manner in which that data is organized, examined and then reported can determine a lot about whether a study is credible or not."
Ingraham, who repeatedly touted the discredited French study, claimed that the VA study "shockingly irresponsible" and "perhaps even agenda-driven."
The Fox News host, whose tweets promoting the drug ran afoul of Twitter's misinformation policy, mockingly played clips of CNN hosts using the study to criticize Fox News and the president for promoting the unproven drug therapy as she claimed that they had "zero credibility."
"Well, the jackals at Media Matters thought they had their prey trapped. And now, journalism is such a joke that even The Washington Post and tonight the New York Times reflexively joined the pig pile. It's just pathetic," she said. "Now, I'm not a doctor. I don't play one on TV, but renowned French virologist Dr. Didier Raoult released his own study on hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin just a few weeks ago. It demonstrated 91% effectiveness in more than 1,000 patients with zero side effects. There was one outcome that was not good, but in the patients that recovered, there was zero side effects."
While Ingraham touted the research of the doctor behind the earlier discredited study, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently removed guidelines for doctors using the drug, warning that "there are no drugs or other therapeutics approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to prevent or treat COVID-19." Though there has been what Dr. Anthony Fauci, the top infectious disease expert in the country, calls "anecdotal evidence" that the drug can be helpful, there have similarly been reports of patients suffering severe side effects and even death in certain situations.
Even Trump toned down his hype of the drug when asked about the study at a White House news briefing on Tuesday.
"I don't know the report," Trump said. "We're looking at it."
Other cable news networks who did not rush to promote an unproven drug therapy noted that the new findings follow a "drumbeat of studies" showing similar results.
"We're going to get large data studies, so we have to take all these studies with a grain of salt. This one was not peer-reviewed. It was not randomized. Nevertheless . . . the patients who in this study got hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin — that's the Z-Pak, the antibiotic — did worse," CNN medical correspondent Sanjay Gupta said. "They had a 22 % death rate as compared to patients who didn't get those medications, who had an 11.4% death rate. So it doesn't look very promising, you know? This is another study among a drumbeat of studies now — again, all of them pretty small. We're still waiting for the larger studies, but if you look at France, you look at Brazil, you look at Sweden, you're hearing similar things."
MSNBC host Rachel Maddow criticized Fox News for suddenly going quiet about a drug therapy which it had so frequently hyped.
"Beginning in middle of March, hydroxychloroquine was mentioned hundreds, and hundreds and hundreds of times on the Fox News channel — particularly by its primetime hosts and by the president, from the White House podium," she said. "They just stopped bringing it up, and we don't know why it is."
Maddow said it was irresponsible to broadcast misinformation which could harm the public.
"If somebody is repeatedly misinforming the American public about important things having to do with this disease, don't broadcast that," she said. "Don't listen to people who are lying to you about this disease. Don't broadcast their comments. Certainly don't keep doing it day after day, when they've proven themselves to be lying day after day. And honestly, it doesn't matter who it is — show some responsibility, honestly."
Fox News fights coronavirus misinformation lawsuit: First Amendment protects “false” speech
Fox News says it cannot be held liable because the Constitution protects "false" and "outrageous" claims
IGOR DERYSH - salon
APRIL 16, 2020 9:00AM (UTC)
Fox News has moved to dismiss a lawsuit filed by a Washington state group accusing the network of "deceptive" coronavirus coverage by arguing that the First Amendment protects "false" and "outrageous" speech.
The network's lawyers said in a motion seeking to dismiss the lawsuit that the "First Amendment does not permit censoring this type of speech based on the theory that it is 'false' or 'outrageous.' Nor does the law of the State of Washington."
The Washington League for Increased Transparency and Ethics (WASHLITE) filed a lawsuit in King County earlier this month seeking a court order barring the network from "interfering with reasonable and necessary measures to contain the virus by publishing further false and deceptive content."
The suit accused the network of violating the state's Consumer Protection Act by "falsely and deceptively disseminating 'news' via cable news contracts that the coronavirus was a 'hoax' and that it was otherwise not a danger to public health and safety."
The suit specifically cited Fox News host Sean Hannity and former Fox Business host Trish Regan for having "acted in bad faith to willfully and maliciously disseminate false information denying and minimizing the danger posed by the spread of the novel coronavirus."
Hannity downplayed the threat of the coronavirus and argued it was less dangerous than the flu. Regan was fired shortly after accusing Democrats of pushing a "coronavirus impeachment scam."
Though there are numerous examples of Fox opinion hosts downplaying the threat posed by the virus, many legal experts have dismissed the idea that the network could be sued for its coverage of the pandemic. One of the lawyers involved in the lawsuit has since withdrawn from the case.
"It's Constitutional Law 101: the First Amendment protects our right to speak openly and freely on matters of public concern," Fox News Media general counsel Lily Fu Claffee said in a statement. "If WASHLITE doesn't like what we said, it can criticize us, but it can't silence us with a lawsuit."
The network's 76-page filing, which includes dozens of pages of show transcripts and examples of other media outlets purportedly downplaying the risk of the virus early this year, argues that the hosts "never described the Coronavirus as a 'hoax' or a 'conspiracy,' but instead used those terms to comment on efforts to exploit the pandemic for political points."
The network's lawyers argued that Hannity and Regan simply took part in an "intense public debate" over "how serious of a threat" the virus posed, noting that Hannity, in March, urged the elderly and people with compromised immune systems to take "extra, extra, extra caution."
The motion also noted that when Regan wrongly argued that the "flu … can be even more deadly" than the coronavirus, she emphasized that she was "not saying that people should not take [the coronavirus] seriously."
"Under the First Amendment and state law, the truth or falsity of this type of speech must be resolved through free and open debate in the marketplace of ideas — not through burdensome litigation seeking to impose legal penalties on political statements that a jury might deem 'false' or 'outrageous,'" the motion said. "In addition, the Complaint also fails because the statements are constitutionally protected opinions. Again, even accepting the Complaint's characterization of the speech at issue, the Fox commentators were expressing their view on the scientific question of how dangerous the Coronavirus is and how society should respond to it — including what type of governmental action should be taken."
The motion went on to cite CNN and New York Times coverage that compared the coronavirus to the flu, arguing that "If this type of allegedly 'false' speech can be censored, then free and open debate on matters of public concern is a dead letter."
The network added that WASHLITE's bid to get an injunction preventing Fox News from expressing similar opinions in the future is an example of unlawful "extraordinary prior restraint." The Washington CPA also "does not regulate political commentary … nor is such commentary the type of 'extreme and outrageous conduct' covered by the tort of 'outrage,'" the motion said.
Legal experts largely agreed with the network's position that the lawsuit was unlikely to succeed.
Catherine Clark, an attorney for WASHLITE, vowed to respond to the motion and told Variety that the suit "was not about prohibiting free speech, but making sure that news organizations convey accurate information."
Legal culpability aside, media analysts have widely criticized Fox News for putting their viewers at risk by downplaying the threat posed by the virus, which has now killed 26,000 people in the United States.
"Fox failed its viewers and the broader public in ways both revealing and potentially lethal," wrote New York Times columnist Ben Smith.
A letter signed by more than 70 journalism professors around the country criticized Fox News for spreading "misinformation" about the virus.
"Viewers of Fox News, including the president of the United States, have been regularly subjected to misinformation relayed by the network — false statements downplaying the prevalence of COVID-19 and its harms; misleading recommendations of activities that people should undertake to protect themselves and others, including casual recommendations of untested drugs; false assessments of the value of measures urged upon the public by their elected political leadership and public health authorities," the letter said, pointing to a recent poll that found that 79% of Fox News viewers believed the media had overstated the danger posed by the virus.
The network's competitors have seized on the criticism.
"There are surveys on this, showing a majority of people who get information from Fox still think the virus threat is overblown," MSNBC host Ari Melber said last week:
They're more likely to downplay it even compared to other Republicans. If you don't get your information from Fox News or online conspiracy theories, you're less likely to think it's overblown because it's not overblown. For Fox viewers, it's especially perilous. The median age there is 67. That mostly older audience, especially vulnerable if they contract this virus. And as we just showed you, they've been told to basically downplay it.
The network's lawyers said in a motion seeking to dismiss the lawsuit that the "First Amendment does not permit censoring this type of speech based on the theory that it is 'false' or 'outrageous.' Nor does the law of the State of Washington."
The Washington League for Increased Transparency and Ethics (WASHLITE) filed a lawsuit in King County earlier this month seeking a court order barring the network from "interfering with reasonable and necessary measures to contain the virus by publishing further false and deceptive content."
The suit accused the network of violating the state's Consumer Protection Act by "falsely and deceptively disseminating 'news' via cable news contracts that the coronavirus was a 'hoax' and that it was otherwise not a danger to public health and safety."
The suit specifically cited Fox News host Sean Hannity and former Fox Business host Trish Regan for having "acted in bad faith to willfully and maliciously disseminate false information denying and minimizing the danger posed by the spread of the novel coronavirus."
Hannity downplayed the threat of the coronavirus and argued it was less dangerous than the flu. Regan was fired shortly after accusing Democrats of pushing a "coronavirus impeachment scam."
Though there are numerous examples of Fox opinion hosts downplaying the threat posed by the virus, many legal experts have dismissed the idea that the network could be sued for its coverage of the pandemic. One of the lawyers involved in the lawsuit has since withdrawn from the case.
"It's Constitutional Law 101: the First Amendment protects our right to speak openly and freely on matters of public concern," Fox News Media general counsel Lily Fu Claffee said in a statement. "If WASHLITE doesn't like what we said, it can criticize us, but it can't silence us with a lawsuit."
The network's 76-page filing, which includes dozens of pages of show transcripts and examples of other media outlets purportedly downplaying the risk of the virus early this year, argues that the hosts "never described the Coronavirus as a 'hoax' or a 'conspiracy,' but instead used those terms to comment on efforts to exploit the pandemic for political points."
The network's lawyers argued that Hannity and Regan simply took part in an "intense public debate" over "how serious of a threat" the virus posed, noting that Hannity, in March, urged the elderly and people with compromised immune systems to take "extra, extra, extra caution."
The motion also noted that when Regan wrongly argued that the "flu … can be even more deadly" than the coronavirus, she emphasized that she was "not saying that people should not take [the coronavirus] seriously."
"Under the First Amendment and state law, the truth or falsity of this type of speech must be resolved through free and open debate in the marketplace of ideas — not through burdensome litigation seeking to impose legal penalties on political statements that a jury might deem 'false' or 'outrageous,'" the motion said. "In addition, the Complaint also fails because the statements are constitutionally protected opinions. Again, even accepting the Complaint's characterization of the speech at issue, the Fox commentators were expressing their view on the scientific question of how dangerous the Coronavirus is and how society should respond to it — including what type of governmental action should be taken."
The motion went on to cite CNN and New York Times coverage that compared the coronavirus to the flu, arguing that "If this type of allegedly 'false' speech can be censored, then free and open debate on matters of public concern is a dead letter."
The network added that WASHLITE's bid to get an injunction preventing Fox News from expressing similar opinions in the future is an example of unlawful "extraordinary prior restraint." The Washington CPA also "does not regulate political commentary … nor is such commentary the type of 'extreme and outrageous conduct' covered by the tort of 'outrage,'" the motion said.
Legal experts largely agreed with the network's position that the lawsuit was unlikely to succeed.
Catherine Clark, an attorney for WASHLITE, vowed to respond to the motion and told Variety that the suit "was not about prohibiting free speech, but making sure that news organizations convey accurate information."
Legal culpability aside, media analysts have widely criticized Fox News for putting their viewers at risk by downplaying the threat posed by the virus, which has now killed 26,000 people in the United States.
"Fox failed its viewers and the broader public in ways both revealing and potentially lethal," wrote New York Times columnist Ben Smith.
A letter signed by more than 70 journalism professors around the country criticized Fox News for spreading "misinformation" about the virus.
"Viewers of Fox News, including the president of the United States, have been regularly subjected to misinformation relayed by the network — false statements downplaying the prevalence of COVID-19 and its harms; misleading recommendations of activities that people should undertake to protect themselves and others, including casual recommendations of untested drugs; false assessments of the value of measures urged upon the public by their elected political leadership and public health authorities," the letter said, pointing to a recent poll that found that 79% of Fox News viewers believed the media had overstated the danger posed by the virus.
The network's competitors have seized on the criticism.
"There are surveys on this, showing a majority of people who get information from Fox still think the virus threat is overblown," MSNBC host Ari Melber said last week:
They're more likely to downplay it even compared to other Republicans. If you don't get your information from Fox News or online conspiracy theories, you're less likely to think it's overblown because it's not overblown. For Fox viewers, it's especially perilous. The median age there is 67. That mostly older audience, especially vulnerable if they contract this virus. And as we just showed you, they've been told to basically downplay it.
how stupid are his viewers???
Brian Kilmeade Whines About Payroll Loans; 'People Don't Want Those Jobs Back'
The not-too-bright Fox and Friends host says a stupid thing, again.
By Frances Langum - crooks & liars
4/09/20 8:06am
"Brian Kilmeade is an idiot. But you knew that." part infinity, transcript via Media Matters:
BRIAN KILMEADE (CO-HOST): The other thing is, if you're trying to help out small business, which restaurants are, don't make them take 75% of that grant money and put it towards employees, many of which don't want those jobs back because they're better off on unemployment. Let them pay their rent, let them somehow survive and keep the lights on and maintain their equipment. So they've got to be flexible when they go into these banks and get these grants, the money that we set aside as taxpayers to keep these restaurants alive when they come back.
Brian Kilmeade doesn't know that unemployment doesn't pay 100% of wages and that being re-hired back to your old job is better and may make the difference between a small business staying in business or failing.
BRIAN KILMEADE (CO-HOST): The other thing is, if you're trying to help out small business, which restaurants are, don't make them take 75% of that grant money and put it towards employees, many of which don't want those jobs back because they're better off on unemployment. Let them pay their rent, let them somehow survive and keep the lights on and maintain their equipment. So they've got to be flexible when they go into these banks and get these grants, the money that we set aside as taxpayers to keep these restaurants alive when they come back.
Brian Kilmeade doesn't know that unemployment doesn't pay 100% of wages and that being re-hired back to your old job is better and may make the difference between a small business staying in business or failing.
Fox News Has Been Lying Its Aging Viewers Into Early Graves
BY William Rivers Pitt, Truthout
PUBLISHED April 2, 2020
That moment when you step back from yourself and realize every cell and fiber in your body is a gusting scream of fury and fear so encompassing that you are thrumming on a subharmonic level, yet simultaneously you are so quiescent that the purring cat asleep on your chest has no idea of your condition — that is my personal resting face today.
There are cruise ships stacked up off the coast of Florida filled with sick people and corpses: 808 guests and 583 crew on the good ship Rotterdam, 442 guests and 603 crew on the Zaandam. Neither Florida’s Republican governor, Ron DeSantis, nor the Republican president of the United States, Donald Trump, seem to know what to do about it.
“Trump on Tuesday night said he had planned to discuss the situation with DeSantis,” reported CNN. “‘People are dying on the ship, or at least very sick, but they are dying on the ship,’ Trump said. ‘So, I’m going to do what is right.’” As of this morning, those ships remain outside U.S. waters, waiting for the word.
Those ships, and those trapped people, are a metaphor for what the entire state of Florida — indeed, whole swaths of “Red State America” — are on the verge of experiencing, thanks entirely to an expeditious virus and the Republican hucksters who helped it spread. Thus far, COVID-19 has spent its wrath in places like New York, Seattle and Detroit. The storm is now coming to the farther reaches, to Fox News, to the doorstep of Trump’s most devout adherents, and it will be a horror when it happens.
“A review of hundreds of hours of programming and social media traffic from Jan. 1 through mid-March, when the White House started urging people to stay home and limit their exposure to others — shows that doubt, cynicism and misinformation about the virus took root among many of Mr. Trump’s boosters in the right-wing media as the number of confirmed cases in the United States grew,” reports The New York Times.
Here is the present truth: A doctor can go on Fox News, speak basic and elemental facts about the coronavirus pandemic and become an immediate folk hero not for what he said, but for where he said it. Rishi Desai went on the mothership of right-wing folderol — live, no less — and lit into the Trump administration’s ongoing failure to get COVID-19 testing up and running on a national level. It was a moment of pure astonishment, a shard of light cracking the clouds.
Meanwhile, the core personality of that pestiferous network — Sean Hannity — can almost simultaneously spend an entire broadcast melting down at critics who correctly point out that he and his co-workers have been lying their own loyal viewers into early graves because protecting Trump is more important than protecting people in Florida, or anywhere else.
I’m not telling you anything you don’t already know, of course, but if I don’t say it out loud, my head will become a pillar of fire and that purring cat will run screaming. Never in history have two organizations — Fox and the GOP — been more utterly devoted to destroying their own foundations, and it is a dismal thing to encompass.
Fox News and the Republican Party exist today because of older white people who live in rural and suburban places. If you had sat down last December and hatched a plan specifically calculated to damage that sector of the populace, you could not have done better than Fox and the GOP have through their defense of Trump and their simple greedy negligence. COVID-19 is almost perfectly designed to attack older Americans, and still the Republican governor of Florida balks at protecting his aged population, because doing so might make Trump look bad.
We are told by the minute and the hour that ours is a divided nation, that conservatives hate liberals and vice versa, and that nary the twain shall meet unless it is at the point of bayonets. Yet my shoulders today are so tense you could use them as a whetstone because — just as I am terrified for older and immunosuppressed people everywhere — I am terrified for Florida, for “Red State America,” for the millions of people who are going to suffer and die because they trusted this president.
My heart is shattered at the thought of what is to come. I wish most devoutly that it was going to be different than it is, but that is futility. All of us — Red States and Blue States — are on the verge of bearing witness to a bloodletting that will leave us on our knees. It did not have to be this way, and I can’t stop weeping.
There are cruise ships stacked up off the coast of Florida filled with sick people and corpses: 808 guests and 583 crew on the good ship Rotterdam, 442 guests and 603 crew on the Zaandam. Neither Florida’s Republican governor, Ron DeSantis, nor the Republican president of the United States, Donald Trump, seem to know what to do about it.
“Trump on Tuesday night said he had planned to discuss the situation with DeSantis,” reported CNN. “‘People are dying on the ship, or at least very sick, but they are dying on the ship,’ Trump said. ‘So, I’m going to do what is right.’” As of this morning, those ships remain outside U.S. waters, waiting for the word.
Those ships, and those trapped people, are a metaphor for what the entire state of Florida — indeed, whole swaths of “Red State America” — are on the verge of experiencing, thanks entirely to an expeditious virus and the Republican hucksters who helped it spread. Thus far, COVID-19 has spent its wrath in places like New York, Seattle and Detroit. The storm is now coming to the farther reaches, to Fox News, to the doorstep of Trump’s most devout adherents, and it will be a horror when it happens.
“A review of hundreds of hours of programming and social media traffic from Jan. 1 through mid-March, when the White House started urging people to stay home and limit their exposure to others — shows that doubt, cynicism and misinformation about the virus took root among many of Mr. Trump’s boosters in the right-wing media as the number of confirmed cases in the United States grew,” reports The New York Times.
Here is the present truth: A doctor can go on Fox News, speak basic and elemental facts about the coronavirus pandemic and become an immediate folk hero not for what he said, but for where he said it. Rishi Desai went on the mothership of right-wing folderol — live, no less — and lit into the Trump administration’s ongoing failure to get COVID-19 testing up and running on a national level. It was a moment of pure astonishment, a shard of light cracking the clouds.
Meanwhile, the core personality of that pestiferous network — Sean Hannity — can almost simultaneously spend an entire broadcast melting down at critics who correctly point out that he and his co-workers have been lying their own loyal viewers into early graves because protecting Trump is more important than protecting people in Florida, or anywhere else.
I’m not telling you anything you don’t already know, of course, but if I don’t say it out loud, my head will become a pillar of fire and that purring cat will run screaming. Never in history have two organizations — Fox and the GOP — been more utterly devoted to destroying their own foundations, and it is a dismal thing to encompass.
Fox News and the Republican Party exist today because of older white people who live in rural and suburban places. If you had sat down last December and hatched a plan specifically calculated to damage that sector of the populace, you could not have done better than Fox and the GOP have through their defense of Trump and their simple greedy negligence. COVID-19 is almost perfectly designed to attack older Americans, and still the Republican governor of Florida balks at protecting his aged population, because doing so might make Trump look bad.
We are told by the minute and the hour that ours is a divided nation, that conservatives hate liberals and vice versa, and that nary the twain shall meet unless it is at the point of bayonets. Yet my shoulders today are so tense you could use them as a whetstone because — just as I am terrified for older and immunosuppressed people everywhere — I am terrified for Florida, for “Red State America,” for the millions of people who are going to suffer and die because they trusted this president.
My heart is shattered at the thought of what is to come. I wish most devoutly that it was going to be different than it is, but that is futility. All of us — Red States and Blue States — are on the verge of bearing witness to a bloodletting that will leave us on our knees. It did not have to be this way, and I can’t stop weeping.
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
|
|
