TO COMMENT CLICK HERE
Worthless Media
WELCOME TO WORTHLESS MEDIA WHERE THE FAILURE OF REAL JOURNALISM IS
EXPOSED
june 21, 2018
“The media serve, and propagandize on behalf of, the powerful societal interests that control and finance them. The representatives of these interests have important agendas and principles that they want to advance, and they are well positioned to shape and constrain media policy.”
–Chomsky
Media lo-lites
(source: politicus usa, raw story, alternet, newshounds)
*NRA TV attacks Rachel Maddow for crying over children separated at the border
*‘It’s tough love’: Shouting match erupts on Fox News after host says cages for children look ‘quite compassionate’
*Fox 'Family Values' Conservative Is Against Divorce Even Though He's Had Two Pete Hegseth says that American values are in decline, but he fails to see how he contributes to it.
*NC sheriff who smeared Latinos as ‘taco-eaters’ seeks to partner with ICE to deport immigrants
*video: Fox News host blames Clintons for Trump’s charity scam
*FCC Chairman Pai Given Friendly Fox Platform To Tell Consumers Net Neutrality Repeal Is Great
*Fox News host falsely claims ‘there are 2,000 MS-13 members on Long Island alone’ — here’s the real stat
Donald Trump wants to turn a Salvadoran street gang which brutally murdered several members of rival street gangs in the suburbs of New York City into a national issue, and Fox News wants to help him.
*Fox News Cuts Ties With Former General Who Claimed Torture 'Worked' on 'Songbird John' McCain
*MSNBC Decides to Help Roger Stone Promote His New Book Instead of Upholding Its Own Ban
racists will do/say anything!!!
Drudge uses photo from Syria to depict kids from Latin America as violent criminals
Fake news.
AARON RUPAR - thinkprogress
JUN 18, 2018, 2:20 PM
On Monday, the Drudge Report’s lead story was headlined “BORDER BATTLE: USA TAKING IN 250 KIDS PER DAY.” The accompanying image was of a group of young boys holding what looked like guns — the implication being that some of the kids the Trump administration is separating from their parents and detaining in detention centers are dangerous gangsters.
There was just one problem, however — the image was actually of Syrian kids holding toy guys during the 2012 Battle of Azaz.
The ACLU’s Brian Tashman caught a screengrab, and linked to the original photo.
Drudge spread fake news just three days after President Trump went out of his way to praise him during an impromptu Fox & Friends interview.
“Drudge is great by the way,” Trump said of Drudge, who is reportedly a frequent visitor to the White House. “Matt Drudge is a great gentleman, he really has ability to capture stories that people want to see.”
Trump has repeatedly invoked MS-13 to smear undocumented immigrants as violent, dangerous criminals. But data indicates that both documented and undocumented immigrants are no more likely to commit crimes than native-born Americans.
Drudge later changed the photo on his homepage.
There was just one problem, however — the image was actually of Syrian kids holding toy guys during the 2012 Battle of Azaz.
The ACLU’s Brian Tashman caught a screengrab, and linked to the original photo.
Drudge spread fake news just three days after President Trump went out of his way to praise him during an impromptu Fox & Friends interview.
“Drudge is great by the way,” Trump said of Drudge, who is reportedly a frequent visitor to the White House. “Matt Drudge is a great gentleman, he really has ability to capture stories that people want to see.”
Trump has repeatedly invoked MS-13 to smear undocumented immigrants as violent, dangerous criminals. But data indicates that both documented and undocumented immigrants are no more likely to commit crimes than native-born Americans.
Drudge later changed the photo on his homepage.
Breitbart website suffering conservative influence collapse as traffic tanks following Bannon ouster: report
Bob Brigham - raw story
16 JUN 2018 AT 10:34 ET
Alt-right website Breitbart is experiencing a decline in internet traffic and political influence after former CEO Steve Bannon was ousted, Politico reported Saturday.
In January, Bannon stepped down as executive chairman of Breitbart after an uproar over referring to Donald Trump, Jr. as “treasonous” and claiming the president’s son will crack “like an egg” over a Trump Tower meeting with Russian operatives.
Trump, Jr. hit back hard at Bannon, and Breitbart readers fought over dueling loyalties.
“Just looked at the comments section on Breitbart. Wow. When Bannon has lost Breitbart, he’s left with . . . umm, nothing,” Trump, Jr. tweeted in January.
The same may have been true for Breitbart losing Bannon.
“Since the ouster of former executive chairman Steve Bannon in January, the site has been forced to search for a new identity, and, like other ideological publishers, has been pinched by changes to Facebook’s algorithms in January,” Politico reported. “Its current slide began in November, though, three months after Bannon was forced out of his top advisor role in the White House, but two months before he left Breitbart.”
The website tracking company comScore estimated May was the seventh straight month of declining traffic, with barely half of the numbers from a year ago.
According to comScore, Breitbart had 6.4 million unique visitors in May, compared to 12.1 million in May 2017.
Web traffic monitor Alexa has shown a traffic decline since January.
Politico noted, “critics were quick to cite the readership figures as signs of an overall decline in influence.”
“With its falling traffic numbers, but lingering grassroots support, Breitbart seems to be transforming from a site that had designs on conquering American politics to one that is increasingly focused on maintaining its conservative base,” Politico observed.
Conservative commentator Matt Lewis, arguing the establishment perspective on the Alt-right website, suggested the website required a leader like Bannon.
“I never hear about them, anymore,” Lewis noted. “Nor do I have a sense that they drive the debate or the discussion—or that anyone is worried about them writing something negative about them.”
“Nationalism and populism always requires a charismatic leader,” he said. “The ideas are not persuasive enough to work without a cult of personality.”
Fox News also suffered a decline in ratings following the ousters of CEO Roger Ailes and on-air personality Bill O’Reilly.
In January, Bannon stepped down as executive chairman of Breitbart after an uproar over referring to Donald Trump, Jr. as “treasonous” and claiming the president’s son will crack “like an egg” over a Trump Tower meeting with Russian operatives.
Trump, Jr. hit back hard at Bannon, and Breitbart readers fought over dueling loyalties.
“Just looked at the comments section on Breitbart. Wow. When Bannon has lost Breitbart, he’s left with . . . umm, nothing,” Trump, Jr. tweeted in January.
The same may have been true for Breitbart losing Bannon.
“Since the ouster of former executive chairman Steve Bannon in January, the site has been forced to search for a new identity, and, like other ideological publishers, has been pinched by changes to Facebook’s algorithms in January,” Politico reported. “Its current slide began in November, though, three months after Bannon was forced out of his top advisor role in the White House, but two months before he left Breitbart.”
The website tracking company comScore estimated May was the seventh straight month of declining traffic, with barely half of the numbers from a year ago.
According to comScore, Breitbart had 6.4 million unique visitors in May, compared to 12.1 million in May 2017.
Web traffic monitor Alexa has shown a traffic decline since January.
Politico noted, “critics were quick to cite the readership figures as signs of an overall decline in influence.”
“With its falling traffic numbers, but lingering grassroots support, Breitbart seems to be transforming from a site that had designs on conquering American politics to one that is increasingly focused on maintaining its conservative base,” Politico observed.
Conservative commentator Matt Lewis, arguing the establishment perspective on the Alt-right website, suggested the website required a leader like Bannon.
“I never hear about them, anymore,” Lewis noted. “Nor do I have a sense that they drive the debate or the discussion—or that anyone is worried about them writing something negative about them.”
“Nationalism and populism always requires a charismatic leader,” he said. “The ideas are not persuasive enough to work without a cult of personality.”
Fox News also suffered a decline in ratings following the ousters of CEO Roger Ailes and on-air personality Bill O’Reilly.
Media lets Republicans off the hook for their role in family separation
Reporters are quick to accept the GOP's spin about its new immigration proposal.
AMANDA MICHELLE GOMEZ - thinkprogress
JUN 15, 2018, 12:15 PM
House Republicans released an immigration proposal Thursday evening, pitched as a “compromise” between hardliners and moderates — but in reality, the bill makes sweeping changes to the immigration system. And it does not end family separation at the southwest border, as various lawmakers and media outlets contend.
The separation of parents and their children at the U.S.-Mexico border is the byproduct of a new Trump administration policy to criminally prosecute immigrants who cross the border — thus separating parents from their kids when they are taken into custody. There is no law that requires this, despite what the president says. And the proposed GOP bill does not stop the Trump administration from prosecuting asylum-seekers who enter at official ports of entry (legally) or elsewhere (illegally).
“The ‘zero tolerance’ prosecution policy driving the separation of families isn’t addressed in the White House 2.0 bill, so it can’t even begin to claim that it will halt family separation,” said Tom Jawetz, the vice president for immigration policy at the Center for American Progress. (ThinkProgress is an editorially independent news site housed at CAP). “The administration turned on the policy and it needs to turn it off.”
Instead, the GOP bill removes existing legal protections for children in detention, effectively allowing the Trump administration to indefinitely detain families who are awaiting court decisions.
The reason for confusion stems from the way Republicans themselves are representing the legislation. A summary of the GOP bill released to reporters claims it addresses family separation, which some reporters repeated credulously.
“Accompanied alien minors apprehended at the border must not be separated from their parent or legal guardian while in [the Department of Homeland Security] custody,” tweeted a NBC Capitol Hill reporter on Thursday afternoon.
This gave various news outlets the impression that the GOP bill outlaws family separation. “House GOP Immigration Bill Would End Family Separation At Border,” reads one NPR headline. “The compromise bill would halt the separation of immigrant families” says another Bloomberg article. Axios initially tweeted the bill “prevents children from being separated from their parents at the border” but has since updated its article to more clearly state how the GOP bill addresses family separation.
Various immigration law experts took to Twitter to point out that, in fact, nothing in the GOP bill outlaws family separation.
The bill does effectively overrule the Flores settlement, a 1997 court agreement outlining a basic set of standards for how kids should be cared for in immigration detention. Republicans call the settlement a loophole, and claim it is actually the reason kids are being separated from their parents — but in reality it simply affords some standards of care for kids in detention. Under the settlement, the government agreed to keep children in the “least restrictive” conditions possible and “detention without unnecessary delay,” after being sued.
As Vox’s Dara Lind points out, the GOP bill includes a provision entitled “Clarification of Standards for Family Detention,” which would allow kids who cross the border with guardians to be detained the same way adults are — which could mean longer detainment time.
“What the bill does do — layered on top of the continuing prosecutions and separations — is allow families in need of protection to be deported much more quickly (though still after separation by prosecution) without due process,” Jawetz told ThinkProgress by email. “And for those families that get a shot at making their claim for protection it allows for prolonged incarceration in large detention facilities run by private prison companies.”
Nothing requires the Trump administration to keep families together while kids are detained. Theoretically, the House bill could end family separation if officials proactively keep families together while they await immigration court proceedings. That could mean the expansion of family detention centers — which isn’t a good solution either, said Kara Lynum, an immigration attorney with Lynum Law Office, who has visited these centers numerous times.
“I don’t want them to move the benchmark to family detention,” Lynum told ThinkProgress. “It seems to be ‘keep families together’ as that’s the goalpost to that’s the solution.”
This isn’t the first time reporters have taken Republicans at face value when it comes to Trump’s family separation policy. When CBS’ Margaret Brennan interviewed House Republican Mark Meadows (R-NC) in May, she accepted the president’s claim, saying the policy is “law.” On Thursday, various reporters saidSpeaker of the House Paul Ryan (R-WI) broke with Trump on the policy. But Ryan actually blamed the Flores settlement instead of rightly faulting the “zero tolerance” prosecution policy for separating families.
The separation of parents and their children at the U.S.-Mexico border is the byproduct of a new Trump administration policy to criminally prosecute immigrants who cross the border — thus separating parents from their kids when they are taken into custody. There is no law that requires this, despite what the president says. And the proposed GOP bill does not stop the Trump administration from prosecuting asylum-seekers who enter at official ports of entry (legally) or elsewhere (illegally).
“The ‘zero tolerance’ prosecution policy driving the separation of families isn’t addressed in the White House 2.0 bill, so it can’t even begin to claim that it will halt family separation,” said Tom Jawetz, the vice president for immigration policy at the Center for American Progress. (ThinkProgress is an editorially independent news site housed at CAP). “The administration turned on the policy and it needs to turn it off.”
Instead, the GOP bill removes existing legal protections for children in detention, effectively allowing the Trump administration to indefinitely detain families who are awaiting court decisions.
The reason for confusion stems from the way Republicans themselves are representing the legislation. A summary of the GOP bill released to reporters claims it addresses family separation, which some reporters repeated credulously.
“Accompanied alien minors apprehended at the border must not be separated from their parent or legal guardian while in [the Department of Homeland Security] custody,” tweeted a NBC Capitol Hill reporter on Thursday afternoon.
This gave various news outlets the impression that the GOP bill outlaws family separation. “House GOP Immigration Bill Would End Family Separation At Border,” reads one NPR headline. “The compromise bill would halt the separation of immigrant families” says another Bloomberg article. Axios initially tweeted the bill “prevents children from being separated from their parents at the border” but has since updated its article to more clearly state how the GOP bill addresses family separation.
Various immigration law experts took to Twitter to point out that, in fact, nothing in the GOP bill outlaws family separation.
The bill does effectively overrule the Flores settlement, a 1997 court agreement outlining a basic set of standards for how kids should be cared for in immigration detention. Republicans call the settlement a loophole, and claim it is actually the reason kids are being separated from their parents — but in reality it simply affords some standards of care for kids in detention. Under the settlement, the government agreed to keep children in the “least restrictive” conditions possible and “detention without unnecessary delay,” after being sued.
As Vox’s Dara Lind points out, the GOP bill includes a provision entitled “Clarification of Standards for Family Detention,” which would allow kids who cross the border with guardians to be detained the same way adults are — which could mean longer detainment time.
“What the bill does do — layered on top of the continuing prosecutions and separations — is allow families in need of protection to be deported much more quickly (though still after separation by prosecution) without due process,” Jawetz told ThinkProgress by email. “And for those families that get a shot at making their claim for protection it allows for prolonged incarceration in large detention facilities run by private prison companies.”
Nothing requires the Trump administration to keep families together while kids are detained. Theoretically, the House bill could end family separation if officials proactively keep families together while they await immigration court proceedings. That could mean the expansion of family detention centers — which isn’t a good solution either, said Kara Lynum, an immigration attorney with Lynum Law Office, who has visited these centers numerous times.
“I don’t want them to move the benchmark to family detention,” Lynum told ThinkProgress. “It seems to be ‘keep families together’ as that’s the goalpost to that’s the solution.”
This isn’t the first time reporters have taken Republicans at face value when it comes to Trump’s family separation policy. When CBS’ Margaret Brennan interviewed House Republican Mark Meadows (R-NC) in May, she accepted the president’s claim, saying the policy is “law.” On Thursday, various reporters saidSpeaker of the House Paul Ryan (R-WI) broke with Trump on the policy. But Ryan actually blamed the Flores settlement instead of rightly faulting the “zero tolerance” prosecution policy for separating families.
GOP strategist Steve Schmidt pummels ‘delusional Trump media’ for ‘sycophantic panting’ over Kim Jong-un lovefest
Tom Boggioni - raw story
12 JUN 2018 AT 09:49 ET
Republican strategist Steve Schmidt took to Twitter on Tuesday to register his disgust with what he called the “sycophantic panting and exultation” by fans of President Donald Trump over his meeting with North Korean strongman Kim Jong-un that the conservative said resulted in nothing but “empty promises.”
Two days after Schmidt — who was Arizona Sen. John McCain’s presidential campaign manager in 2008 — lambasted the GOP leadership that went AWOL while Trump destroyed years of diplomacy at the G7 conference, he turned his ire on the ‘Trump media” for their praise of Trump for meeting with the murderous dictator.
Schmidt initially attacked the stagecraft of the Singapore summit, writing, “The Placement of the US flag next to the flag of North Korea, a murderous slave state, is an absolute desecration of our national colors.”
He then turned on the conservative media for their “nonsensical’ cheerleading for the president who reportedly walked away with only an agreement to keep talking.
“Claims of achievements from this summit are nonsensical. Trump got nothing except empty promises. Kim Jong Un achieved global standing for his evil regime and got military exercises cancelled. The sycophantic panting and exultations across the GOP and Trump media are delusional,” he wrote.
Schmidt was particularly incensed by Trump’s announcement that he was cancelling what he bizarrely termed “war games,” being conducted by the joint U.S. and South Korea military forces.
“Cancellation of military exercises means American Forces will be less prepared to fight and that means higher casualties,” he explained.
Two days after Schmidt — who was Arizona Sen. John McCain’s presidential campaign manager in 2008 — lambasted the GOP leadership that went AWOL while Trump destroyed years of diplomacy at the G7 conference, he turned his ire on the ‘Trump media” for their praise of Trump for meeting with the murderous dictator.
Schmidt initially attacked the stagecraft of the Singapore summit, writing, “The Placement of the US flag next to the flag of North Korea, a murderous slave state, is an absolute desecration of our national colors.”
He then turned on the conservative media for their “nonsensical’ cheerleading for the president who reportedly walked away with only an agreement to keep talking.
“Claims of achievements from this summit are nonsensical. Trump got nothing except empty promises. Kim Jong Un achieved global standing for his evil regime and got military exercises cancelled. The sycophantic panting and exultations across the GOP and Trump media are delusional,” he wrote.
Schmidt was particularly incensed by Trump’s announcement that he was cancelling what he bizarrely termed “war games,” being conducted by the joint U.S. and South Korea military forces.
“Cancellation of military exercises means American Forces will be less prepared to fight and that means higher casualties,” he explained.
Top Texas paper tears apart ‘abysmally ignorant’ Trump over his bizarre claims about Hurricane Harvey
Elizabeth Preza, AlterNet - raw story
11 JUN 2018 AT 12:58 ET
The Houston Chronicle’s editorial board on Monday slammed Donald Trump for his “abysmally ignorant” response to last year’s hurricane season, pointing to the president’s claim last week that up to “sixteen thousand people … went out in their boats to watch” Hurricane Harvey in 2017.
“So now we know: Thousands of heedless Houstonians were out pleasure-boating during that fateful Hurricane Harvey weekend and had to be rescued by U.S. Coast Guard sailors,” the Houston Chronicle’s editorial board wrote, explaining Trump spent a conference call last week complaining the Coast Guard didn’t “get enough credit” for the saves.
“The president seems to believe that the Coast Guard only rescues people at sea and that those bobbing boats he might have seen on cable news last August were foolish Houstonians seeking a little late-summer recreation in the face of impending mortal danger,” the board wrote, noting Trump seemed to suggest “gawkers” were “perhaps even deserving of the consequences of our own making.”
“Unfortunately, we’ve grown accustomed to bizarre Trumpian bloviations,” the editors added, reminding readers of Trump’s reported claim last week that Canada burnt down the White House during the War of 1812. The paper said “the president’s Hurricane Harvey inanity is too serious for Houstonians to let slide.”
‘A region still recovering from catastrophic flooding doesn’t need its plight minimized or ridiculed,” they wrote. “It needs help.”
The Houston Chronicle wondered “if the man in charge is abysmally ignorant about what happened” during Hurricane Harvey, who among other Trump appointees will be better prepared?
“The people of Puerto Rico, those who survived a hurricane that killed thousands, know something of the importance of political leadership,” the Houston Chronicle wrote. “They remember a president who responded to biblical devastation by tossing rolls of paper towels at them. They know how arrogance and ineptitude at the top can magnify a dire situation.”
“Show some leadership,” the editors urged. “Make us your priority, not your punchline.”
“So now we know: Thousands of heedless Houstonians were out pleasure-boating during that fateful Hurricane Harvey weekend and had to be rescued by U.S. Coast Guard sailors,” the Houston Chronicle’s editorial board wrote, explaining Trump spent a conference call last week complaining the Coast Guard didn’t “get enough credit” for the saves.
“The president seems to believe that the Coast Guard only rescues people at sea and that those bobbing boats he might have seen on cable news last August were foolish Houstonians seeking a little late-summer recreation in the face of impending mortal danger,” the board wrote, noting Trump seemed to suggest “gawkers” were “perhaps even deserving of the consequences of our own making.”
“Unfortunately, we’ve grown accustomed to bizarre Trumpian bloviations,” the editors added, reminding readers of Trump’s reported claim last week that Canada burnt down the White House during the War of 1812. The paper said “the president’s Hurricane Harvey inanity is too serious for Houstonians to let slide.”
‘A region still recovering from catastrophic flooding doesn’t need its plight minimized or ridiculed,” they wrote. “It needs help.”
The Houston Chronicle wondered “if the man in charge is abysmally ignorant about what happened” during Hurricane Harvey, who among other Trump appointees will be better prepared?
“The people of Puerto Rico, those who survived a hurricane that killed thousands, know something of the importance of political leadership,” the Houston Chronicle wrote. “They remember a president who responded to biblical devastation by tossing rolls of paper towels at them. They know how arrogance and ineptitude at the top can magnify a dire situation.”
“Show some leadership,” the editors urged. “Make us your priority, not your punchline.”
that is obstruction, dumb-ass!!!
Hannity advises witnesses in Russia investigation to destroy evidence
"Take your phones and bash them with a hammer into little itsy bitsy pieces."
AARON RUPAR - thinkprogress
JUN 7, 2018, 9:23 AM
During his Fox News show on Wednesday night, Sean Hannity advised witnesses in special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation of the Trump campaign to destroy evidence, including their cell phones.
Mueller “is demanding that witnesses turn in their phones, so team Mueller — and of course, his pit bull Andrew Weissmann, and Jeannie Rhee, who worked for Clinton — get to review all of their electronic communications. He wants the phones turned over,” Hannity said. “Even texts that are on what are called encrypted apps, like WhatsApp or Signal, or one of these things. Now, maybe Mueller’s witnesses — I don’t know, if I advised them to follow Hillary Clinton’s lead, delete all your emails and then acid wash the emails and hard drives on the phones, then take your phones and bash them with a hammer into little itsy bitsy pieces, use bleach bit, remove the SIM cards, and then take the pieces and hand it over to Robert Mueller, and say, ‘Hillary Rodham Clinton, this is equal justice under the law.'”
“How do you think that would work out for everybody that Mueller is demanding their phones of tonight?” Hannity continued. “Now I’m certain the result would not be the same as Hillary’s.”
Hannity, who reportedly talks on the phone with President Trump most evenings, may have self-interested reasons for advising witnesses in the Russia investigation to destroy evidence.
In January, The Daily Beast broke news about how WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange direct messaged a Twitter account he thought belonged to Hannity and asked him to contact him via “other channels” because Assange had “some news” about Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA).
“Less than 48 hours later, Warner made headlines claiming that the Senate intelligence committee received ‘end-of-the-year document dumps’ that ‘opened a lot of new questions’ about Trump and Russia,” according to The Daily Beast report.
The “other channels” Assange referred to were presumably the very same encrypted apps Hannity mentioned during his monologue. WikiLeaks, of course, waged a propaganda campaign on Trump’s behalf during the campaign by publishing emails stolen from Democratic targets.
Then, on Wednesday, a new lawsuit filed by the lawyer representing Stormy Daniels — a woman who was paid just before the election for her silence about an alleged affair with Trump — detailed the role Hannity allegedly played in working together with Daniels’ old lawyer, Keith Davidson, and Trump’s longtime personal attorney, Michael Cohen, to quash the Daniels story in January, shortly before Daniels switched representation. That revelation came about six weeks after Cohen, whose office was raided by the FBI in April, revealed in court that Hannity is one of his clients — a conflict of interest Hannity doesn’t mention while discussing Trump on his show.
Hannity’s advice about encrypted apps comes just days after federal prosecutors accused former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort — who has been charged by Mueller with a slew of crimes, including money laundering and tax evasion — of witness tampering, citing communications he sent via encrypted apps including WhatsApp. As Gizmodo writes, Manafort “learned the hard way that strong encryption doesn’t really matter if you’re backing up your messages to the cloud—especially when the federal government gets a warrant to access your iCloud account.”
Hannity’s reference to Hillary Clinton and how she allegedly bashed her phone “with a hammer into little itsy bitsy pieces” refers to documents the FBI made public in September 2016 indicating that on a number of occasions, Clinton aides disposed of her use mobile devices by destroying them. But a high-ranking government official disposed of used phones in that way is not in and of itself suspicious, and Clinton was ultimately cleared of any criminal wrongdoing.
Mueller “is demanding that witnesses turn in their phones, so team Mueller — and of course, his pit bull Andrew Weissmann, and Jeannie Rhee, who worked for Clinton — get to review all of their electronic communications. He wants the phones turned over,” Hannity said. “Even texts that are on what are called encrypted apps, like WhatsApp or Signal, or one of these things. Now, maybe Mueller’s witnesses — I don’t know, if I advised them to follow Hillary Clinton’s lead, delete all your emails and then acid wash the emails and hard drives on the phones, then take your phones and bash them with a hammer into little itsy bitsy pieces, use bleach bit, remove the SIM cards, and then take the pieces and hand it over to Robert Mueller, and say, ‘Hillary Rodham Clinton, this is equal justice under the law.'”
“How do you think that would work out for everybody that Mueller is demanding their phones of tonight?” Hannity continued. “Now I’m certain the result would not be the same as Hillary’s.”
Hannity, who reportedly talks on the phone with President Trump most evenings, may have self-interested reasons for advising witnesses in the Russia investigation to destroy evidence.
In January, The Daily Beast broke news about how WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange direct messaged a Twitter account he thought belonged to Hannity and asked him to contact him via “other channels” because Assange had “some news” about Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA).
“Less than 48 hours later, Warner made headlines claiming that the Senate intelligence committee received ‘end-of-the-year document dumps’ that ‘opened a lot of new questions’ about Trump and Russia,” according to The Daily Beast report.
The “other channels” Assange referred to were presumably the very same encrypted apps Hannity mentioned during his monologue. WikiLeaks, of course, waged a propaganda campaign on Trump’s behalf during the campaign by publishing emails stolen from Democratic targets.
Then, on Wednesday, a new lawsuit filed by the lawyer representing Stormy Daniels — a woman who was paid just before the election for her silence about an alleged affair with Trump — detailed the role Hannity allegedly played in working together with Daniels’ old lawyer, Keith Davidson, and Trump’s longtime personal attorney, Michael Cohen, to quash the Daniels story in January, shortly before Daniels switched representation. That revelation came about six weeks after Cohen, whose office was raided by the FBI in April, revealed in court that Hannity is one of his clients — a conflict of interest Hannity doesn’t mention while discussing Trump on his show.
Hannity’s advice about encrypted apps comes just days after federal prosecutors accused former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort — who has been charged by Mueller with a slew of crimes, including money laundering and tax evasion — of witness tampering, citing communications he sent via encrypted apps including WhatsApp. As Gizmodo writes, Manafort “learned the hard way that strong encryption doesn’t really matter if you’re backing up your messages to the cloud—especially when the federal government gets a warrant to access your iCloud account.”
Hannity’s reference to Hillary Clinton and how she allegedly bashed her phone “with a hammer into little itsy bitsy pieces” refers to documents the FBI made public in September 2016 indicating that on a number of occasions, Clinton aides disposed of her use mobile devices by destroying them. But a high-ranking government official disposed of used phones in that way is not in and of itself suspicious, and Clinton was ultimately cleared of any criminal wrongdoing.
'God Complex': Fox News Conservatives Demand ‘Narcissistic’ Eagles ‘Pay Tribute to This President’
"They’re unwilling to work with this administration simply because they have a god complex,” conservative Fox News commentator Candace Owens said.
By David Edwards / Raw Story - alternet
June 6, 2018, 9:12 AM GMT
Conservative Fox News commentator Candace Owens on Wednesday blasted players on the Eagles NFL team and accused them of having a “god complex” because they declined an invitation to meet President Donald Trump at the White House.
During a panel discussion on Fox & Friends, Charlie Kirk, founder of Turning Point USA, a pro-Trump super PAC, complained that “only in America” could football players win the Super Bowl and “not pay gratitude to our president.”
“Pay tribute to the greatest country in the history of the world, pay tribute to this president,” Kirk said.
Owens, who also works for Turning Point, argued that the players could not have a productive conversation with Trump because they are too “narcissistic.”
“What we’re really seeing is a window into the narcissistic, egotistical minds that is the celebrity brain,” Owens said of the Eagles players. “They actually think that they deserve more honor and more respect and more dignity than our veterans and our troops.”
“And they’re unwilling to work with this administration simply because they have a god complex,” she continued. “I think what President Trump did here is so great. It’s exactly what needed to happen; a separation between the church and the state, the celebrities and the White House, especially on the backs of Barack Obama, who is honoring these celebrities and making them feel that there were better than the American people.”
Fox News host Brian Kilmeade reminded Owens that NFL players are protesting systemic racism in law enforcement.
“I don’t take that problem to be one of the big problems that is facing the black community,” Owens replied, dismissing the players’ concerns. “The bigger problem is black on black crime. Until they’re willing to talk the deeper issues that are rooted in our communities, I will not take seriously this war on our police officers, who in fact save black lives.”
During a panel discussion on Fox & Friends, Charlie Kirk, founder of Turning Point USA, a pro-Trump super PAC, complained that “only in America” could football players win the Super Bowl and “not pay gratitude to our president.”
“Pay tribute to the greatest country in the history of the world, pay tribute to this president,” Kirk said.
Owens, who also works for Turning Point, argued that the players could not have a productive conversation with Trump because they are too “narcissistic.”
“What we’re really seeing is a window into the narcissistic, egotistical minds that is the celebrity brain,” Owens said of the Eagles players. “They actually think that they deserve more honor and more respect and more dignity than our veterans and our troops.”
“And they’re unwilling to work with this administration simply because they have a god complex,” she continued. “I think what President Trump did here is so great. It’s exactly what needed to happen; a separation between the church and the state, the celebrities and the White House, especially on the backs of Barack Obama, who is honoring these celebrities and making them feel that there were better than the American people.”
Fox News host Brian Kilmeade reminded Owens that NFL players are protesting systemic racism in law enforcement.
“I don’t take that problem to be one of the big problems that is facing the black community,” Owens replied, dismissing the players’ concerns. “The bigger problem is black on black crime. Until they’re willing to talk the deeper issues that are rooted in our communities, I will not take seriously this war on our police officers, who in fact save black lives.”
Just Say It’s Racist
The American press is caught between describing Trumpism accurately and avoiding the wrath of the president and his supporters.
Leah Mills / Reuters
the atlantic
Adam Serwer 1:08 PM ET
It was a framing that might have worked with any other two presidents. On Friday, The New York Times published a comparison of how Donald Trump and his predecessor, Barack Obama, approached controversies over racism. “Obama offered balm. Trump drops verbal bombs. But both were accused, in a polarized country, of making racial tensions worse,” the paper tweeted. That bland equivalence between the first black president and his white successor, who rode to the White House on a racist conspiracy theory denying Obama was born in the United States, provoked a firestorm of criticism on social media.
That fact alone shows how impossible it is to approach the Trump presidency the way the media might approach any other administration—indeed, bafflingly, the article briefly references birtherism without acknowledging Trump’s embrace of the conspiracy theory, and how it affected his political fortunes. The relationship between Trump and Obama is historically unique in that the former was elected by a racial backlash to the latter, another point the piece declines to acknowledge, whether to refute or affirm.
Instead, the piece is constructed around the juxtaposition of the criticism that Obama encountered for acknowledging the racism black Americans still face with the fact that Trump is often accused of racism. The piece notes that after Obama spoke at a funeral for nine black people murdered by a white supremacist, “some people, mostly white, accused him of dividing the country when he spoke empathetically about the racism faced by black Americans.” By contrast, in the Trump era, “People often debate whether what the president did or did not say was a sign that he was racist.”
The president’s overtly prejudiced remarks about religious and ethnic minorities, in a country where the accusation of racism is often regarded as morally equivalent to racial discrimination, poses a challenge for media outlets seeking to accurately represent the views of the president and his supporters without enraging either of them. That task is largely impossible, which is why the media have developed a ludicrous and expanding menu of complex euphemisms for describing racist behavior, and why a piece purporting to contrast two presidents’ approaches to racism dances so elaborately around the obvious.
The framing of the piece illustrates how the American discourse concerning racism remains largely about hurt feelings, rather than discriminatory policy: Some people said Obama acknowledging racism was racist, and also some people don’t like that Trump is called racist. This ostensibly neutral framing is centered around a white audience more concerned with being called racist than facing racial discrimination, and one that experiences racism as naughty words rather than as policies that affect whether and how people live their lives. This is why the cancellation of a sitcom about a Trump supporting white working-class family draws more press coverage than the fact that the aftermath of Hurricane Maria may have caused almost twice as many American casualties as the 9/11 terrorist attacks, a national trauma so harrowing it continues to shape American politics almost two decades later.
There is no mention in the piece of the Trump administration’s handling of Maria at all, nor the the hundreds of thousands of Americans displaced by it. There’s no discussion of the hundreds of thousands of immigrants in the United States, largely from nonwhite countries, whose legal statuses have been revoked even though they have no criminal records and pose no public-safety threat. The recent controversy over a newly instituted policy of separating parents and children at the border makes no appearance. The president’s travel ban, instituted after a campaign in which he expressed the desire to ban Muslims from the country, goes unmentioned. The decision of Trump’s attorney general, Jeff Sessions, to forgo all oversight of discriminatory policing by local law enforcement is undiscussed. Instead Trump’s successful attempt to force the NFL to suppress criticism of racist policing by black athletes is described as Trump having “ignored or rejected the racial tensions at the core of some high-profile, combustible public issues.” Describing a situation in which the president deliberately seized (according to the Times’ own reporting) on a controversy over unequal treatment of black Americans for political advantage as having “ignored” or “rejected” racial tensions is bizarre—but it’s also false.
One might think that in a piece contrasting two presidents’ approaches to racism, their actual policies might come into play. But they don’t—instead the piece only contrasts their rhetorical approaches, as if they could be separated, and as if the way Americans discuss racism is more important than how it affects people. This is a common editorial decision that, in aiming to grant equal moral and factual weight to two sides of an argument, takes a side without realizing it has done so.
An era in which Americans are supposedly exhausted with political correctness is thus defined by the acute political sensitivities and persecution complexes of white voters who object if things they do and say are described as racist, even as the bodies pile up in the background.
That fact alone shows how impossible it is to approach the Trump presidency the way the media might approach any other administration—indeed, bafflingly, the article briefly references birtherism without acknowledging Trump’s embrace of the conspiracy theory, and how it affected his political fortunes. The relationship between Trump and Obama is historically unique in that the former was elected by a racial backlash to the latter, another point the piece declines to acknowledge, whether to refute or affirm.
Instead, the piece is constructed around the juxtaposition of the criticism that Obama encountered for acknowledging the racism black Americans still face with the fact that Trump is often accused of racism. The piece notes that after Obama spoke at a funeral for nine black people murdered by a white supremacist, “some people, mostly white, accused him of dividing the country when he spoke empathetically about the racism faced by black Americans.” By contrast, in the Trump era, “People often debate whether what the president did or did not say was a sign that he was racist.”
The president’s overtly prejudiced remarks about religious and ethnic minorities, in a country where the accusation of racism is often regarded as morally equivalent to racial discrimination, poses a challenge for media outlets seeking to accurately represent the views of the president and his supporters without enraging either of them. That task is largely impossible, which is why the media have developed a ludicrous and expanding menu of complex euphemisms for describing racist behavior, and why a piece purporting to contrast two presidents’ approaches to racism dances so elaborately around the obvious.
The framing of the piece illustrates how the American discourse concerning racism remains largely about hurt feelings, rather than discriminatory policy: Some people said Obama acknowledging racism was racist, and also some people don’t like that Trump is called racist. This ostensibly neutral framing is centered around a white audience more concerned with being called racist than facing racial discrimination, and one that experiences racism as naughty words rather than as policies that affect whether and how people live their lives. This is why the cancellation of a sitcom about a Trump supporting white working-class family draws more press coverage than the fact that the aftermath of Hurricane Maria may have caused almost twice as many American casualties as the 9/11 terrorist attacks, a national trauma so harrowing it continues to shape American politics almost two decades later.
There is no mention in the piece of the Trump administration’s handling of Maria at all, nor the the hundreds of thousands of Americans displaced by it. There’s no discussion of the hundreds of thousands of immigrants in the United States, largely from nonwhite countries, whose legal statuses have been revoked even though they have no criminal records and pose no public-safety threat. The recent controversy over a newly instituted policy of separating parents and children at the border makes no appearance. The president’s travel ban, instituted after a campaign in which he expressed the desire to ban Muslims from the country, goes unmentioned. The decision of Trump’s attorney general, Jeff Sessions, to forgo all oversight of discriminatory policing by local law enforcement is undiscussed. Instead Trump’s successful attempt to force the NFL to suppress criticism of racist policing by black athletes is described as Trump having “ignored or rejected the racial tensions at the core of some high-profile, combustible public issues.” Describing a situation in which the president deliberately seized (according to the Times’ own reporting) on a controversy over unequal treatment of black Americans for political advantage as having “ignored” or “rejected” racial tensions is bizarre—but it’s also false.
One might think that in a piece contrasting two presidents’ approaches to racism, their actual policies might come into play. But they don’t—instead the piece only contrasts their rhetorical approaches, as if they could be separated, and as if the way Americans discuss racism is more important than how it affects people. This is a common editorial decision that, in aiming to grant equal moral and factual weight to two sides of an argument, takes a side without realizing it has done so.
An era in which Americans are supposedly exhausted with political correctness is thus defined by the acute political sensitivities and persecution complexes of white voters who object if things they do and say are described as racist, even as the bodies pile up in the background.
Lawmakers lash out at Zuckerberg after report Facebook is accused of mishandling more user data
A new report alleges the company shared user data with dozens of device makers like Apple and Samsung.
LUKE BARNES -thinkprogress
JUN 4, 2018, 10:38 AM
Facebook allegedly shared user data with more than 60 device makers — including Apple, Microsoft and Samsung — over the last decade, allowing these corporations access to vast troves of personal information, according to a New York Times report released Sunday evening.
The new report has since sparked backlash among lawmakers on Capitol Hill, who accused Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg of lying to them when he testified before Congress in early April.
According to the new report, Facebook repeatedly signed data-sharing deals with smartphone makers, providing device-makers access to popular Facebook features on their phones at a time when the social media giant’s mobile app was still developing, and allowing Facebook to expand its reach.
Those deals gave device makers access to users’ personal information, including their political leanings, relationship status and which upcoming events they planned to attend. Crucially, it also gave device makers access to data about a user’s friend, even if that friend denied Facebook permission to share their data.
“It’s like having door locks installed, only to find out that the locksmith also gave keys to all of his friends so they can come in and rifle through your stuff without having to ask you for permission,” Ashkan Soltani, a research and privacy consultant, told the Times.
The report comes hot on the heels of Zuckerberg’s hearings before Congress and the European Parliament over the Cambridge Analytica scandal, where he testified that the social and tech industry should be regulated to a degree, but declined to elaborate on how that should happen. Zuckerberg also refused to provide a concrete “yes” or “no” answer when asked by Rep. Frank Pallone (D-NJ) if Facebook would change its default settings so that users’ data would be protected “to the greatest extent possible,” and notably did not mention anything about Facebook’s contracts with Apple, Google, and other device makers.
That oversight — whether accidental or voluntary — left some lawmakers irate after the Times report dropped on Sunday.
“Sure looks like Zuckerberg lied to Congress about whether users have ‘complete control’ over who sees our data on Facebook,” Rep. David Cicilline (D-RI), the ranking member of the House Judiciary antitrust subcommittee, tweeted. “This needs to be investigated and the people responsible need to be held accountable.”
“It feels a lot like we’ve been here before, @facebook,” Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) tweeted Monday. “Would you like to revisit your previous statements to Congress about sharing users’ data with third-parties without their consent?”
In a blog post this week, Ime Archibong, Facebook’s vice president of Product Partnerships pushed back against the criticism, arguing that demand for Facebook necessitated the company working with device makers to deliver the best product they could to as many people as they could.
“All these partnerships were built on a common interest — the desire for people to be able to use Facebook whatever their device or operating system,” Archibong wrote. “Contrary to claims by the New York Times, friends’ information, like photos, was only accessible on devices when people made a decision to share their information with those friends.”
The latest revelations place increased pressure on Facebook, which is already facing criticism for its handling of the Cambridge Analytica scandal and is increasingly in the cross-hairs of regulators, both in the United States and in Europe.
In May, the European Union introduced a landmark new piece of legislation called the General Data Protection Regulation (GPDR), which requires corporations to explicitly ask for consent before data collection. Companies that don’t abide by the rules could face fines up to 4 percent of their global revenue — which, in Facebook’s case, could amount to around $1.6 billion dollars.
On Monday, Blumenthal suggested that the company revisit its privacy policies once more and consider drafting a “bill of rights” that would comply with the GPDR.
“Facebook’s secret data sharing partnerships raise urgent new reasons for stronger privacy protections—beginning with a privacy bill of rights modeled on Europe’s new rules (GDPR),” he tweeted.
The new report has since sparked backlash among lawmakers on Capitol Hill, who accused Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg of lying to them when he testified before Congress in early April.
According to the new report, Facebook repeatedly signed data-sharing deals with smartphone makers, providing device-makers access to popular Facebook features on their phones at a time when the social media giant’s mobile app was still developing, and allowing Facebook to expand its reach.
Those deals gave device makers access to users’ personal information, including their political leanings, relationship status and which upcoming events they planned to attend. Crucially, it also gave device makers access to data about a user’s friend, even if that friend denied Facebook permission to share their data.
“It’s like having door locks installed, only to find out that the locksmith also gave keys to all of his friends so they can come in and rifle through your stuff without having to ask you for permission,” Ashkan Soltani, a research and privacy consultant, told the Times.
The report comes hot on the heels of Zuckerberg’s hearings before Congress and the European Parliament over the Cambridge Analytica scandal, where he testified that the social and tech industry should be regulated to a degree, but declined to elaborate on how that should happen. Zuckerberg also refused to provide a concrete “yes” or “no” answer when asked by Rep. Frank Pallone (D-NJ) if Facebook would change its default settings so that users’ data would be protected “to the greatest extent possible,” and notably did not mention anything about Facebook’s contracts with Apple, Google, and other device makers.
That oversight — whether accidental or voluntary — left some lawmakers irate after the Times report dropped on Sunday.
“Sure looks like Zuckerberg lied to Congress about whether users have ‘complete control’ over who sees our data on Facebook,” Rep. David Cicilline (D-RI), the ranking member of the House Judiciary antitrust subcommittee, tweeted. “This needs to be investigated and the people responsible need to be held accountable.”
“It feels a lot like we’ve been here before, @facebook,” Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) tweeted Monday. “Would you like to revisit your previous statements to Congress about sharing users’ data with third-parties without their consent?”
In a blog post this week, Ime Archibong, Facebook’s vice president of Product Partnerships pushed back against the criticism, arguing that demand for Facebook necessitated the company working with device makers to deliver the best product they could to as many people as they could.
“All these partnerships were built on a common interest — the desire for people to be able to use Facebook whatever their device or operating system,” Archibong wrote. “Contrary to claims by the New York Times, friends’ information, like photos, was only accessible on devices when people made a decision to share their information with those friends.”
The latest revelations place increased pressure on Facebook, which is already facing criticism for its handling of the Cambridge Analytica scandal and is increasingly in the cross-hairs of regulators, both in the United States and in Europe.
In May, the European Union introduced a landmark new piece of legislation called the General Data Protection Regulation (GPDR), which requires corporations to explicitly ask for consent before data collection. Companies that don’t abide by the rules could face fines up to 4 percent of their global revenue — which, in Facebook’s case, could amount to around $1.6 billion dollars.
On Monday, Blumenthal suggested that the company revisit its privacy policies once more and consider drafting a “bill of rights” that would comply with the GPDR.
“Facebook’s secret data sharing partnerships raise urgent new reasons for stronger privacy protections—beginning with a privacy bill of rights modeled on Europe’s new rules (GDPR),” he tweeted.
Fox News proposes blasting down school walls with cannons in event of school shootings
Beyond parody.
AARON RUPAR - thinkprogress
MAY 31, 2018, 3:51 PM
Forget about a “good guy with a gun.” Fox News wants that guy armed with a cannon.
On Thursday, Fox News proposed a unique way to reduce fatalities at schools targeted by mass shooters.
In “School shootings: This cannon fires unbelievable ammo to blast through walls and help rescue victims,” Fox News “defense specialist” Allison Barrie writes about a cannon called the “BCB Wall Breaker” that fires water cooler tanks at high velocities. Barrie suggests the cannon could help students escape mass shootings by blasting down walls.
From the article:
Imagine students barricaded in classrooms with no way to escape. The shooter is roaming the hallways. The only exit is the door to the hallway. If students tried to escape via the hallway, they could be greatly at risk.
Outside the school building, police could roll up these water cannons and quickly punch holes in the walls of every classroom providing large escape holes.
If students have been wounded, first responders can use the hole to accelerate access to medical care.
In both these instances, escape and medical care for wounded, seconds are vital and can mean the difference between life and death.
The cannon can also be useful for perpetrator apprehension. An active shooter will expect law enforcement to intervene through doors and windows. With this cannon, law enforcement can fire the cannon at any wall to create their own “door.”
The piece doesn’t address the possibility that blasting down the wall of a school with a powerful cannon could bury students in rubble. The weapon can is capable “of firing a 22Kg projectile with sufficient force to punch through, non explosively, a double skin breeze block cavity wall.”
Fox News’ piece does reflect the accepted wisdom among President Trump’s faction of the Republican Party, which ignores that there are far more school shootings in the U.S. than in countries with stricter gun laws, and argues militarizing schools is the best way to protect students.
Fox News dropped its piece on water cannons on the same day that President Trump traveled to Texas to meet with family members of the 10 people killed during a mass shooting at Santa Fe High School on May 18.
During a news conference following that shooting, Texas Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick (R) blamed doors, saying, “Had there been one single entrance possibly for every student, maybe he [i.e., the shooter] would have been stopped.”
On Wednesday, a young boy who was attending a White House press briefing asked Press Secretary Sarah Sanders what the Trump administration has done to prevent future school shootings. She answered by mentioning meetings that haven’t happened yet.
On Thursday, Fox News proposed a unique way to reduce fatalities at schools targeted by mass shooters.
In “School shootings: This cannon fires unbelievable ammo to blast through walls and help rescue victims,” Fox News “defense specialist” Allison Barrie writes about a cannon called the “BCB Wall Breaker” that fires water cooler tanks at high velocities. Barrie suggests the cannon could help students escape mass shootings by blasting down walls.
From the article:
Imagine students barricaded in classrooms with no way to escape. The shooter is roaming the hallways. The only exit is the door to the hallway. If students tried to escape via the hallway, they could be greatly at risk.
Outside the school building, police could roll up these water cannons and quickly punch holes in the walls of every classroom providing large escape holes.
If students have been wounded, first responders can use the hole to accelerate access to medical care.
In both these instances, escape and medical care for wounded, seconds are vital and can mean the difference between life and death.
The cannon can also be useful for perpetrator apprehension. An active shooter will expect law enforcement to intervene through doors and windows. With this cannon, law enforcement can fire the cannon at any wall to create their own “door.”
The piece doesn’t address the possibility that blasting down the wall of a school with a powerful cannon could bury students in rubble. The weapon can is capable “of firing a 22Kg projectile with sufficient force to punch through, non explosively, a double skin breeze block cavity wall.”
Fox News’ piece does reflect the accepted wisdom among President Trump’s faction of the Republican Party, which ignores that there are far more school shootings in the U.S. than in countries with stricter gun laws, and argues militarizing schools is the best way to protect students.
Fox News dropped its piece on water cannons on the same day that President Trump traveled to Texas to meet with family members of the 10 people killed during a mass shooting at Santa Fe High School on May 18.
During a news conference following that shooting, Texas Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick (R) blamed doors, saying, “Had there been one single entrance possibly for every student, maybe he [i.e., the shooter] would have been stopped.”
On Wednesday, a young boy who was attending a White House press briefing asked Press Secretary Sarah Sanders what the Trump administration has done to prevent future school shootings. She answered by mentioning meetings that haven’t happened yet.
racist canceled!!!
‘Roseanne’ Canceled at ABC
By Joe Otterson - abc
ABC has pulled the plug on the revival “Roseanne.”
The move comes after series star and creator Roseanne Barr made a comment on Twitter Tuesday morning referring to former Obama aide Valerie Jarrett as looking like the offspring of the “Muslim Brotherhood & Planet of the Apes.” Jarrett, an African-American, was born in Iran to American parents.
“Roseanne’s Twitter statement is abhorrent, repugnant and inconsistent with our values, and we have decided to cancel her show,” ABC Entertainment president Channing Dungey said in a statement.
Disney chairman and CEO Bob Iger voiced his support for the cancellation, tweeting, “There was only one thing to do here, and that was the right thing.”
Barr deleted her tweet about Jarrett not long after posting it. She followed it up with an apology that read, “I apologize to Valerie Jarrett and to all Americans. I am truly sorry for making a bad joke about her politics and her looks. I should have known better. Forgive me-my joke was in bad taste. I am now leaving Twitter.”
Just after Barr’s statement on Jarrett, Wanda Sykes, who worked as a consulting producer on the first revival season, announced she would not be returning for the show’s next season. Series co-star and executive producer Sara Gilbert then condemned Barr’s comments, saying, “Roseanne’s recent comments about Valerie Jarrett, and so much more, are abhorrent and do not reflect the beliefs of our cast and crew or anyone associated with our show. I am disappointed in her actions to say the least. This is incredibly sad and difficult for all of us, as we’ve created a show that we believe in, are proud of, and that audiences love — one that is separate and apart from the opinions and words of one cast member.”
---
The statement by Barr would have demanded a strong response from any network. In the case of ABC, Dungey’s promotion in 2016 made her the first African-American woman to serve as entertainment president at a Big Four network.
RELATED: Fox News defends Roseanne after her sitcom is canceled over racist tweets
RELATED: ‘Roseanne Barr is no longer a client’: Former TV star also fired by her talent agency
RELATED: Roseanne Barr has a disturbing history of calling black women ‘apes’
It seems that Roseanne Barr is clinging to her embrace of racist populism and conspiracy theories.
The move comes after series star and creator Roseanne Barr made a comment on Twitter Tuesday morning referring to former Obama aide Valerie Jarrett as looking like the offspring of the “Muslim Brotherhood & Planet of the Apes.” Jarrett, an African-American, was born in Iran to American parents.
“Roseanne’s Twitter statement is abhorrent, repugnant and inconsistent with our values, and we have decided to cancel her show,” ABC Entertainment president Channing Dungey said in a statement.
Disney chairman and CEO Bob Iger voiced his support for the cancellation, tweeting, “There was only one thing to do here, and that was the right thing.”
Barr deleted her tweet about Jarrett not long after posting it. She followed it up with an apology that read, “I apologize to Valerie Jarrett and to all Americans. I am truly sorry for making a bad joke about her politics and her looks. I should have known better. Forgive me-my joke was in bad taste. I am now leaving Twitter.”
Just after Barr’s statement on Jarrett, Wanda Sykes, who worked as a consulting producer on the first revival season, announced she would not be returning for the show’s next season. Series co-star and executive producer Sara Gilbert then condemned Barr’s comments, saying, “Roseanne’s recent comments about Valerie Jarrett, and so much more, are abhorrent and do not reflect the beliefs of our cast and crew or anyone associated with our show. I am disappointed in her actions to say the least. This is incredibly sad and difficult for all of us, as we’ve created a show that we believe in, are proud of, and that audiences love — one that is separate and apart from the opinions and words of one cast member.”
---
The statement by Barr would have demanded a strong response from any network. In the case of ABC, Dungey’s promotion in 2016 made her the first African-American woman to serve as entertainment president at a Big Four network.
RELATED: Fox News defends Roseanne after her sitcom is canceled over racist tweets
RELATED: ‘Roseanne Barr is no longer a client’: Former TV star also fired by her talent agency
RELATED: Roseanne Barr has a disturbing history of calling black women ‘apes’
It seems that Roseanne Barr is clinging to her embrace of racist populism and conspiracy theories.
Sinclair's propaganda may be coming to a town near you ... or they may already control your news
Laura Clawson
Daily Kos Staff
Monday May 28, 2018 · 7:40 AM PDT
Sinclair Broadcast Group forces its anchors to recite propaganda, drawing cheers from Donald Trump. It fired a local reporter after she told the truth about climate change. And in some places, it’s the only local news game in town. In Johnstown, Pennsylvania, the Washington Post reports, the NBC, ABC, and Fox affiliates are all owned or managed by Sinclair and share a single newsroom. The exact same story might air on the different channels, and:
A story about construction issues at a local Veterans Affairs hospital, for instance, aired on WATM (which calls itself ABC 23) on the same night it aired on WJAC (also known as News 6).
Viewers watching the story on ABC 23 saw a union official being interviewed by a reporter holding a microphone with the News 6 logo on it. In a recent segment about wildfires, the Twitter handle that flashed on screen under one reporter’s name identified her as part of WJAC, even when she appeared on another station.
When Sinclair takes over a local station, its local reporting gets cut in favor of national politics, and its reporting on national politics skews right, according to an Emory University study. Sinclair is trying to bring that style of news to many more stations by buying Tribune Media, if the federal government will approve the deal. (And yes, that’s the Trump administration deciding whether a company that supports Trump will get to grow.)
This is dangerous. It means less information and less transparency, with everything coming through Sinclair’s extremist filter. It’s also exactly the news environment Donald Trump is cheering for.
A story about construction issues at a local Veterans Affairs hospital, for instance, aired on WATM (which calls itself ABC 23) on the same night it aired on WJAC (also known as News 6).
Viewers watching the story on ABC 23 saw a union official being interviewed by a reporter holding a microphone with the News 6 logo on it. In a recent segment about wildfires, the Twitter handle that flashed on screen under one reporter’s name identified her as part of WJAC, even when she appeared on another station.
When Sinclair takes over a local station, its local reporting gets cut in favor of national politics, and its reporting on national politics skews right, according to an Emory University study. Sinclair is trying to bring that style of news to many more stations by buying Tribune Media, if the federal government will approve the deal. (And yes, that’s the Trump administration deciding whether a company that supports Trump will get to grow.)
This is dangerous. It means less information and less transparency, with everything coming through Sinclair’s extremist filter. It’s also exactly the news environment Donald Trump is cheering for.
How the Media Portrays Black and White Drug Users Differently
NYT’s sympathetic coverage of white moms struggling with opioids contrasts with its hysteria over “crack babies”
By Joyce McMillan / Salon - alternet
May 28, 2018, 5:14 AM GMT
On Mother’s day, New York Times Magazine published a cover story titled “Children of the Opioid Epidemic.” The photo on the cover of the magazine was the image of a young white mother holding a cherub-like infant dressed in pink stockings and lace. The mother is on her knees, gently kissing her daughter’s neck, her face is obscured. The image goes to great lengths to protect the mother and the child – they are both innocent victims of an opioid epidemic. The article begins with the story of Alicia, the setup immediately renders Alicia’s humanity. She struggled with drugs and alcohol from a young age, her family had bouts with both substance misuse and mental illness, her mother acting as the glue held the family together in the suburbs of Rhode Island. We learn of Alicia’s dreams and her struggles before ever learning of her addiction to Percocet medication. Even as Alicia’s use bloomed, the writer recognized Alicia’s need to use the drugs as a coping tool, to calm her anxieties, to quiet the voices that drove her toward self-sabotage. Alicia’s drug use didn’t diminish her humanity; it made it more salient, more immutable.
The lives of the women profiled in the story are complex and the writer makes great effort to mute her judgments and witness the mothers nurturing their children. Because of this thoughtful observing, the women are shown in their wholeness. But the writer also uses descriptors that highlight the whiteness of her subjects. She highlights Alicia’s blond hair, a flaxen-haired child, and another’s hazel eyes. In a way, this is as much a story about the redemptive power of whiteness as it is about opioid use.
The New York Times, like many major publications that have reported on the opioid epidemic, has a history of covering societal drug use. Often, publications reference the differential response to the opioid epidemic and the way that race has influenced political response. Coverage of the opioid epidemic alludes to the “cultural overreaction” to the “crack baby” and the panic over crack use in general. Less often do publications take responsibility for the role they played in influencing the way people respond to drug users. Observers who immediately and rightfully took issue with the Times' portrayal of the children of the opioid epidemic took to social media to voice their discontent.
Those who took issue with coverage did it out of frustration; their memories are not short. They recall the dehumanization of black women and their children, who did not benefit from the gentle words of a famed novelist. It is apt that the light shone on the New York Times, a publication that proffered racist and sensationalized journalism depicting black people as sex-crazed cocaine addicts and black children born to mothers who used cocaine as broken and irredeemable. It is not hyperbolic to claim that the New York Times had a role in the creation of the modern war on drugs, one it now deems to be a failure.
The New York Times and other major national publications fanned the flames of the drug war, and have now pivoted their coverage to protect white victims and whiteness. Telling stories in a way that allows people to exist beyond their drug use is not the issue; it should be standard practice. What is surprising is that the New York Times and other publications have not done the work of looking through the archives to see the harm they have caused historically and presently – especially the harm done to black mothers.
Beginning in the late '80s, the New York Times began to publish exposes on children born to mothers who used cocaine. The Times liberally used the moniker “Crack Babies” and “Drug Babies” to describe newborns, therefore associating them with a criminalized substance, creating the narrative of a generation of diseased children. On Mother’s Day in 1989, the Times published an article decrying the fact that Mother’s Day this year will be spent thinking about babies tethered to tubes in the intensive care units who will eventually be turned over to foster care, instead of thinking of fancy strollers and bassinets. Journalists followed these children of this era to school to monitor their development and to witness the children born of the collective fears of white America. When the hysteria had quieted and research proved that the physical, mental and emotional tolls of neonatal exposure to cocaine were significantly exaggerated, journalists placed blame on the research, not the media institutions that profited from the pain of black mothers.
Presently, black women are still feeling the toll of the stories told about them and their pain. Black children remain overrepresented in the child welfare system. Black women and their children are more likely to be tested for drugs without their consent. When their children are taken away by child protective services, they are made to jump through countless hoops to regain custody of their children and if they are unable to meet the demands of the family court they are told to just figure it out.
Black motherhood is a high-risk endeavor and little empathy is given to those who fall short of societal expectations. The New York Times and other major media publications are not totally responsible for the systemic racism that leaves black motherhood at the societal fringe, but they are crucial part of the mechanism. I don’t know how the media can atone for their actions in shaping the narratives of the drug war, but acknowledging the harm they caused is a start.
Next Mother’s Day, we should tell the stories of black mothers whose pain goes unacknowledged.
The lives of the women profiled in the story are complex and the writer makes great effort to mute her judgments and witness the mothers nurturing their children. Because of this thoughtful observing, the women are shown in their wholeness. But the writer also uses descriptors that highlight the whiteness of her subjects. She highlights Alicia’s blond hair, a flaxen-haired child, and another’s hazel eyes. In a way, this is as much a story about the redemptive power of whiteness as it is about opioid use.
The New York Times, like many major publications that have reported on the opioid epidemic, has a history of covering societal drug use. Often, publications reference the differential response to the opioid epidemic and the way that race has influenced political response. Coverage of the opioid epidemic alludes to the “cultural overreaction” to the “crack baby” and the panic over crack use in general. Less often do publications take responsibility for the role they played in influencing the way people respond to drug users. Observers who immediately and rightfully took issue with the Times' portrayal of the children of the opioid epidemic took to social media to voice their discontent.
Those who took issue with coverage did it out of frustration; their memories are not short. They recall the dehumanization of black women and their children, who did not benefit from the gentle words of a famed novelist. It is apt that the light shone on the New York Times, a publication that proffered racist and sensationalized journalism depicting black people as sex-crazed cocaine addicts and black children born to mothers who used cocaine as broken and irredeemable. It is not hyperbolic to claim that the New York Times had a role in the creation of the modern war on drugs, one it now deems to be a failure.
The New York Times and other major national publications fanned the flames of the drug war, and have now pivoted their coverage to protect white victims and whiteness. Telling stories in a way that allows people to exist beyond their drug use is not the issue; it should be standard practice. What is surprising is that the New York Times and other publications have not done the work of looking through the archives to see the harm they have caused historically and presently – especially the harm done to black mothers.
Beginning in the late '80s, the New York Times began to publish exposes on children born to mothers who used cocaine. The Times liberally used the moniker “Crack Babies” and “Drug Babies” to describe newborns, therefore associating them with a criminalized substance, creating the narrative of a generation of diseased children. On Mother’s Day in 1989, the Times published an article decrying the fact that Mother’s Day this year will be spent thinking about babies tethered to tubes in the intensive care units who will eventually be turned over to foster care, instead of thinking of fancy strollers and bassinets. Journalists followed these children of this era to school to monitor their development and to witness the children born of the collective fears of white America. When the hysteria had quieted and research proved that the physical, mental and emotional tolls of neonatal exposure to cocaine were significantly exaggerated, journalists placed blame on the research, not the media institutions that profited from the pain of black mothers.
Presently, black women are still feeling the toll of the stories told about them and their pain. Black children remain overrepresented in the child welfare system. Black women and their children are more likely to be tested for drugs without their consent. When their children are taken away by child protective services, they are made to jump through countless hoops to regain custody of their children and if they are unable to meet the demands of the family court they are told to just figure it out.
Black motherhood is a high-risk endeavor and little empathy is given to those who fall short of societal expectations. The New York Times and other major media publications are not totally responsible for the systemic racism that leaves black motherhood at the societal fringe, but they are crucial part of the mechanism. I don’t know how the media can atone for their actions in shaping the narratives of the drug war, but acknowledging the harm they caused is a start.
Next Mother’s Day, we should tell the stories of black mothers whose pain goes unacknowledged.
Fox News Contributor: Kim Jong-Un ‘Has to Murder His People' — But He 'Probably Doesn't love' It
If a murderous dictator doesn't "love" being a murderous dictator, is he even a murderous dictator at all?
By David Badash / The New Civil Rights Movement - alternet
May 23, 2018, 4:52 AM GMT
Fox News contributor and Trump advisor Pete Hegseth says North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un "has to murder his people." Hegseth, who was rumored to be a top Trump choice to run the Veterans Administration, made his startling remarks on "Fox & Friends" Tuesday morning (video below).
Hegseth was responding to a question about why he thinks Kim Jong-un "agreed" to meet with President Trump. (In reality, Trump was the one who agreed to the meeting – in fact, jumped at it without consulting his top advisors.)
"I think he wants a picture with the American president," Hegseth told the "Fox & Friends" co-hosts. "The sanctions are having massive effect there," he also added.
"And then I think there's probably a point at which the guy who wants to meet with Dennis Rodman and loves NBA basketball and loves Western pop culture," Hegseth said of the North Korean murderous tyrant, "probably doesn't love being the guy that has to murder his people all day long."
To be clear, Fox News' Pete Hegseth, a man who occasionally advises the president, just said Kim Jong-un "has to" murder his own citizens.
A South Korean report noted that from 2011 to 2016 Kim Jong-un executed more than 340 of his citizens. And update offers names and/or positions and reasons for execution of government officials Kim executed. The overall numbers no doubt are far higher.
Hegseth was responding to a question about why he thinks Kim Jong-un "agreed" to meet with President Trump. (In reality, Trump was the one who agreed to the meeting – in fact, jumped at it without consulting his top advisors.)
"I think he wants a picture with the American president," Hegseth told the "Fox & Friends" co-hosts. "The sanctions are having massive effect there," he also added.
"And then I think there's probably a point at which the guy who wants to meet with Dennis Rodman and loves NBA basketball and loves Western pop culture," Hegseth said of the North Korean murderous tyrant, "probably doesn't love being the guy that has to murder his people all day long."
To be clear, Fox News' Pete Hegseth, a man who occasionally advises the president, just said Kim Jong-un "has to" murder his own citizens.
A South Korean report noted that from 2011 to 2016 Kim Jong-un executed more than 340 of his citizens. And update offers names and/or positions and reasons for execution of government officials Kim executed. The overall numbers no doubt are far higher.
Fox settles bias suits for $10 million
Emily Steel - philly tribune
5/20/18
Attempting to put to rest a drama that has plagued Fox News since the summer of 2016, the network’s parent company has reached a roughly $10 million settlement to resolve a group of racial and gender discrimination lawsuits involving 18 current and former employees, according to a document viewed by The New York Times and three people briefed on the deal.
The settlements reached by Twenty-First Century Fox include the class action racial discrimination lawsuit filed last year by anchor Kelly Wright and several employees in the Fox News accounting department.
Their lawsuit said they had repeatedly complained about “abhorrent, intolerable, unlawful and hostile racial discrimination” to network executives but that no action was taken and that the inappropriate behavior continued.
Also included in the settlement were the race, gender and pregnancy discrimination lawsuit brought in 2016 by a former reporter for Fox 5, the network’s New York affiliate, and a gender discrimination lawsuit filed by a Fox News Radio reporter.
According to the document viewed by The Times, terms of the deal included that the employees would agree to drop their claims, leave the network and not seek future employment at Fox News or other Twenty-First Century Fox companies.
The settlement specifically included a buyout of Wright’s contract with Fox News, where he was the only Black male anchor. Fox News has denied the allegations made in the various suits.
In a joint statement, a Fox News spokeswoman and Douglas H. Wigdor, a lawyer for the employees involved, said, “The parties have reached mutual agreements that resolve various cases involving former Fox News employees.”
Wright informed Fox News on Tuesday of his “desire to pursue new opportunities,” the network and Wigdor said in statements. In the statements, the network thanked Wright “for his contributions over the years”; and Wright thanked Fox News and “wishes it well as he moves forward to the next phase of his career.”
The agreement represents a push by Fox News and Twenty-First Century Fox to move past the negative attention drawn by scandals — including sexual harassment claims — that led to sweeping changes at the top of the network: the ousting of the network’s founding chairman, Roger Ailes; Bill O’Reilly, the top-rated host on cable news; and several other employees.
The controversy also prompted a criminal investigation into Fox News’ handling of sexual harassment complaints.
The drama burst into public view in July 2016, when former anchor Gretchen Carlson sued Ailes for sexual harassment. After Ailes was forced out of the network and Carlson received a $20 million settlement, several other employees came forward with sexual harassment and gender and racial discrimination claims.
Some disputes were settled confidentially, while others became public lawsuits, leading to a steady drumbeat of negative headlines and mounting legal costs.
By the end of last June, Twenty-First Century Fox had incurred about $50 million in costs in the previous year that were tied to the settlement of sexual harassment and discrimination allegations at Fox News.
Several of the lawsuits were handled by Wigdor, a self-described conservative Republican who has said that he was at war with Fox News. Wigdor has been a vocal critic of what he described as a systemic culture of discrimination at Fox News, frequently speaking to the media and even testifying before the British regulators reviewing Twenty-First Century Fox’s $15 billion bid for Sky, the European satellite giant. (Wigdor’s firm also represented clients in a racial discrimination suit against The New York Times.)
The roughly $10 million agreement, while still a significant sum, is far less than the more than $60 million that Wigdor had proposed last summer. At the time, Wigdor had pointed out how Twenty-First Century Fox had paid $40 million to Ailes and $25 million to O’Reilly, and said, “Outside the context of the mediation, any amount under what Ailes and O’Reilly got in total would be unjust.”
The deal called for Wigdor, along with a mediator, to provide a breakdown of how the money will be distributed to each plaintiff. According to a person briefed on the matter, one person received nothing, while others received large sums. The total $10 million payment includes lawyer fees, which typically come to about a third.
A confidentiality clause in the deal forbids the parties from discussing the payment amounts and other company information, including the compensation of and settlements with other employees, but does not prevent them from telling their stories.
Not included in the settlement are two other lawsuits involving clients of Wigdor, although he has filed motions to withdraw as the lawyer for both cases.
That includes a defamation and racial-discrimination lawsuit against Twenty-First Century Fox and Fox News that focused on an article about the death of Seth Rich, a young aide for the Democratic National Committee.
The suit claims that the White House and a wealthy supporter of President Donald Trump pushed Fox News to publish an article on its website as part of a scheme to end speculation about the president’s ties to Russia. The company has said that the case lacks merit.
Also excluded from the settlement was the lawsuit filed by political commentator Scottie Nell Hughes, who claimed that she had been raped by longtime anchor Charles Payne and was then retaliated against by the network after she came forward with the allegation. Payne, who remains on the air, has vehemently denied any wrongdoing.
Calling the lawsuit “bogus” and “downright shameful,” Fox filed a motion to dismiss the case. In recent weeks, the judge overseeing the cases in U.S. District Court in Manhattan dismissed some of Hughes’ claims and upheld others.
The settlements reached by Twenty-First Century Fox include the class action racial discrimination lawsuit filed last year by anchor Kelly Wright and several employees in the Fox News accounting department.
Their lawsuit said they had repeatedly complained about “abhorrent, intolerable, unlawful and hostile racial discrimination” to network executives but that no action was taken and that the inappropriate behavior continued.
Also included in the settlement were the race, gender and pregnancy discrimination lawsuit brought in 2016 by a former reporter for Fox 5, the network’s New York affiliate, and a gender discrimination lawsuit filed by a Fox News Radio reporter.
According to the document viewed by The Times, terms of the deal included that the employees would agree to drop their claims, leave the network and not seek future employment at Fox News or other Twenty-First Century Fox companies.
The settlement specifically included a buyout of Wright’s contract with Fox News, where he was the only Black male anchor. Fox News has denied the allegations made in the various suits.
In a joint statement, a Fox News spokeswoman and Douglas H. Wigdor, a lawyer for the employees involved, said, “The parties have reached mutual agreements that resolve various cases involving former Fox News employees.”
Wright informed Fox News on Tuesday of his “desire to pursue new opportunities,” the network and Wigdor said in statements. In the statements, the network thanked Wright “for his contributions over the years”; and Wright thanked Fox News and “wishes it well as he moves forward to the next phase of his career.”
The agreement represents a push by Fox News and Twenty-First Century Fox to move past the negative attention drawn by scandals — including sexual harassment claims — that led to sweeping changes at the top of the network: the ousting of the network’s founding chairman, Roger Ailes; Bill O’Reilly, the top-rated host on cable news; and several other employees.
The controversy also prompted a criminal investigation into Fox News’ handling of sexual harassment complaints.
The drama burst into public view in July 2016, when former anchor Gretchen Carlson sued Ailes for sexual harassment. After Ailes was forced out of the network and Carlson received a $20 million settlement, several other employees came forward with sexual harassment and gender and racial discrimination claims.
Some disputes were settled confidentially, while others became public lawsuits, leading to a steady drumbeat of negative headlines and mounting legal costs.
By the end of last June, Twenty-First Century Fox had incurred about $50 million in costs in the previous year that were tied to the settlement of sexual harassment and discrimination allegations at Fox News.
Several of the lawsuits were handled by Wigdor, a self-described conservative Republican who has said that he was at war with Fox News. Wigdor has been a vocal critic of what he described as a systemic culture of discrimination at Fox News, frequently speaking to the media and even testifying before the British regulators reviewing Twenty-First Century Fox’s $15 billion bid for Sky, the European satellite giant. (Wigdor’s firm also represented clients in a racial discrimination suit against The New York Times.)
The roughly $10 million agreement, while still a significant sum, is far less than the more than $60 million that Wigdor had proposed last summer. At the time, Wigdor had pointed out how Twenty-First Century Fox had paid $40 million to Ailes and $25 million to O’Reilly, and said, “Outside the context of the mediation, any amount under what Ailes and O’Reilly got in total would be unjust.”
The deal called for Wigdor, along with a mediator, to provide a breakdown of how the money will be distributed to each plaintiff. According to a person briefed on the matter, one person received nothing, while others received large sums. The total $10 million payment includes lawyer fees, which typically come to about a third.
A confidentiality clause in the deal forbids the parties from discussing the payment amounts and other company information, including the compensation of and settlements with other employees, but does not prevent them from telling their stories.
Not included in the settlement are two other lawsuits involving clients of Wigdor, although he has filed motions to withdraw as the lawyer for both cases.
That includes a defamation and racial-discrimination lawsuit against Twenty-First Century Fox and Fox News that focused on an article about the death of Seth Rich, a young aide for the Democratic National Committee.
The suit claims that the White House and a wealthy supporter of President Donald Trump pushed Fox News to publish an article on its website as part of a scheme to end speculation about the president’s ties to Russia. The company has said that the case lacks merit.
Also excluded from the settlement was the lawsuit filed by political commentator Scottie Nell Hughes, who claimed that she had been raped by longtime anchor Charles Payne and was then retaliated against by the network after she came forward with the allegation. Payne, who remains on the air, has vehemently denied any wrongdoing.
Calling the lawsuit “bogus” and “downright shameful,” Fox filed a motion to dismiss the case. In recent weeks, the judge overseeing the cases in U.S. District Court in Manhattan dismissed some of Hughes’ claims and upheld others.
The Pro-Trump Media Is Instigating An Authoritarian Coup
by jake thomas - the intellectualist
5/17/18
Pro-Trump media is spreading across the U.S., and no one knows for sure just how extensive that network has become.
The right-wing media machine has taken on increased significance in the age of President Donald Trump, proudly echoing the administration’s talking points – as one might expect – but with an air of unquestioning loyalty to the president.
Fox News has been joined by an ever-growing circle of conservative media outlets that serve to confuse the public and push the president’s narrative that mainstream media is but a peddler of ‘fake news’.
The Washington Post’s Greg Sargent notes that the prevalence of disinformation within right-wing media outlets is nothing new, but he rightly wonders how significant an impact the addition of Trump’s hostility toward the press might have as information polarization continues unabated since his election to office.
It appears as though the pro-Trump media is instigating an authoritarian coup, and by all accounts, it is enjoying significant success.
President Trump’s supporters believe that special counsel Robert S. Mueller III is “unethical,” “desperate,” “partisan” and “a liar.” That is one of the key takeaways from a focus group that Democratic pollster Peter D. Hart held Tuesday night in a Milwaukee suburb, which was attended by The Post’s Philip Rucker.
Those who voted for Trump said again and again in various ways that the Mueller probe is a witch hunt. As one woman put it: “This investigation’s ongoing because people aren’t happy that Trump is in power and they’re looking for any way to get him out.”
These beliefs are not incidental; they are part of a carefully orchestrated narrative pushed by right-wing media outlets on a daily basis.
Axios’s Sara Fischer delves into this predicament in a piece on “the rise of the pro-Trump media machine”:
Pro-Trump media is spreading across the U.S., disseminating Trumpian rhetoric about fake news and mainstream media bias through every medium.
New arms of the machine are branching off, and existing arms are digging deeper into Trumpian loyalty and conspiracy.
Sargent offers a few examples:
Bill O’Reilly — who was forced out of Fox — may soon broadcast again in prime time at Newsmax TV, which is owned by close Trump friend Chris Ruddy, giving Trump “another media ally to disseminate his talking points.”
Executives at Salem Radio, the parent company of some of the most popular conservative talk shows, pressured radio hosts to cover Trump more positively, according to emails obtained by CNNMoney.
Sinclair Broadcasting, the largest owner of local TV stations, has drawn criticism for its ‘must-run’ editorials and scripts — peppering local newscasts with pro-Trump talking points — but continues the practice.
Meanwhile, a recent New York magazine story painted a startling picture of just how deeply in thrall Trump is to Sean Hannity and Fox News: He talks to Hannity pretty much every night, and his view of the Mueller probe is deeply shaped by Hannity’s nonstop propaganda about it, which relentlessly bombards millions with the message that the investigation is nothing but a “Deep State coup” that has corruptly failed to prosecute the real criminal, i.e., Hillary Clinton.
Where does this leave the whole of America?
It’s hard to determine precisely how pervasive this network of right-wing propaganda has become, but it surely has the potential to make real-world impact:
[I]f Mueller finds serious or even criminal conduct, it is extremely likely that this alternate information ecosystem will play a critical role in Trump’s efforts to rally his supporters on his behalf and against Mueller and his findings. That could in turn make it less likely that Republicans act on them — and more likely that Trump escapes accountability.
And as Trump-supporting voters grow increasing leery of the press, they only become more susceptible to the likes of Breitbart and Fox News.
Meanwhile, mainstream media outlets – which the majority of Republicans see as “the enemy of the American people” – are not yet wholeheartedly calling the Trump administration’s misrepresentations of the truth what it actually is: lies.
The failure of many reporters to admit that Michelle Wolf was absolutely right about this White House’s level of bad-faith dishonesty, and about the challenges that creates for good-faith journalism, revealed that in many respects they are not adequately reckoning with the real problem here, which is that in the Trump era, their mission of objective truth-seeking is inevitably going to be divisive and alienating to millions of his voters.
And when it comes to Trump’s legal problems and potential collusion with foreign entities, a failure to confront such lies – told by both the White House and its conservative media bullhorn – can only benefit the president.
Trump’s ability to rely on an extensive media network that will back him to the hilt no matter what gives him an advantage that President Richard Nixon did not have during the climax of Watergate. As Fischer’s reporting indicates, we don’t really have a clear sense of just how extensive or influential that network really is. And we don’t have any idea yet what this really means for the country over the long term. Read more here
The right-wing media machine has taken on increased significance in the age of President Donald Trump, proudly echoing the administration’s talking points – as one might expect – but with an air of unquestioning loyalty to the president.
Fox News has been joined by an ever-growing circle of conservative media outlets that serve to confuse the public and push the president’s narrative that mainstream media is but a peddler of ‘fake news’.
The Washington Post’s Greg Sargent notes that the prevalence of disinformation within right-wing media outlets is nothing new, but he rightly wonders how significant an impact the addition of Trump’s hostility toward the press might have as information polarization continues unabated since his election to office.
It appears as though the pro-Trump media is instigating an authoritarian coup, and by all accounts, it is enjoying significant success.
President Trump’s supporters believe that special counsel Robert S. Mueller III is “unethical,” “desperate,” “partisan” and “a liar.” That is one of the key takeaways from a focus group that Democratic pollster Peter D. Hart held Tuesday night in a Milwaukee suburb, which was attended by The Post’s Philip Rucker.
Those who voted for Trump said again and again in various ways that the Mueller probe is a witch hunt. As one woman put it: “This investigation’s ongoing because people aren’t happy that Trump is in power and they’re looking for any way to get him out.”
These beliefs are not incidental; they are part of a carefully orchestrated narrative pushed by right-wing media outlets on a daily basis.
Axios’s Sara Fischer delves into this predicament in a piece on “the rise of the pro-Trump media machine”:
Pro-Trump media is spreading across the U.S., disseminating Trumpian rhetoric about fake news and mainstream media bias through every medium.
New arms of the machine are branching off, and existing arms are digging deeper into Trumpian loyalty and conspiracy.
Sargent offers a few examples:
Bill O’Reilly — who was forced out of Fox — may soon broadcast again in prime time at Newsmax TV, which is owned by close Trump friend Chris Ruddy, giving Trump “another media ally to disseminate his talking points.”
Executives at Salem Radio, the parent company of some of the most popular conservative talk shows, pressured radio hosts to cover Trump more positively, according to emails obtained by CNNMoney.
Sinclair Broadcasting, the largest owner of local TV stations, has drawn criticism for its ‘must-run’ editorials and scripts — peppering local newscasts with pro-Trump talking points — but continues the practice.
Meanwhile, a recent New York magazine story painted a startling picture of just how deeply in thrall Trump is to Sean Hannity and Fox News: He talks to Hannity pretty much every night, and his view of the Mueller probe is deeply shaped by Hannity’s nonstop propaganda about it, which relentlessly bombards millions with the message that the investigation is nothing but a “Deep State coup” that has corruptly failed to prosecute the real criminal, i.e., Hillary Clinton.
Where does this leave the whole of America?
It’s hard to determine precisely how pervasive this network of right-wing propaganda has become, but it surely has the potential to make real-world impact:
[I]f Mueller finds serious or even criminal conduct, it is extremely likely that this alternate information ecosystem will play a critical role in Trump’s efforts to rally his supporters on his behalf and against Mueller and his findings. That could in turn make it less likely that Republicans act on them — and more likely that Trump escapes accountability.
And as Trump-supporting voters grow increasing leery of the press, they only become more susceptible to the likes of Breitbart and Fox News.
Meanwhile, mainstream media outlets – which the majority of Republicans see as “the enemy of the American people” – are not yet wholeheartedly calling the Trump administration’s misrepresentations of the truth what it actually is: lies.
The failure of many reporters to admit that Michelle Wolf was absolutely right about this White House’s level of bad-faith dishonesty, and about the challenges that creates for good-faith journalism, revealed that in many respects they are not adequately reckoning with the real problem here, which is that in the Trump era, their mission of objective truth-seeking is inevitably going to be divisive and alienating to millions of his voters.
And when it comes to Trump’s legal problems and potential collusion with foreign entities, a failure to confront such lies – told by both the White House and its conservative media bullhorn – can only benefit the president.
Trump’s ability to rely on an extensive media network that will back him to the hilt no matter what gives him an advantage that President Richard Nixon did not have during the climax of Watergate. As Fischer’s reporting indicates, we don’t really have a clear sense of just how extensive or influential that network really is. And we don’t have any idea yet what this really means for the country over the long term. Read more here
Fox News blacks out bombshell Michael Cohen revelations during 3 hours of primetime coverage
The name of Trump's longtime attorney wasn't mentioned a single time.
AARON RUPAR - think progress
MAY 9, 2018, 9:45 AM
Shortly after 5 p.m. on Tuesday, Michael Avenatti tweeted out a bombshell — he claimed that following an investigation, his team determined that President Trump’s personal attorney, Michael Cohen, “received approximately $500,000 in the mos. after the election from a company controlled by a Russian [oligarch] with close ties to Mr. Putin.”
Avenatti added that “[t]hese monies may have reimbursed the $130k payment” Cohen made to Avenatti’s client, Stormy Daniels, a woman who claims to have had an affair with Trump and was paid just before the election for her silence about it.
Avenatti’s bombshell claim was quickly corroborated by The Daily Beast, New York Times, CNN, and other outlets. Before the night was through, AT&T acknowledged it was implicated in the scandal as well — the company made $200,000 in payment Essential Consultants, a shell company set up by Cohen that also received payments from a company linked to a Russian oligarch.
But if you spent Monday evening watching Trump’s favorite network, you might still be in the dark about all of that. According to SnapStream transcripts, the name “Michael Cohen” was not uttered a single time during Fox News’ top-rated shows hosted by Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity, or Laura Ingraham.
Avenatti’s tweet was mentioned shortly before 7 p.m. on Bret Baier’s show, but it was quickly dismissed by Republican lobbyist Matt Schlapp, who was on Baier’s panel.
“I don’t know if Mr. Avenatti is Stormy Daniels’ lawyer, or if he’s the lawyer for ‘hashtag resistance’ to try to do everything he can to weaken the president,” Schlapp said. “I think this is like several bank shots, I guess, to show that there is some kind of collusion with Russia, and I think the American people are fair, and if there is no proven collusion with Russia that impacted the election, I think they are tired of all the theatrics with this investigation.”
Cohen’s name wasn’t mentioned again on Fox News programming until Shannon Bream’s show, which airs between 11 p.m. and midnight. The trend continued into Wednesday morning. The Cohen story came up a single time during the show Trump regularly live-tweets, Fox & Friends, during one of the show’s brief news updates.
According to a Media Matters analysis, Fox News has spent a total of just over five minutes on the Cohen revelations since they broke last night.
Fox News’ suppression of the Cohen story reflects how the network regularly protects the president.
One particularly notable example of this happened late last month, when Trump called in to Fox & Friends for an interview. While you’d think hosts of Trump’s favorite show would be overjoyed to interview the president, they abruptly brought the interview to a close after Trump started yelling about how he planned to meddle more aggressively in the Department of Justice moving forward.
Avenatti added that “[t]hese monies may have reimbursed the $130k payment” Cohen made to Avenatti’s client, Stormy Daniels, a woman who claims to have had an affair with Trump and was paid just before the election for her silence about it.
Avenatti’s bombshell claim was quickly corroborated by The Daily Beast, New York Times, CNN, and other outlets. Before the night was through, AT&T acknowledged it was implicated in the scandal as well — the company made $200,000 in payment Essential Consultants, a shell company set up by Cohen that also received payments from a company linked to a Russian oligarch.
But if you spent Monday evening watching Trump’s favorite network, you might still be in the dark about all of that. According to SnapStream transcripts, the name “Michael Cohen” was not uttered a single time during Fox News’ top-rated shows hosted by Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity, or Laura Ingraham.
Avenatti’s tweet was mentioned shortly before 7 p.m. on Bret Baier’s show, but it was quickly dismissed by Republican lobbyist Matt Schlapp, who was on Baier’s panel.
“I don’t know if Mr. Avenatti is Stormy Daniels’ lawyer, or if he’s the lawyer for ‘hashtag resistance’ to try to do everything he can to weaken the president,” Schlapp said. “I think this is like several bank shots, I guess, to show that there is some kind of collusion with Russia, and I think the American people are fair, and if there is no proven collusion with Russia that impacted the election, I think they are tired of all the theatrics with this investigation.”
Cohen’s name wasn’t mentioned again on Fox News programming until Shannon Bream’s show, which airs between 11 p.m. and midnight. The trend continued into Wednesday morning. The Cohen story came up a single time during the show Trump regularly live-tweets, Fox & Friends, during one of the show’s brief news updates.
According to a Media Matters analysis, Fox News has spent a total of just over five minutes on the Cohen revelations since they broke last night.
Fox News’ suppression of the Cohen story reflects how the network regularly protects the president.
One particularly notable example of this happened late last month, when Trump called in to Fox & Friends for an interview. While you’d think hosts of Trump’s favorite show would be overjoyed to interview the president, they abruptly brought the interview to a close after Trump started yelling about how he planned to meddle more aggressively in the Department of Justice moving forward.
Fox News’ Kremlin Ties Go Much Deeper Than Just Sean Hannity
By John R. Schindler - observer
04/19/18 3:38pm
A few days ago, I addressed the troubling issue of Sean Hannity, the Fox News star, and his hidden ties to the Trump administration. With the revelation that Hannity shares an attorney with the president—namely the disgraced Michael Cohen, who’s now a key player in the Department of Justice’s investigation of the White House and its secret Kremlin links—it’s high time to ask exactly what sort of “journalism” Hannity is pushing at Fox News.
Moreover, when coupled with my previous revelations of Hannity’s “reporting” of rancid disinformation scripted by Russian intelligence as “news,” plus his clandestine relationship with WikiLeaks—said by President Donald Trump’s own CIA director to be a Kremlin front—Fox News is making itself a player not just in the Trump administration, but a target of any fair and balanced investigation of it. As I stated:
With the revelation that Cohen has been Hannity’s attorney, in some fashion that neither of them wished to disclose, it is even more imperative that Fox News explain why it keeps a Kremlin propagandist without any semblance of professional ethics on the air. If they fail to do so, that network is exposing itself to counterintelligence scrutiny as well.
To the surprise of nobody who has observed that network in action, Fox News quickly decided that Hannity’s ethical missteps regarding Cohen were no big deal. Per its statement on the case: “We have reviewed the matter and spoken to Sean and he continues to have our full support.” Nevertheless, the network’s own media analyst explained that Hannity was clearly in the wrong, ethically speaking, by commenting many times on-air about Cohen, invariably favorably, without divulging his relationship with him.
Other reports are even less favorable to the network and its ethical standards, rather lack thereof. Vanity Fair this week quoted anonymous staffers at the network about what it termed the Hannity-induced “crisis”: “This is the most embarrassing thing I’ve ever seen,” stated one. Another added, “This is bad. It violates every rule of journalism.”
That said, it’s not difficult to divine why Hannity remains on the air. He’s a headliner, the network’s most prominent talker and nighttime draw for its pro-Trump viewers. Moreover, Hannity’s astonishingly close relationship with this White House, viewed negatively as almost a parody of “access journalism” by outsiders, seems to only bolster his position at Fox News. As The Washington Postreported this week, Hannity talks frequently with Trump, serving as a senior advisor to the Oval Office and playing a pivotal role in the administration’s media war against Trump’s enemies—above all Special Counsel Robert Mueller and his investigation of the president’s Kremlin ties. The Fox News star “basically has a desk” in the White House, explained one presidential adviser to the Post.
Normal journalism, this is not. Since I’ve castigated the mainstream media for its fawning over President Barack Obama, allowing his staff to play them like an instrument, particularly regarding foreign policy, let me add that the Hannity case outstrips even those low-points in terms of journalistic integrity. Clearly Fox News is happy to let its leading on-air personality act as a propagandist for Trump. It’s high time for the network to remove “news” from its title if Hannity is its idea of journalism.
Worse, Fox News seems untroubled by the fact that Hannity isn’t just a Trump superfan-cum-consigliere; he also has disturbing ties to the Kremlin and its agents. Since Hannity’s pushing of Russian-scripted disinformation on Americans has been reported for nearly a year, the network can’t say it didn’t know. Fox News therefore is making the unsettling—not to mention potentially politically hazardous—choice to serve as a witting cut-out for the Kremlin’s lie machine.
Perhaps there are no surprises here at all, however. This week, Latvian Public Broadcasting reported an astonishing story about how Fox News operates in their country. As unmasked by a local investigation, Russian-language versions of the network’s programming that are broadcast in Latvia aren’t merely translated; they’re edited for content in a pro-Kremlin direction. Per the report, which cites internal Fox News regulations:
Translators have to follow Russian subtitling guidelines requiring glossing over or ‘softening content’ concerning accidents, homosexual relationships, ‘anti-Russian propaganda,’ narcotics, extremist activities and suicides. For instance, the translators are instructed to ‘soften’ all negative language about the Russian military and space program, policies of the Russian president and government, while positive texts about same-sex relationships have to be made more generalized so they could be attributed to relationships of any kind.
Let’s be perfectly clear here: Fox News is requiring its content being broadcast in a country that is a member of both NATO and the European Union to be edited to be more pleasing to the regime of Vladimir Putin. This is no small matter in Latvia, a country of only two million people, more than one-quarter of whom are ethnic Russians. That minority is habitually exploited by Moscow in its propaganda aimed at NATO’s eastern frontier. For years, the Kremlin has waged an aggressive, full-spectrum information war against Latvia, attempting to foment divisions in that country by making its Russian minority feel alienated and more loyal to Moscow than to Riga. In extremis, many Latvians worry, this noxious disinformation campaign could be a precursor to an actual Russian invasion—an event that has happened several times in the small country’s history.
Fox News is unambiguously on the side of the Kremlin in this information struggle against little Latvia—and the entire Western world. It’s not just what Fox News is beaming into the Baltic states that merits scrutiny. The network’s reports on Latvia for Western audiences—for instance one last month pushed blatant Russian propaganda and cited the Centre for Research on Globalization, a notorious Kremlin disinformation front—likewise deserve investigation.
Above all, Americans should ask what Fox News’ relationship with Putin’s regime actually is. It’s one thing to allow known disinformateurs like Sean Hannity to push Russian-made lies on air; it’s even worse to give Moscow editorial control over its “reporting.” If Fox News is skewing the news in a pro-Kremlin direction for political effect in a free and democratic society like Latvia, they can do it anywhere.
Moreover, when coupled with my previous revelations of Hannity’s “reporting” of rancid disinformation scripted by Russian intelligence as “news,” plus his clandestine relationship with WikiLeaks—said by President Donald Trump’s own CIA director to be a Kremlin front—Fox News is making itself a player not just in the Trump administration, but a target of any fair and balanced investigation of it. As I stated:
With the revelation that Cohen has been Hannity’s attorney, in some fashion that neither of them wished to disclose, it is even more imperative that Fox News explain why it keeps a Kremlin propagandist without any semblance of professional ethics on the air. If they fail to do so, that network is exposing itself to counterintelligence scrutiny as well.
To the surprise of nobody who has observed that network in action, Fox News quickly decided that Hannity’s ethical missteps regarding Cohen were no big deal. Per its statement on the case: “We have reviewed the matter and spoken to Sean and he continues to have our full support.” Nevertheless, the network’s own media analyst explained that Hannity was clearly in the wrong, ethically speaking, by commenting many times on-air about Cohen, invariably favorably, without divulging his relationship with him.
Other reports are even less favorable to the network and its ethical standards, rather lack thereof. Vanity Fair this week quoted anonymous staffers at the network about what it termed the Hannity-induced “crisis”: “This is the most embarrassing thing I’ve ever seen,” stated one. Another added, “This is bad. It violates every rule of journalism.”
That said, it’s not difficult to divine why Hannity remains on the air. He’s a headliner, the network’s most prominent talker and nighttime draw for its pro-Trump viewers. Moreover, Hannity’s astonishingly close relationship with this White House, viewed negatively as almost a parody of “access journalism” by outsiders, seems to only bolster his position at Fox News. As The Washington Postreported this week, Hannity talks frequently with Trump, serving as a senior advisor to the Oval Office and playing a pivotal role in the administration’s media war against Trump’s enemies—above all Special Counsel Robert Mueller and his investigation of the president’s Kremlin ties. The Fox News star “basically has a desk” in the White House, explained one presidential adviser to the Post.
Normal journalism, this is not. Since I’ve castigated the mainstream media for its fawning over President Barack Obama, allowing his staff to play them like an instrument, particularly regarding foreign policy, let me add that the Hannity case outstrips even those low-points in terms of journalistic integrity. Clearly Fox News is happy to let its leading on-air personality act as a propagandist for Trump. It’s high time for the network to remove “news” from its title if Hannity is its idea of journalism.
Worse, Fox News seems untroubled by the fact that Hannity isn’t just a Trump superfan-cum-consigliere; he also has disturbing ties to the Kremlin and its agents. Since Hannity’s pushing of Russian-scripted disinformation on Americans has been reported for nearly a year, the network can’t say it didn’t know. Fox News therefore is making the unsettling—not to mention potentially politically hazardous—choice to serve as a witting cut-out for the Kremlin’s lie machine.
Perhaps there are no surprises here at all, however. This week, Latvian Public Broadcasting reported an astonishing story about how Fox News operates in their country. As unmasked by a local investigation, Russian-language versions of the network’s programming that are broadcast in Latvia aren’t merely translated; they’re edited for content in a pro-Kremlin direction. Per the report, which cites internal Fox News regulations:
Translators have to follow Russian subtitling guidelines requiring glossing over or ‘softening content’ concerning accidents, homosexual relationships, ‘anti-Russian propaganda,’ narcotics, extremist activities and suicides. For instance, the translators are instructed to ‘soften’ all negative language about the Russian military and space program, policies of the Russian president and government, while positive texts about same-sex relationships have to be made more generalized so they could be attributed to relationships of any kind.
Let’s be perfectly clear here: Fox News is requiring its content being broadcast in a country that is a member of both NATO and the European Union to be edited to be more pleasing to the regime of Vladimir Putin. This is no small matter in Latvia, a country of only two million people, more than one-quarter of whom are ethnic Russians. That minority is habitually exploited by Moscow in its propaganda aimed at NATO’s eastern frontier. For years, the Kremlin has waged an aggressive, full-spectrum information war against Latvia, attempting to foment divisions in that country by making its Russian minority feel alienated and more loyal to Moscow than to Riga. In extremis, many Latvians worry, this noxious disinformation campaign could be a precursor to an actual Russian invasion—an event that has happened several times in the small country’s history.
Fox News is unambiguously on the side of the Kremlin in this information struggle against little Latvia—and the entire Western world. It’s not just what Fox News is beaming into the Baltic states that merits scrutiny. The network’s reports on Latvia for Western audiences—for instance one last month pushed blatant Russian propaganda and cited the Centre for Research on Globalization, a notorious Kremlin disinformation front—likewise deserve investigation.
Above all, Americans should ask what Fox News’ relationship with Putin’s regime actually is. It’s one thing to allow known disinformateurs like Sean Hannity to push Russian-made lies on air; it’s even worse to give Moscow editorial control over its “reporting.” If Fox News is skewing the news in a pro-Kremlin direction for political effect in a free and democratic society like Latvia, they can do it anywhere.
Sean Hannity’s Ties to Two More Trump-Connected Lawyers
The Fox News host denies that Michael Cohen was ever his lawyer—but Hannity was represented by a pair of legal advisers who also have close links to the president.
ROSIE GRAY - the atlantic
2:57 PM ET
Sean Hannity has had no shortage of lawyers. In court on Monday, his name was disclosed as the third “mystery client” of Donald Trump’s personal lawyer Michael Cohen. Though Hannity says he was never actually Cohen’s client, he does appear to have used the legal services of other well-connected Trump-world lawyers in a different matter a year ago.
On May 25, 2017, KFAQ, a radio station based in Tulsa, Oklahoma, received a cease-and-desist letter signed by two lawyers for Hannity: Victoria Toensing and Jay Alan Sekulow. Toensing’s signature sits above her name and that of her husband Joseph E. diGenova, the members of diGenova and Toensing LLP, who are identified as “Counsel for Sean Hannity,” according to a copy of the letter obtained by The Atlantic. Sekulow is also identified in the letter page as a “Counsel for Sean Hannity.”
Sekulow is now the only known personal attorney for President Trump working full-time on the response to Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s inquiry. Sekulow recently announced that diGenova and Toensing had been hired to join him, before reversing course. The letter to the radio station was sent before Sekulow joined Trump’s team.
The letter was sent in response to accusations against Hannity made by the controversial conservative activist Debbie Schlussel. During an appearance on the Pat Campbell show on KFAQ last April, Schlussel said Hannity had been “creepy” towards her and had invited her to his hotel room.
Hannity responded at the time by calling the allegations “100 percent false and a complete fabrication,” and said that he had hired lawyers to plan a response. “This letter provides notice that Ms. Schlussel’s statements are false and defamatory,” the letter read. “Continued publication will result in further exposure to liability because of continued harm to Mr. Hannity’s impeccable reputation.”
On Monday, Schlussel said she remembered that the radio station where she made the remarks had received a legal letter afterwards, but she didn’t know who the lawyer was. Reached by phone on Tuesday, Toensing acknowledged that “at that time” she was acting as Hannity’s lawyer but wouldn’t comment on whether she still represents him.
“I’ve just learned in the press that anybody who is Sean Hannity’s lawyer is going to be blasted so I think this phone call is over,” Toensing said. “I’m wondering what attorney-client privilege means to anybody. I don’t say who my clients are, sometimes I do, and many times, most of the time, I do not.”
Sekulow, diGenova, and Toensing have frequently appeared on Hannity’s program; diGenova appeared on the show as recently as Monday night. Asked for comment, Hannity sent a text consisting of NewsBusters and Daily Caller links to stories about ethical misconduct in the mainstream media and declined to offer further comment. “I don’t have time for these silly questions,” he said.
Sekulow didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment. After publication of this story, a Fox News spokesperson sent an example of Hannity mentioning Sekulow as his lawyer. On May 23, 2017, two days before the letter was sent, he said on his show that Sekulow had “done legal work for me in the past.”
The addition of Toensing and diGenova to Trump’s legal team was recently announced, but then swiftly reversed. “The President is disappointed that conflicts prevent Joe diGenova and Victoria Toensing from joining the President’s Special Counsel legal team,” Sekulow said in a statement at the time. “However, those conflicts do not prevent them from assisting the President in other legal matters. The President looks forward to working with them.”
When the Cohen news came out, Hannity insisted that Cohen had not really been his lawyer and that he had only asked him for advice regarding real estate. “I never retained his services, I never received an invoice, I never paid Michael Cohen for legal fees,” Hannity said on his show on Monday night. “I did have occasional brief conversations with Michael Cohen—he’s a great attorney—about legal questions I had where I was looking for input and perspective. My discussions with Michael Cohen never rose to any level that I needed to tell anyone that I was asking him questions and to be absolutely clear, they never involved any matter, any—sorry to disappoint so many—matter between me, a third party, a third group, at all.”
On Monday night’s show, Hannity was criticized by the retired Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz, who told him he should have disclosed the relationship to his viewers when discussing Cohen-related matters. “I’m on his show from time to time and I just thought I had an obligation to tell him I think it would have been appropriate for him to disclose that …” Dershowitz told me. “When I’m on the show, I want to be on the show with someone who satisfies journalistic standards, and that would satisfy journalistic standards.”
But it’s unclear whether Fox News, which gives Hannity broad autonomy, cares about these conflicts. It’s already well-known that Hannity champions the president publicly and advises him privately, although the breadth of his relationships with attorneys linked to the president wasn’t known before this week. “I think he’s totally fine,” one Fox source who was not authorized to speak publicly said on Monday. “I take Sean at his word that nothing’s there” in the relationship with Cohen, a former Hannity employee who also spoke on the condition of anonymity said, adding that Hannity normally uses David Limbaugh as his lawyer and agent for “absolutely everything.”
“While Fox News was unaware of Sean Hannity’s informal relationship with Michael Cohen and was surprised by the announcement in court yesterday, we have reviewed the matter and spoken to Sean and he continues to have our full support,” the network said in a statement on Tuesday.
“I don’t want to get into it because I haven’t talked to Sean about whether he wants me to say anything publicly, as a lawyer I’d better not,” Limbaugh said, but added that he is “proud of my relationship with him.” Limbaugh said he had had nothing to do with anything related to the Schlussel matter.
A Fox News spokesperson didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.
On May 25, 2017, KFAQ, a radio station based in Tulsa, Oklahoma, received a cease-and-desist letter signed by two lawyers for Hannity: Victoria Toensing and Jay Alan Sekulow. Toensing’s signature sits above her name and that of her husband Joseph E. diGenova, the members of diGenova and Toensing LLP, who are identified as “Counsel for Sean Hannity,” according to a copy of the letter obtained by The Atlantic. Sekulow is also identified in the letter page as a “Counsel for Sean Hannity.”
Sekulow is now the only known personal attorney for President Trump working full-time on the response to Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s inquiry. Sekulow recently announced that diGenova and Toensing had been hired to join him, before reversing course. The letter to the radio station was sent before Sekulow joined Trump’s team.
The letter was sent in response to accusations against Hannity made by the controversial conservative activist Debbie Schlussel. During an appearance on the Pat Campbell show on KFAQ last April, Schlussel said Hannity had been “creepy” towards her and had invited her to his hotel room.
Hannity responded at the time by calling the allegations “100 percent false and a complete fabrication,” and said that he had hired lawyers to plan a response. “This letter provides notice that Ms. Schlussel’s statements are false and defamatory,” the letter read. “Continued publication will result in further exposure to liability because of continued harm to Mr. Hannity’s impeccable reputation.”
On Monday, Schlussel said she remembered that the radio station where she made the remarks had received a legal letter afterwards, but she didn’t know who the lawyer was. Reached by phone on Tuesday, Toensing acknowledged that “at that time” she was acting as Hannity’s lawyer but wouldn’t comment on whether she still represents him.
“I’ve just learned in the press that anybody who is Sean Hannity’s lawyer is going to be blasted so I think this phone call is over,” Toensing said. “I’m wondering what attorney-client privilege means to anybody. I don’t say who my clients are, sometimes I do, and many times, most of the time, I do not.”
Sekulow, diGenova, and Toensing have frequently appeared on Hannity’s program; diGenova appeared on the show as recently as Monday night. Asked for comment, Hannity sent a text consisting of NewsBusters and Daily Caller links to stories about ethical misconduct in the mainstream media and declined to offer further comment. “I don’t have time for these silly questions,” he said.
Sekulow didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment. After publication of this story, a Fox News spokesperson sent an example of Hannity mentioning Sekulow as his lawyer. On May 23, 2017, two days before the letter was sent, he said on his show that Sekulow had “done legal work for me in the past.”
The addition of Toensing and diGenova to Trump’s legal team was recently announced, but then swiftly reversed. “The President is disappointed that conflicts prevent Joe diGenova and Victoria Toensing from joining the President’s Special Counsel legal team,” Sekulow said in a statement at the time. “However, those conflicts do not prevent them from assisting the President in other legal matters. The President looks forward to working with them.”
When the Cohen news came out, Hannity insisted that Cohen had not really been his lawyer and that he had only asked him for advice regarding real estate. “I never retained his services, I never received an invoice, I never paid Michael Cohen for legal fees,” Hannity said on his show on Monday night. “I did have occasional brief conversations with Michael Cohen—he’s a great attorney—about legal questions I had where I was looking for input and perspective. My discussions with Michael Cohen never rose to any level that I needed to tell anyone that I was asking him questions and to be absolutely clear, they never involved any matter, any—sorry to disappoint so many—matter between me, a third party, a third group, at all.”
On Monday night’s show, Hannity was criticized by the retired Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz, who told him he should have disclosed the relationship to his viewers when discussing Cohen-related matters. “I’m on his show from time to time and I just thought I had an obligation to tell him I think it would have been appropriate for him to disclose that …” Dershowitz told me. “When I’m on the show, I want to be on the show with someone who satisfies journalistic standards, and that would satisfy journalistic standards.”
But it’s unclear whether Fox News, which gives Hannity broad autonomy, cares about these conflicts. It’s already well-known that Hannity champions the president publicly and advises him privately, although the breadth of his relationships with attorneys linked to the president wasn’t known before this week. “I think he’s totally fine,” one Fox source who was not authorized to speak publicly said on Monday. “I take Sean at his word that nothing’s there” in the relationship with Cohen, a former Hannity employee who also spoke on the condition of anonymity said, adding that Hannity normally uses David Limbaugh as his lawyer and agent for “absolutely everything.”
“While Fox News was unaware of Sean Hannity’s informal relationship with Michael Cohen and was surprised by the announcement in court yesterday, we have reviewed the matter and spoken to Sean and he continues to have our full support,” the network said in a statement on Tuesday.
“I don’t want to get into it because I haven’t talked to Sean about whether he wants me to say anything publicly, as a lawyer I’d better not,” Limbaugh said, but added that he is “proud of my relationship with him.” Limbaugh said he had had nothing to do with anything related to the Schlussel matter.
A Fox News spokesperson didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.
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
|
|
