TO COMMENT CLICK HERE
Worthless Media
WELCOME TO WORTHLESS MEDIA WHERE THE FAILURE OF REAL JOURNALISM IS
EXPOSED
october 16, 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)
*FOX NEWS' LAURA INGRAHAM REDUCED TO TAKING 'BOTTOM FEEDER' ADS AS MAJOR ADVERTISERS STILL WON'T TOUCH HER SHOW
*Unhinged Tucker Carlson Compares Democratic Criticism of Brett Kavanaugh to Rwandan Genocide
*Fox News host compares Brett Kavanaugh to Jesus: 'Democrats decided to crucify someone yet again!'
*'Fox And Friends' Whitewashes NY Times Tax Fraud Story, Of Course
Fox News began the day by trying to protect Trump from the NY Times tax scheme story.
*Fox & Friends melts down over drunken bar brawl story: ‘Are we really going to tell Brett Kavanaugh not to become a Supreme Court justice?’
NYT reporter warned FBI in 2016 of suspicious Trump Organization contacts with Russia — but editor blocked his reporting
Travis Gettys - raw story
08 OCT 2018 AT 10:28 ET
A New York Times reporter alerted FBI investigators about suspicious computer communications between a Russian bank and a Trump Organization network — but the bureau appeared to lose interest and the newspaper buried his findings.
Cyber security experts found Alfa Bank computers were repeatedly looking up the address of a Trump server located in Lititz, Pennsylvania, nearly every day in the summer of 2016, and they showed the puzzling data to reporter Eric Lichtblau, reported The New Yorker.
Lichtblau, an experienced reporter on surveillance, data and national security, became increasingly convinced by computer scientists he spoke with that the data showed intentional and suspicious attempts to communicate — and not just random computer activity.
“Not only is there clearly something there but there’s clearly something that someone has gone to great lengths to conceal,” Lichblau told the magazine.
An attorney for one of the cybersecurity researchers alerted the FBI to their findings in September 2016, and investigators called Lichtblau to a meeting a few days later to discuss what he’d found.
A source briefed on the FBI investigation told The New Yorker the FBI had intelligence from informants suggesting a possible link between the Trump Organization and the Russian bank.
That source described the FBI investigation as highly important, and even “urgent” in the weeks ahead of the presidential election, but they asked Lichtblau to hold off on publishing his story out of fears it could jeopardize their work.
Dean Baquet, the Times’ executive editor, grew uneasy with reporting the Alfa Bank-Trump Organization contacts without knowing their purpose — and he argued with Lichtblau over publishing the findings as the election neared.
Lichtblau believed the public should know the FBI had opened a counterintelligence investigation into Russian contacts with Trump associates, but Baquet didn’t believe the reporting was strong enough to draw that conclusion.
The FBI eventually lost interest in the Alfa Bank connection, and one official told Lichtblau there could be an innocuous explanation for the thousands of contacts.
Lichtblau’s story finally ran Oct. 31, 2016, after Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid wrote a letter to James Comey, then FBI director, complaining the bureau was withholding information about possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.
However, the published article had no references to the computer scientists who concluded the Trump Organization and Alfa Bank may have been communicating, and the headline has gone down as one of the most infamous in Times history: “Investigating Donald Trump, F.B.I. Sees No Clear Link to Russia.”
“We were saying that the investigation was basically over — and it was just beginning,” Lichtblau said.
Cyber security experts found Alfa Bank computers were repeatedly looking up the address of a Trump server located in Lititz, Pennsylvania, nearly every day in the summer of 2016, and they showed the puzzling data to reporter Eric Lichtblau, reported The New Yorker.
Lichtblau, an experienced reporter on surveillance, data and national security, became increasingly convinced by computer scientists he spoke with that the data showed intentional and suspicious attempts to communicate — and not just random computer activity.
“Not only is there clearly something there but there’s clearly something that someone has gone to great lengths to conceal,” Lichblau told the magazine.
An attorney for one of the cybersecurity researchers alerted the FBI to their findings in September 2016, and investigators called Lichtblau to a meeting a few days later to discuss what he’d found.
A source briefed on the FBI investigation told The New Yorker the FBI had intelligence from informants suggesting a possible link between the Trump Organization and the Russian bank.
That source described the FBI investigation as highly important, and even “urgent” in the weeks ahead of the presidential election, but they asked Lichtblau to hold off on publishing his story out of fears it could jeopardize their work.
Dean Baquet, the Times’ executive editor, grew uneasy with reporting the Alfa Bank-Trump Organization contacts without knowing their purpose — and he argued with Lichtblau over publishing the findings as the election neared.
Lichtblau believed the public should know the FBI had opened a counterintelligence investigation into Russian contacts with Trump associates, but Baquet didn’t believe the reporting was strong enough to draw that conclusion.
The FBI eventually lost interest in the Alfa Bank connection, and one official told Lichtblau there could be an innocuous explanation for the thousands of contacts.
Lichtblau’s story finally ran Oct. 31, 2016, after Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid wrote a letter to James Comey, then FBI director, complaining the bureau was withholding information about possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.
However, the published article had no references to the computer scientists who concluded the Trump Organization and Alfa Bank may have been communicating, and the headline has gone down as one of the most infamous in Times history: “Investigating Donald Trump, F.B.I. Sees No Clear Link to Russia.”
“We were saying that the investigation was basically over — and it was just beginning,” Lichtblau said.
Fox News is turning Brett Kavanaugh into a symbol of white grievance
Fox News exploiting Kavanaugh conflict to tell white people they’re the real victims of racist oppression
AMANDA MARCOTTE - salon
OCTOBER 5, 2018 11:00AM (UTC)
The political fight over whether to seat Brett Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court -- a man who has been accused of sexual assault and was nominated by a man who has bragged about sexual assault -- seems, to most people anyway, to be a fight primarily about gender. But if you flip on Fox News these days, you would think this battle is largely about race, and that white men are being subject to false rape allegations to perpetuate some kind of anti-white oppression — an inverse of the way false rape accusations were used as pretext for lynching black men in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
(In fact, Rich Lowry of the National Review was depraved enough to make that implicit argument explicit.)
Tucker Carlson, edging his show ever toward overt white nationalist rhetoric, argued on Monday night that criticisms of Kavanaugh and the power systems that hold him up are a form of "genocide" against white people.
"You might wonder what in the world this story, the Kavanaugh story, has to do with race," Carlson said, before arguing that the real agenda here was about "punishing everyone who looks like Brett Kavanaugh," as opposed, perhaps, to holding abusive men accountable for their behavior.
Variations of the anti-white racism charge have echoed through Fox News coverage in recent days. Martha MacCallum wondered if Kavanaugh should say he's "not guilty just because I am a white guy," which completely overlooks that the actual argument against him is based on corroborating evidence and the lies he told under oath. Ben Shapiro later announced that "white men are presumed guilty because they are white men," which ignores not just all the evidence against Kavanaugh and his false statements to the Senate, but also the fact that Kavanaugh was given a Senate hearing to defend himself and allowed to speak after his accuser.
All of these folks were likely following Ann Coulter's lead. Even before the Senate hearing in which Christine Blasey Ford testified against Kavanaugh, Coulter appeared on Carlson's show to deliver a rant about how the term "white privilege" meant that "any white male can be accused with an evidence-free accusation like this," and appeared to equate being accused of something with being found guilty.
"I thought it was weird that she explicitly threw the race piece in there," Angelo Carusone of Media Matters told Salon. "Why not just say this can happen to any man or any person?" he wondered. Since then, Carusone said, he has concluded that Fox News is deliberately racializing this issue because the network sees "as an opportunity to rally white people."
To be clear, there's no doubt that race — as well as class, education, wealth and family connections — has always been a part of this story. Many commentators have written and discussed the way that Kavanaugh's life growing up surrounded by immense privilege shielded him from all sorts of consequences for misbehavior. But that makes the race angle Fox is peddling even harder to swallow, since the kind of privilege that Kavanaugh enjoyed is rare even among white men, only a handful of whom are positioned to attend fancy prep schools and gain legacy admission to an Ivy League college.
But Carlson in particular is embracing the opportunity to use Kavanaugh's skin color to convince white middle-class and working-class Americans to align themselves with the moneyed elite against people of color whose economic interests they share. Carlson was even shameless enough to characterize a crowd that booed Sen. Lindsey Graham for his defense of Donald Trump as waging a revolution"against the working class." Is the working class defined by the skin color or by socioeconomic status? (This should hardly need saying, but people of color are more likely to be working-class than white people.)
This strategy of channeling the resentment many men feel at women who challenge male privilege and abuses, and using it to lure those men toward racism or overt white nationalism views is something Fox News learned from the alt-right's online organizing. As groups like the Anti-Defamation League have chronicled, white nationalists have effectively used online forums where men gather to complain about feminism as hunting grounds for recruitment.
"One of the most powerful inspirations to violent misogyny across all of these movements – alt right, MRA, incel – is the baseless charge that white men are victims who are falling prey to feminism, changing social norms, progressive thought and politics," the Anti-Defamation League report explains.
Such men might be drawn to forums because they want to bash anti-rape activists or complain about sexual harassment policies at work. But once they get there, they're ready for the message that white women are in cahoots with people of color to seize control and subject white men to oppression.
Carlson and other Fox News personalities are playing the same game: They're using anti-feminist rhetoric to open the door to the kind of racist rhetoric being peddled by the likes of David Duke and the KKK. White people are being oppressed by many sinister forces, the argument holds, and racial diversity is a mask for the supposed genocide of white people.
Carusone perceives an ideological agenda on here — Trump is a semi-overt racist (although he denies that specific label) and Fox News has an interest in keeping his views in the political mainstream — but also a financial one.
Fox News needs "that younger audience," Carusone said, because the network's audience, with an average age of 68, is about eight years older than the typical cable-news viewer. Fox News is having some problems with advertising, and has openly yearned to attract more eyeballs among the 18-to-45 crowd that advertisers crave. Fox Nation, an online service that still hasn't launched, is clearly one effort to grab that crowd. But another is to shifting the rhetoric on Fox News itself to more closely mirror the racist, paranoid nonsense being eagerly gobbled up by the young men who flood places like 4chan, Reddit and 8chan and decorate their social media avatars with the Pepe the Frog avatar.
Fox News, Carusone argued, increasingly sees "the alt-right Periscope channels and YouTube channels that really speak to the audience of young men" as their principal competition. That crowd isn't interested "the 30 or 40 minutes of standard right-wing stuff" normally seen on Fox News, he continued, but wants "vicious attacks and conspiracy theories" of the kind they often encounter online. Carusone notes that, along with the "white genocide" rhetoric, Fox News has also shilled for a conspiracy theory that has lately bubbled up in the 8chan and Reddit swamp: the proposition that Christine Blasey Ford has had false memories implanted.
The forces of online organizing behind white nationalism and other fringe, fascist-flavored ideologies have already had a significant impact on younger people. PRRI research indicates that while most young Americans are politically to the left of their elders, young white men, no doubt influenced by far-right online culture, increasingly reject the existence of actual racism and sexism and believe instead that white men are the true victims of oppression. Carusone expressed concern that seeing such views "featured front and center at one of the most prominent news channels" will offer the apparent imprimatur of mainstream acceptability, and encourage the existing audience to become even more overtly racist than it is already.
The constant drumbeat of news items about President Trump's racist remarks or Tucker Carlson's latest flirtation with white nationalism can be numbing, but the grim reality is that this situation is getting worse all the time. Fox News has seized on the increased coverage stemming from the Kavanaugh showdown to push claims that used to be entirely disreputable even on the right. That suggests the network is determined to tie the Republican Party's to Trumpism and define racial grievance as its core ideology.
RELATED: Megyn Kelly’s NBC staffers can’t wait for her to leave: report
According to an insider at NBC, host Megyn Kelly is wearing out her welcome at the network having cashed in on a big contract after leaving Fox News following the Roger Ailes sexual harassment scandal.
(In fact, Rich Lowry of the National Review was depraved enough to make that implicit argument explicit.)
Tucker Carlson, edging his show ever toward overt white nationalist rhetoric, argued on Monday night that criticisms of Kavanaugh and the power systems that hold him up are a form of "genocide" against white people.
"You might wonder what in the world this story, the Kavanaugh story, has to do with race," Carlson said, before arguing that the real agenda here was about "punishing everyone who looks like Brett Kavanaugh," as opposed, perhaps, to holding abusive men accountable for their behavior.
Variations of the anti-white racism charge have echoed through Fox News coverage in recent days. Martha MacCallum wondered if Kavanaugh should say he's "not guilty just because I am a white guy," which completely overlooks that the actual argument against him is based on corroborating evidence and the lies he told under oath. Ben Shapiro later announced that "white men are presumed guilty because they are white men," which ignores not just all the evidence against Kavanaugh and his false statements to the Senate, but also the fact that Kavanaugh was given a Senate hearing to defend himself and allowed to speak after his accuser.
All of these folks were likely following Ann Coulter's lead. Even before the Senate hearing in which Christine Blasey Ford testified against Kavanaugh, Coulter appeared on Carlson's show to deliver a rant about how the term "white privilege" meant that "any white male can be accused with an evidence-free accusation like this," and appeared to equate being accused of something with being found guilty.
"I thought it was weird that she explicitly threw the race piece in there," Angelo Carusone of Media Matters told Salon. "Why not just say this can happen to any man or any person?" he wondered. Since then, Carusone said, he has concluded that Fox News is deliberately racializing this issue because the network sees "as an opportunity to rally white people."
To be clear, there's no doubt that race — as well as class, education, wealth and family connections — has always been a part of this story. Many commentators have written and discussed the way that Kavanaugh's life growing up surrounded by immense privilege shielded him from all sorts of consequences for misbehavior. But that makes the race angle Fox is peddling even harder to swallow, since the kind of privilege that Kavanaugh enjoyed is rare even among white men, only a handful of whom are positioned to attend fancy prep schools and gain legacy admission to an Ivy League college.
But Carlson in particular is embracing the opportunity to use Kavanaugh's skin color to convince white middle-class and working-class Americans to align themselves with the moneyed elite against people of color whose economic interests they share. Carlson was even shameless enough to characterize a crowd that booed Sen. Lindsey Graham for his defense of Donald Trump as waging a revolution"against the working class." Is the working class defined by the skin color or by socioeconomic status? (This should hardly need saying, but people of color are more likely to be working-class than white people.)
This strategy of channeling the resentment many men feel at women who challenge male privilege and abuses, and using it to lure those men toward racism or overt white nationalism views is something Fox News learned from the alt-right's online organizing. As groups like the Anti-Defamation League have chronicled, white nationalists have effectively used online forums where men gather to complain about feminism as hunting grounds for recruitment.
"One of the most powerful inspirations to violent misogyny across all of these movements – alt right, MRA, incel – is the baseless charge that white men are victims who are falling prey to feminism, changing social norms, progressive thought and politics," the Anti-Defamation League report explains.
Such men might be drawn to forums because they want to bash anti-rape activists or complain about sexual harassment policies at work. But once they get there, they're ready for the message that white women are in cahoots with people of color to seize control and subject white men to oppression.
Carlson and other Fox News personalities are playing the same game: They're using anti-feminist rhetoric to open the door to the kind of racist rhetoric being peddled by the likes of David Duke and the KKK. White people are being oppressed by many sinister forces, the argument holds, and racial diversity is a mask for the supposed genocide of white people.
Carusone perceives an ideological agenda on here — Trump is a semi-overt racist (although he denies that specific label) and Fox News has an interest in keeping his views in the political mainstream — but also a financial one.
Fox News needs "that younger audience," Carusone said, because the network's audience, with an average age of 68, is about eight years older than the typical cable-news viewer. Fox News is having some problems with advertising, and has openly yearned to attract more eyeballs among the 18-to-45 crowd that advertisers crave. Fox Nation, an online service that still hasn't launched, is clearly one effort to grab that crowd. But another is to shifting the rhetoric on Fox News itself to more closely mirror the racist, paranoid nonsense being eagerly gobbled up by the young men who flood places like 4chan, Reddit and 8chan and decorate their social media avatars with the Pepe the Frog avatar.
Fox News, Carusone argued, increasingly sees "the alt-right Periscope channels and YouTube channels that really speak to the audience of young men" as their principal competition. That crowd isn't interested "the 30 or 40 minutes of standard right-wing stuff" normally seen on Fox News, he continued, but wants "vicious attacks and conspiracy theories" of the kind they often encounter online. Carusone notes that, along with the "white genocide" rhetoric, Fox News has also shilled for a conspiracy theory that has lately bubbled up in the 8chan and Reddit swamp: the proposition that Christine Blasey Ford has had false memories implanted.
The forces of online organizing behind white nationalism and other fringe, fascist-flavored ideologies have already had a significant impact on younger people. PRRI research indicates that while most young Americans are politically to the left of their elders, young white men, no doubt influenced by far-right online culture, increasingly reject the existence of actual racism and sexism and believe instead that white men are the true victims of oppression. Carusone expressed concern that seeing such views "featured front and center at one of the most prominent news channels" will offer the apparent imprimatur of mainstream acceptability, and encourage the existing audience to become even more overtly racist than it is already.
The constant drumbeat of news items about President Trump's racist remarks or Tucker Carlson's latest flirtation with white nationalism can be numbing, but the grim reality is that this situation is getting worse all the time. Fox News has seized on the increased coverage stemming from the Kavanaugh showdown to push claims that used to be entirely disreputable even on the right. That suggests the network is determined to tie the Republican Party's to Trumpism and define racial grievance as its core ideology.
RELATED: Megyn Kelly’s NBC staffers can’t wait for her to leave: report
According to an insider at NBC, host Megyn Kelly is wearing out her welcome at the network having cashed in on a big contract after leaving Fox News following the Roger Ailes sexual harassment scandal.
Climate Change Is a Major Midterm Issue. Corporate Media Are Ignoring It.
BY
Dahr Jamail Truthout
PUBLISHED
October 3, 2018
Recent polling shows that 73 percent of voters believe climate change is occurring, while 57 percent of voters understand it is caused by human activity.
These poll numbers are surprising, given the context of an overall lack of adequate reportage of climate change in the corporate media.
With midterm elections nearing, the fact that most US citizens now understand that climate change is happening — and more than half of them know it is human-caused – means that climate may increasingly be a major issue for voters.
A growing number of both Republican and Democratic representatives (90 thus far) have already joined the Climate Solutions Caucus, “a bipartisan group in the US House of Representatives which will explore policy options that address the impacts, causes, and challenges of our changing climate,” according to their website.
Media watchdog group Media Matters released a report recently showing that, from an analysis of 17 debates in competitive Senate and governors’ races this year, only one of them has included a question related to climate change.
This is a far worse tally than the Media Matters analysis for the 2016 races, in which less than one-quarter of the debates featured a climate change question.
This ignorance, dismissal and devaluing of the largest global threat to the human species is occurring against the backdrop of increasingly expensive disasters: 2017 saw climate and extreme weather disasters costing the US at least $306 billion, an all-time record.
Moreover, the recent Media Matters analysis reveals a stunning lack of concern about climate change in states that are at risk of being impacted by it the most severely.
For example, in Alaska — which is at risk from warmer temperatures, coastal flooding and erosion, wildfires and thawing permafrost — there have been two gubernatorial debates analyzed by Media Matters and not a single question about climate change was asked.
Connecticut, which is at risk from coastal and inland flooding, has had three gubernatorial debates, without a single climate change question.
The same is true for Kansas, which is at risk from drought, increasing tornadoes, extreme heat, crop failure and inland flooding; and Maine, which is at risk from coastal and inland flooding, as well as extreme heat and drought.
Rhode Island, which is at risk from coastal flooding, extreme heat, sea level rise and inland flooding, had no climate change questions asked during a gubernatorial debate. The same is true for Texas, which faces extreme heat, increasing hurricanes, drought, wildfires, and coastal and inland flooding.
Thus far, the one instance where climate change was brought into the debate was during a gubernatorial race debate in Minnesota, which is at risk from drought and extreme heat.
This lack of attention to climate change is particularly worrisome in states where the climate impacts are already severe and obvious.
For example, the gubernatorial debate in New Mexico, which is already suffering from lack of adequate water, drought, wildfires and extreme heat, saw no questions about climate change.
These poll numbers are surprising, given the context of an overall lack of adequate reportage of climate change in the corporate media.
With midterm elections nearing, the fact that most US citizens now understand that climate change is happening — and more than half of them know it is human-caused – means that climate may increasingly be a major issue for voters.
A growing number of both Republican and Democratic representatives (90 thus far) have already joined the Climate Solutions Caucus, “a bipartisan group in the US House of Representatives which will explore policy options that address the impacts, causes, and challenges of our changing climate,” according to their website.
Media watchdog group Media Matters released a report recently showing that, from an analysis of 17 debates in competitive Senate and governors’ races this year, only one of them has included a question related to climate change.
This is a far worse tally than the Media Matters analysis for the 2016 races, in which less than one-quarter of the debates featured a climate change question.
This ignorance, dismissal and devaluing of the largest global threat to the human species is occurring against the backdrop of increasingly expensive disasters: 2017 saw climate and extreme weather disasters costing the US at least $306 billion, an all-time record.
Moreover, the recent Media Matters analysis reveals a stunning lack of concern about climate change in states that are at risk of being impacted by it the most severely.
For example, in Alaska — which is at risk from warmer temperatures, coastal flooding and erosion, wildfires and thawing permafrost — there have been two gubernatorial debates analyzed by Media Matters and not a single question about climate change was asked.
Connecticut, which is at risk from coastal and inland flooding, has had three gubernatorial debates, without a single climate change question.
The same is true for Kansas, which is at risk from drought, increasing tornadoes, extreme heat, crop failure and inland flooding; and Maine, which is at risk from coastal and inland flooding, as well as extreme heat and drought.
Rhode Island, which is at risk from coastal flooding, extreme heat, sea level rise and inland flooding, had no climate change questions asked during a gubernatorial debate. The same is true for Texas, which faces extreme heat, increasing hurricanes, drought, wildfires, and coastal and inland flooding.
Thus far, the one instance where climate change was brought into the debate was during a gubernatorial race debate in Minnesota, which is at risk from drought and extreme heat.
This lack of attention to climate change is particularly worrisome in states where the climate impacts are already severe and obvious.
For example, the gubernatorial debate in New Mexico, which is already suffering from lack of adequate water, drought, wildfires and extreme heat, saw no questions about climate change.
Washington Times settles lawsuit with Seth Rich's brother, retracts conspiracy editorial
BY JOE CONCHA - the hill
10/01/18 08:30 AM EDT
The Washington Times on Sunday issued a retraction and apology as part of a settlement over a story that included the brother of former Democratic National Committee staffer Seth Rich, whose murder in 2016 fueled political conspiracy theories.
Aaron Rich sued the right-leaning publication in March after it published an editorial that implied he and his brother had sent emails from Democratic National Committee servers and provided them to Wikileaks for cash.
The op-ed was titled “More cover-up questions: The curious murder of Seth Rich poses questions that just won’t stay under the official rug" and was written by retired Admiral James Lyons.
"The Column included statements about Aaron Rich, the brother of former Democratic National Committee staffer Seth Rich, that we now believe to be false," the Times writes in the retraction.
"One such statement was that: 'Interestingly, it is well known in the intelligence circles that Seth Rich and his brother, Aaron Rich, downloaded the DNC emails and was paid by Wikileaks for that information.' The Washington Times now does not have any basis to believe any part of that statement to be true, and The Washington Times retracts it in its entirety," it continues.
"The Column also stated: 'Also, why hasn’t Aaron Rich been interviewed [by law enforcement], and where is he?' The Washington Times understands that law enforcement officials have interviewed Mr. Rich and that he has cooperated with their investigation," it adds. "The Washington Times did not intend to imply that Mr. Rich has obstructed justice in any way, and The Washington Times retracts and disavows any such implication.
"The Washington Times apologizes to Mr. Rich and his family. All online copies of the Column have been deleted and all online content referencing the Column has been deleted to the extent within The Washington Times’ control," it notes in conclusion.
The retraction was part of the settlement between the 36-year-old paper and Aaron Rich, his attorney, Michael Gottlieb, told CNN. Terms of the settlement have not been disclosed.
Aaron Rich sued the right-leaning publication in March after it published an editorial that implied he and his brother had sent emails from Democratic National Committee servers and provided them to Wikileaks for cash.
The op-ed was titled “More cover-up questions: The curious murder of Seth Rich poses questions that just won’t stay under the official rug" and was written by retired Admiral James Lyons.
"The Column included statements about Aaron Rich, the brother of former Democratic National Committee staffer Seth Rich, that we now believe to be false," the Times writes in the retraction.
"One such statement was that: 'Interestingly, it is well known in the intelligence circles that Seth Rich and his brother, Aaron Rich, downloaded the DNC emails and was paid by Wikileaks for that information.' The Washington Times now does not have any basis to believe any part of that statement to be true, and The Washington Times retracts it in its entirety," it continues.
"The Column also stated: 'Also, why hasn’t Aaron Rich been interviewed [by law enforcement], and where is he?' The Washington Times understands that law enforcement officials have interviewed Mr. Rich and that he has cooperated with their investigation," it adds. "The Washington Times did not intend to imply that Mr. Rich has obstructed justice in any way, and The Washington Times retracts and disavows any such implication.
"The Washington Times apologizes to Mr. Rich and his family. All online copies of the Column have been deleted and all online content referencing the Column has been deleted to the extent within The Washington Times’ control," it notes in conclusion.
The retraction was part of the settlement between the 36-year-old paper and Aaron Rich, his attorney, Michael Gottlieb, told CNN. Terms of the settlement have not been disclosed.
Fox News goes all in on smearing Dr. Christine Blasey Ford
"She is a very sad woman."
AARON RUPAR - thinkprogress
SEP 28, 2018, 9:45 AM
On September 17, White House counselor Kellyanne Conway said that Dr. Christine Blasey Ford — who at that time had just come forward to say Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her — “should not be insulted, and she should not be ignored.”
Less than two weeks later, and following Dr. Ford’s public testimony about the alleged assault on Thursday, President Trump’s favorite TV channel is all in on discrediting her.
Guests on Thursday’s edition of Laura Ingraham’s show repeatedly teamed up with the host to smear Ford.
At one point, Ingraham mocked Ford as “a combination of Rosa Parks, Joan of Act — she was the heroine of all time.” Right-wing commentator Michelle Malkin responded by claiming that Ford’s “traumatic incident” — the assault she says Kavanaugh perpetrated against her — “seared a hole in her brain.”
At another point during Ingraham’s show, White House-connected lawyer Joe diGenova called Ford “a deeply troubled person. She has a history of psychological discord.”
“She went to the West Coast for one reason: She had so many problems in that school that they sent her away,” diGenova added. “She is a very sad woman.”
DiGenova also smeared Ford during an appearance on Lou Dobbs’ Fox Business show.
Along similar lines, on Sean Hannity’s show, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) claimed Ford “has a problem, and destroying Judge Kavanaugh’s life won’t fix her problem.”
On the Friday morning edition of Fox & Friends, host Brian Kilmeade criticized Ford for admitting she consulted with friends a few months ago about if and how she should come forward with her story.
Newt Gingrich joined the show and suggested that as a psychologist, Ford should understand that her own recollection of events isn’t necessarily true.
Later, Malkin joined and framed Ford’s allegation in the context of false rape accusations.
Graham, meanwhile, joined the show and continued to push a bizarre theory that Ford unequivocally shot down during her testimony on Thursday — that was she indeed assaulted, but is mistaken about the identity of the assailant.
Less than two weeks later, and following Dr. Ford’s public testimony about the alleged assault on Thursday, President Trump’s favorite TV channel is all in on discrediting her.
Guests on Thursday’s edition of Laura Ingraham’s show repeatedly teamed up with the host to smear Ford.
At one point, Ingraham mocked Ford as “a combination of Rosa Parks, Joan of Act — she was the heroine of all time.” Right-wing commentator Michelle Malkin responded by claiming that Ford’s “traumatic incident” — the assault she says Kavanaugh perpetrated against her — “seared a hole in her brain.”
At another point during Ingraham’s show, White House-connected lawyer Joe diGenova called Ford “a deeply troubled person. She has a history of psychological discord.”
“She went to the West Coast for one reason: She had so many problems in that school that they sent her away,” diGenova added. “She is a very sad woman.”
DiGenova also smeared Ford during an appearance on Lou Dobbs’ Fox Business show.
Along similar lines, on Sean Hannity’s show, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) claimed Ford “has a problem, and destroying Judge Kavanaugh’s life won’t fix her problem.”
On the Friday morning edition of Fox & Friends, host Brian Kilmeade criticized Ford for admitting she consulted with friends a few months ago about if and how she should come forward with her story.
Newt Gingrich joined the show and suggested that as a psychologist, Ford should understand that her own recollection of events isn’t necessarily true.
Later, Malkin joined and framed Ford’s allegation in the context of false rape accusations.
Graham, meanwhile, joined the show and continued to push a bizarre theory that Ford unequivocally shot down during her testimony on Thursday — that was she indeed assaulted, but is mistaken about the identity of the assailant.
Facebook’s blatant propaganda partnerships: This is defending democracy?
Facebook’s plan to fight fake news: a partnership with the political parties’ propaganda arms. What could be bad?
ALAN MACLEOD
SEPTEMBER 27, 2018 12:00PM (UTC)
Media giant Facebook recently announced (Reuters, 9/19/18) it would combat “fake news” by partnering with two propaganda organizations founded and funded by the U.S. government: the National Democratic Institute (NDI) and the International Republican Institute (IRI). The social media platform was already working closely with the NATO-sponsored Atlantic Council think tank (FAIR.org, 5/21/18).
In a previous FAIR article (8/22/18), I noted that the “fake news” issue was being used as a pretext to attack the left and progressive news sites. Changes to Facebook’s algorithm have reduced traffic significantly for progressive outlets like Common Dreams (5/3/18), while the pages of Venezuelan government–backed TeleSur English and the independent Venezuelanalysis were shut down without warning, and only reinstated after a public outcry.
The Washington–based NDI and IRI are staffed with senior Democratic and Republican politicians; the NDI is chaired by former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, while the late Sen. John McCain was the longtime IRI chair. Both groups were created in 1983 as arms of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), a Cold War enterprise backed by then–CIA director William Casey (Jacobin, 3/7/18). That these two U.S. government creations, along with a NATO offshoot like the Atlantic Council, are used by Facebook to distinguish real from fake news is effectively state censorship.
In a previous FAIR article (8/22/18), I noted that the “fake news” issue was being used as a pretext to attack the left and progressive news sites. Changes to Facebook’s algorithm have reduced traffic significantly for progressive outlets like Common Dreams (5/3/18), while the pages of Venezuelan government–backed TeleSur English and the independent Venezuelanalysis were shut down without warning, and only reinstated after a public outcry.
The Washington–based NDI and IRI are staffed with senior Democratic and Republican politicians; the NDI is chaired by former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, while the late Sen. John McCain was the longtime IRI chair. Both groups were created in 1983 as arms of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), a Cold War enterprise backed by then–CIA director William Casey (Jacobin, 3/7/18). That these two U.S. government creations, along with a NATO offshoot like the Atlantic Council, are used by Facebook to distinguish real from fake news is effectively state censorship.
TV networks are misinforming the public on climate change
And that's one reason we have a climate “spiral of silence.”
JOE ROMM - thinkprogress
SEP 25, 2018, 12:01 PM
The major television networks continue to downplay the role climate change plays in catastrophic superstorms like Florence, a new analysis finds.
That makes them complicit in the country’s ongoing failure to respond decisively to the gravest preventable threat we face today.
A new analysis by Media Matters for America looking at the TV coverage of Hurricane Florence from September 7 to 19 found that “ABC failed to air a single segment that mentioned the links between climate change and hurricanes like Florence.” NBC had one segment and CBS, two.
Of the three major cable channels, MSNBC aired four pieces on the climate-hurricane link, while CNN ran two. Fox News aired the most, six pieces, “but these either downplayed or outright dismissed the link between climate change and hurricanes.”
Overall TV coverage “was down from a year ago.” Most networks discussed the link between hurricanes and climate change in fewer stories than they did during last year’s Hurricane Harvey coverage.
But Florence was a storm that was supercharged by global warming in many of the same ways that Harvey was — more ocean heat to fuel the storm, higher sea levels to worsen the storm surge, and, perhaps most importantly, more atmospheric moisture and a stalled weather pattern leading to a devastating deluge followed by ferocious flooding.
This is just the kind of super-storm pattern that climate scientists have been predicting — and that the public needs to be informed about.
On top of that, for the first time a major study on the climate link to Hurricane Florence came out before the storm even made landfall. The authors of that September 12 analysis, “The human influence on Hurricane Florence,” found that human-caused global warming has supercharged the atmosphere so much that it boosted the very worst of the projected rainfall totals by more than 50 percent.
So the failure to clearly explain to the public that these storms are supercharged by global warming — and that worse is yet to come — is a dereliction of the basic duty of the media to inform the public.
The media’s failure is widespread. More than half of Americans say they do not hear about global warming in the media even once a month, according to an April survey of 1,278 adults by the climate change communication programs at Yale and George Mason University (GMU).
And this climate silence reinforces the dangerously wrong notion that climate change isn’t an existential threat that requires urgent action.
The result, according to an earlier Yale/GMU report, is a climate “spiral of silence” in which “even people who care about the issue, shy away from discussing it because they so infrequently hear other people talking about it — reinforcing the spiral.”
We urgently need a broad national conversation about the danger posed by unrestricted carbon pollution and the many climate solutions that are available today.
But until the media treats climate change with the seriousness the issue demands, such a conversation, let alone the kind of decisive action we need, seem as far away as ever.
That makes them complicit in the country’s ongoing failure to respond decisively to the gravest preventable threat we face today.
A new analysis by Media Matters for America looking at the TV coverage of Hurricane Florence from September 7 to 19 found that “ABC failed to air a single segment that mentioned the links between climate change and hurricanes like Florence.” NBC had one segment and CBS, two.
Of the three major cable channels, MSNBC aired four pieces on the climate-hurricane link, while CNN ran two. Fox News aired the most, six pieces, “but these either downplayed or outright dismissed the link between climate change and hurricanes.”
Overall TV coverage “was down from a year ago.” Most networks discussed the link between hurricanes and climate change in fewer stories than they did during last year’s Hurricane Harvey coverage.
But Florence was a storm that was supercharged by global warming in many of the same ways that Harvey was — more ocean heat to fuel the storm, higher sea levels to worsen the storm surge, and, perhaps most importantly, more atmospheric moisture and a stalled weather pattern leading to a devastating deluge followed by ferocious flooding.
This is just the kind of super-storm pattern that climate scientists have been predicting — and that the public needs to be informed about.
On top of that, for the first time a major study on the climate link to Hurricane Florence came out before the storm even made landfall. The authors of that September 12 analysis, “The human influence on Hurricane Florence,” found that human-caused global warming has supercharged the atmosphere so much that it boosted the very worst of the projected rainfall totals by more than 50 percent.
So the failure to clearly explain to the public that these storms are supercharged by global warming — and that worse is yet to come — is a dereliction of the basic duty of the media to inform the public.
The media’s failure is widespread. More than half of Americans say they do not hear about global warming in the media even once a month, according to an April survey of 1,278 adults by the climate change communication programs at Yale and George Mason University (GMU).
And this climate silence reinforces the dangerously wrong notion that climate change isn’t an existential threat that requires urgent action.
The result, according to an earlier Yale/GMU report, is a climate “spiral of silence” in which “even people who care about the issue, shy away from discussing it because they so infrequently hear other people talking about it — reinforcing the spiral.”
We urgently need a broad national conversation about the danger posed by unrestricted carbon pollution and the many climate solutions that are available today.
But until the media treats climate change with the seriousness the issue demands, such a conversation, let alone the kind of decisive action we need, seem as far away as ever.
Blasey Ford ‘Involved in Mind-Control Program,’ Says Dave Janda and His Obviously Reliable Sources
By Kyle Mantyla | right wing watch
September 24, 2018 1:47 pm
Right-wing radio host Dave Janda appeared on Greg Hunter’s “USA Watchdog” program last week, where he made several blockbuster revelations, all based on the word of his variety of trustworthy “sources.”
Janda regularly relies on his unnamed “sources” to bolster the unsubstantiated claims that he puts forth and did so repeatedly on Hunter’s program last week, asserting that Christine Blasey Ford, who has accused Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault, is a CIA asset, that classified text messages from FBI agents Peter Strzok and Lisa Page contained violent threats against President Trump, that military tribunals are already operational against those who have been working to undermine Trump, and that Barack Obama personally met with Trump in an effort to “cut a deal” in order to avoid prosecution.
“Two of my sources has said, ‘Yes, this is correct,'” Janda asserted. “There is this information out there that [Blasey Ford] has worked as a CIA contractor in the past and possibly even in the present [and] reportedly was involved in the mind control program.”
“When I spoke to my sources about threats of violence in these texts,” he said later in the program, “they confirmed it, they said that there is significant harm directed at Trump in these texts … I was told that there was violence that was directed toward Trump.”
“I have been told that military tribunals are not just going to happen, they have been in place and they have been operational, is the word I was told,” Janda claimed at another point in the interview. “And what I was also told is that this declassification will ultimately lead to the Attorney General Jeff Session to—at least on a partial basis, if not a complete basis—to unrecuse himself.”
“I have one source that told me that Obama had reached out to Trump about a meeting and that the meeting did not go well for Obama,” Janda also asserted. “It was my understanding that Obama had reached out to Trump, this is what I was told, and was trying to … cut a deal and that Trump is firmly in the camp of the restitution of the rule of law, no matter who it involves.”
Janda regularly relies on his unnamed “sources” to bolster the unsubstantiated claims that he puts forth and did so repeatedly on Hunter’s program last week, asserting that Christine Blasey Ford, who has accused Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault, is a CIA asset, that classified text messages from FBI agents Peter Strzok and Lisa Page contained violent threats against President Trump, that military tribunals are already operational against those who have been working to undermine Trump, and that Barack Obama personally met with Trump in an effort to “cut a deal” in order to avoid prosecution.
“Two of my sources has said, ‘Yes, this is correct,'” Janda asserted. “There is this information out there that [Blasey Ford] has worked as a CIA contractor in the past and possibly even in the present [and] reportedly was involved in the mind control program.”
“When I spoke to my sources about threats of violence in these texts,” he said later in the program, “they confirmed it, they said that there is significant harm directed at Trump in these texts … I was told that there was violence that was directed toward Trump.”
“I have been told that military tribunals are not just going to happen, they have been in place and they have been operational, is the word I was told,” Janda claimed at another point in the interview. “And what I was also told is that this declassification will ultimately lead to the Attorney General Jeff Session to—at least on a partial basis, if not a complete basis—to unrecuse himself.”
“I have one source that told me that Obama had reached out to Trump about a meeting and that the meeting did not go well for Obama,” Janda also asserted. “It was my understanding that Obama had reached out to Trump, this is what I was told, and was trying to … cut a deal and that Trump is firmly in the camp of the restitution of the rule of law, no matter who it involves.”
FACEBOOK SUPPRESSED A STORY ABOUT BRETT KAVANAUGH’S OPPOSITION TO ROE V. WADE. WE’RE REPUBLISHING IT.
Ian Millhiser, Betsy Reed - the intercept
September 14 2018, 9:54 a.m.
SUPREME COURT NOMINEE Brett Kavanaugh needs to give Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) plausible deniability regarding his anti-abortion views. Collins, who is nominally pro-choice, said shortly before Kavanaugh’s nomination that a Supreme Court nominee “who would overturn Roe v. Wade would not be acceptable to me.” But she’s spent much of the time since his nomination looking for excuses to claim that Kavanaugh’s views on Roe are uncertain.
Well, they aren’t. Even before Kavanaugh became a Supreme Court nominee, his record indicated fairly clearly that he opposes Roe. And he cleared up any remaining doubt on the second day of his confirmation hearing — despite the fact that almost no one noticed.
Even before his hearing, Kavanaugh’s views on abortion weren’t exactly a state secret. He gave a speech to a conservative think tank in 2017 praising Justice William Rehnquist’s dissent in Roe v. Wade, and he wrote an opinion arguing that the Trump administration could temporarily imprison undocumented women who were seeking an abortion.
Kavanaugh’s 2017 speech, when laid alongside a statement he made during his confirmation hearing, eliminates any doubt that he opposes Roe.
The judge made this statement during an exchange with Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) regarding “the foundations of the unenumerated rights doctrine.” The term “unenumerated rights” refers to rights, such as the right to an abortion, which are not explicitly named in the Constitution’s text, but which the Supreme Court has held to be implicit in that text.
According to Kavanaugh, “all roads lead to the Glucksberg test as the test that the Supreme Court has settled on as the proper test” to determine the scope of these unenumerated rights.
“Glucksberg” means Washington v. Glucksberg, a 1997 Supreme Court decision holding that the Constitution does not protect a right to physician-assisted suicide. According to Chief Justice Rehnquist’s opinion for the Court in Glucksberg, the question of which unenumerated rights are protected by the Constitution should be answered by asking which rights are “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.”
We don’t have to guess, however, whether Judge Kavanaugh thinks that a constitutional right to abortion is grounded in this Glucksberg test, because he’s already answered that question. As law professor Jim Oleske points out on Twitter, Kavanaugh said in his 2017 speech to the conservative American Enterprise Institute that “even a first-year law student could tell you that the Glucksberg’s approach to unenumerated rights was not consistent with the approach of the abortion cases such as Roe vs. Wade in 1973, as well as the 1992 decision reaffirming Roe, known as Planned Parenthood vs. Casey.”
So, to spell this all out, Kavanaugh believes that the way to determine whether the Constitution protects a particular unenumerated right is to apply the test the Supreme Court laid out in Glucksberg. And the judge also thinks that “even a first-year law student could tell you” that Roe is inconsistent with Glucksberg.
It doesn’t take the brains of a fourth-term United States senator from Maine to figure out what this means if Kavanaugh is confirmed. Judge Kavanaugh will be the fifth vote to kill Roe if he joins the nation’s highest Court.
For what it’s worth, Kavanaugh’s statement that “all roads lead to the Glucksbergtest as the test that the Supreme Court has settled on as the proper test” is incorrect. As law professor Jamal Greene first pointed out on Twitter, Glucksbergwas “explicitly disavowed in Obergefell,” the Supreme Court’s 2015 marriage equality decision.
According to Obergefell, Glucksberg “is inconsistent with the approach this Court has used in discussing other fundamental rights, including marriage and intimacy.”
Kavanaugh’s apparent endorsement of Glucksberg as the sole test for determining unenumerated rights, in other words, threatens a whole lot more than the right to an abortion. It also suggests that he believes that a wide range of Supreme Court decisions governing sex, romantic relationships, and intimacy were wrongly decided.
Judge Kavanaugh appears to be telegraphing his belief that Roe, Obergefell, and the Supreme Court’s decision in Lawrence v. Texas, which provides that the government cannot prosecute consenting adults for having sex, were not correctly decided.
Well, they aren’t. Even before Kavanaugh became a Supreme Court nominee, his record indicated fairly clearly that he opposes Roe. And he cleared up any remaining doubt on the second day of his confirmation hearing — despite the fact that almost no one noticed.
Even before his hearing, Kavanaugh’s views on abortion weren’t exactly a state secret. He gave a speech to a conservative think tank in 2017 praising Justice William Rehnquist’s dissent in Roe v. Wade, and he wrote an opinion arguing that the Trump administration could temporarily imprison undocumented women who were seeking an abortion.
Kavanaugh’s 2017 speech, when laid alongside a statement he made during his confirmation hearing, eliminates any doubt that he opposes Roe.
The judge made this statement during an exchange with Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) regarding “the foundations of the unenumerated rights doctrine.” The term “unenumerated rights” refers to rights, such as the right to an abortion, which are not explicitly named in the Constitution’s text, but which the Supreme Court has held to be implicit in that text.
According to Kavanaugh, “all roads lead to the Glucksberg test as the test that the Supreme Court has settled on as the proper test” to determine the scope of these unenumerated rights.
“Glucksberg” means Washington v. Glucksberg, a 1997 Supreme Court decision holding that the Constitution does not protect a right to physician-assisted suicide. According to Chief Justice Rehnquist’s opinion for the Court in Glucksberg, the question of which unenumerated rights are protected by the Constitution should be answered by asking which rights are “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.”
We don’t have to guess, however, whether Judge Kavanaugh thinks that a constitutional right to abortion is grounded in this Glucksberg test, because he’s already answered that question. As law professor Jim Oleske points out on Twitter, Kavanaugh said in his 2017 speech to the conservative American Enterprise Institute that “even a first-year law student could tell you that the Glucksberg’s approach to unenumerated rights was not consistent with the approach of the abortion cases such as Roe vs. Wade in 1973, as well as the 1992 decision reaffirming Roe, known as Planned Parenthood vs. Casey.”
So, to spell this all out, Kavanaugh believes that the way to determine whether the Constitution protects a particular unenumerated right is to apply the test the Supreme Court laid out in Glucksberg. And the judge also thinks that “even a first-year law student could tell you” that Roe is inconsistent with Glucksberg.
It doesn’t take the brains of a fourth-term United States senator from Maine to figure out what this means if Kavanaugh is confirmed. Judge Kavanaugh will be the fifth vote to kill Roe if he joins the nation’s highest Court.
For what it’s worth, Kavanaugh’s statement that “all roads lead to the Glucksbergtest as the test that the Supreme Court has settled on as the proper test” is incorrect. As law professor Jamal Greene first pointed out on Twitter, Glucksbergwas “explicitly disavowed in Obergefell,” the Supreme Court’s 2015 marriage equality decision.
According to Obergefell, Glucksberg “is inconsistent with the approach this Court has used in discussing other fundamental rights, including marriage and intimacy.”
Kavanaugh’s apparent endorsement of Glucksberg as the sole test for determining unenumerated rights, in other words, threatens a whole lot more than the right to an abortion. It also suggests that he believes that a wide range of Supreme Court decisions governing sex, romantic relationships, and intimacy were wrongly decided.
Judge Kavanaugh appears to be telegraphing his belief that Roe, Obergefell, and the Supreme Court’s decision in Lawrence v. Texas, which provides that the government cannot prosecute consenting adults for having sex, were not correctly decided.
Brett Kavanaugh may have perjured himself — but mainstream media doesn’t want to talk about it
There’s a legitimate argument that Kavanaugh lied under oath in 2004 and 2006. Major outlets are ducking the issue
JUSTIN ANDERSON - salon
SEPTEMBER 14, 2018 11:00AM (UTC)
Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh was subject to a wringer of testy Senate confirmation hearings last week. The current D.C. Circuit Court judge has come under fire from Democrats on the Judiciary Committee for his stances against the landmark pro-abortion decision Roe v. Wade, affirmative action and programs for Native Hawaiians, as well as his support for torture.
But some Democrats have also said that Kavanaugh lied under oath in both current and past hearings, and groups like Free Speech for People, Demand Justice, MoveOn and NARAL Pro-Choice America have all advocated perjury probes against him. However, these serious allegations of perjury have received sparse coverage from establishment media outlets like the New York Times, Washington Post, CNN and NPR.
Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy noted that while Kavanaugh was working in the Bush administration as White House staff secretary in 2004, he received thousands of stolen documents that were circulated by Manuel Miranda, a GOP Senate staffer, which revealed Democratic opposition strategies and questions to be asked of Bush judicial nominees. Leahy offered examples of his own stolen emails as proof. In Judiciary Committee hearings in 2004 and 2006, Kavanaugh denied under oath that he knew the documents were stolen, even though one of the email chains he was copied on was titled “spying.”
In the 2004 hearing, Kavanaugh also denied under oath that he “personally handled” the nomination of controversial anti-abortion judge William Pryor to the D.C. Circuit Court, although emails from 2002 and 2003 say otherwise.
Sharpening these allegations is the fact that Kavanaugh himself has in the past supported strict interpretations of perjury. While working as an attorney for independent counsel Ken Starr in 1998, Kavanaugh urged that President Bill Clinton be impeached for perjury over his role in the Monica Lewinsky sex scandal. Kavanaugh authored a memo to the other Starr attorneys that pushed for a civil suit for perjury against Clinton, suggesting graphic questioning of Lewinsky as well.
Many outlets, such as Slate (9/7/18), Vox (9/6/18, 9/7/18), the Daily News (9/6/18), Politico (9/7/19), the Nation (9/10/18), Common Dreams (9/10/18), Newsweek (9/8/18), the Daily Beast (9/7/18), Mic (9/10/18), Media Matters (9/6/18), Rewire (9/10/18) and Salon (9/8/18) — mostly on the liberal or left end of the media spectrum — have addressed the recent perjury allegations against Kavanaugh in depth. By contrast, as of today, establishment outlets like the New York Times, CNN, the Washington Post and NPR have been quite cagey about the issue.
While the Times editorial board came out against Kavanaugh’s confirmation, the paper has avoided fully addressing Kavanaugh’s potential perjury charges (although columnist Michelle Goldberg did highlight his lies under oath in an op-ed, and an article by Nicholas Fandos mentioned it in passing). This is odd, considering that the Times recently looked back at Kavanaugh’s role in pushing for perjury charges in the Starr investigation and has covered the scandal regarding the stolen Democratic documents in the past.
On Sept. 7, CNN analyst John Avalon dismissed the hacking allegations by Sen. Leahy as “baggage” and “ancient history.” Two days later, Jake Tapper did attempt to address Kavanaugh’s allegations of perjury on CNN, but instead of reporting on the intricacies of the issue, he invited on Republican Sen. Ben Sasse, who obviously defended Kavanaugh
The Washington Post (9/5/18, 9/7/18) reexamined the document theft scandal and the recently released memo on the matter by Kavanaugh, but not in the context of potential perjury charges. Otherwise, the paper has been silent on the issue. Likewise, the Post’s Aaron Blake reviewed the issue of whether Kavanaugh lied about his involvement in the Pryor nomination, but without using the words “lie” or “perjury” — instead gently suggesting that the story may “require some explaining by Kavanaugh.”
As FAIR associate Sam Husseini pointed out, in a recent NPR interview with Ken Starr, Morning Edition host Steve Inskeep declined to press the former independent counsel on Kavanaugh’s perjury allegations. Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court nomination wasn’t even brought up at all in the interview.
Whether the perjury allegations against Kavanaugh turn out to have legal basis or not, such accusations against a Supreme Court nominee deserve at least one article with a thorough examination of the issue in establishment media sources like the New York Times, Washington Post, CNN and NPR. This is especially true when the nominee threatens to shift the ideological balance of the court for decades.
Facebook’s collaboration with the NED organizations is particularly troubling, as both have aggressively pursued regime change against leftist governments overseas. The NDI undermined the Sandinista government of Nicaragua in the 1980s, and continues to do so to this day, while the IRI claimed a key role in the 2002 coup against leftist President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela, announcing that it had
served as a bridge between the nation’s political parties and all civil society groups to help Venezuelans forge a new democratic future…. We stand ready to continue our partnership with the courageous Venezuelan people.
The Reuters report on Sept. 19 mentioned that Facebook was anxious to better curate what Brazilians saw on their feeds in the run-up to their presidential elections, which pits far-right Jair Bolsonaro against leftist Fernando Haddad. The U.S. government has a long history of undermining democracy in Brazil, from supporting a coup in 1964 against the progressive Goulart administration to continually spying on leftist President Dilma Rousseff (BBC, 7/4/15) in the run-up to the parliamentary coup against her in 2016 (CounterSpin, 6/2/17).
Soon after it partnered with the Atlantic Council, Facebook moved to delete accounts and pages connected with Iranian broadcasting channels (CNBC, 8/23/18), while The Intercept (12/30/17) reported that in 2017 the social media platform met with Israeli government officials to discuss which Palestinian voices it should censor. Ninety-five percent of Israeli government requests for deletion were granted. Thus the U.S. government and its allies are effectively using the platform to silence dissenting opinion, both at home and on the world stage, controlling what Facebook‘s 2 billion users see and do not see.
Progressives should be deeply skeptical that these moves have anything to do with their stated objective of promoting democracy. Bloomberg Businessweek (9/29/17) reported that the far-right Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) party went to Facebook headquarters for discussions with U.S. companies about how it could use the platform for recruitment and micro-targeting in the 2017 elections. AfD tripled its previous vote share, becoming the third-largest party in Germany, the far right’s best showing since World War II.
Public trust in government is at 18 percent — an all-time low (Pew, 12/14/17). There is similar mistrust of Facebook, with only 20 percent of Americans agreeing social media sites do a good job separating fact from fiction. And yet, worldwide, Facebook is a crucial news source. Fifty-two percent of Brazilians, 61 percent of Mexicans and 51 percent of Italians and Turks use the platform for news; 39 percent of the U.S. gets their news from the site.
This means that, despite the fact that even its own public mistrusts it, the U.S. government has effectively become the arbiter of what the world sees and hears, with the ability to marginalize or simply delete news from organizations or countries that do not share its opinions. This power could be used at sensitive times, like elections. This is not an idle threat. The U.S. created an entire fake social network for Cubans that aimed to stir unrest and overthrow the Cuban government, according to the Guardian (4/3/14).
That a single corporation has such a monopoly over the flow of worldwide news is already problematic, but the increasing meshing of corporate and U.S. government control over the means of communication is particularly worrying. All those who believe in free and open exchange of information should oppose Facebook becoming a tool of U.S. foreign policy.
But some Democrats have also said that Kavanaugh lied under oath in both current and past hearings, and groups like Free Speech for People, Demand Justice, MoveOn and NARAL Pro-Choice America have all advocated perjury probes against him. However, these serious allegations of perjury have received sparse coverage from establishment media outlets like the New York Times, Washington Post, CNN and NPR.
Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy noted that while Kavanaugh was working in the Bush administration as White House staff secretary in 2004, he received thousands of stolen documents that were circulated by Manuel Miranda, a GOP Senate staffer, which revealed Democratic opposition strategies and questions to be asked of Bush judicial nominees. Leahy offered examples of his own stolen emails as proof. In Judiciary Committee hearings in 2004 and 2006, Kavanaugh denied under oath that he knew the documents were stolen, even though one of the email chains he was copied on was titled “spying.”
In the 2004 hearing, Kavanaugh also denied under oath that he “personally handled” the nomination of controversial anti-abortion judge William Pryor to the D.C. Circuit Court, although emails from 2002 and 2003 say otherwise.
Sharpening these allegations is the fact that Kavanaugh himself has in the past supported strict interpretations of perjury. While working as an attorney for independent counsel Ken Starr in 1998, Kavanaugh urged that President Bill Clinton be impeached for perjury over his role in the Monica Lewinsky sex scandal. Kavanaugh authored a memo to the other Starr attorneys that pushed for a civil suit for perjury against Clinton, suggesting graphic questioning of Lewinsky as well.
Many outlets, such as Slate (9/7/18), Vox (9/6/18, 9/7/18), the Daily News (9/6/18), Politico (9/7/19), the Nation (9/10/18), Common Dreams (9/10/18), Newsweek (9/8/18), the Daily Beast (9/7/18), Mic (9/10/18), Media Matters (9/6/18), Rewire (9/10/18) and Salon (9/8/18) — mostly on the liberal or left end of the media spectrum — have addressed the recent perjury allegations against Kavanaugh in depth. By contrast, as of today, establishment outlets like the New York Times, CNN, the Washington Post and NPR have been quite cagey about the issue.
While the Times editorial board came out against Kavanaugh’s confirmation, the paper has avoided fully addressing Kavanaugh’s potential perjury charges (although columnist Michelle Goldberg did highlight his lies under oath in an op-ed, and an article by Nicholas Fandos mentioned it in passing). This is odd, considering that the Times recently looked back at Kavanaugh’s role in pushing for perjury charges in the Starr investigation and has covered the scandal regarding the stolen Democratic documents in the past.
On Sept. 7, CNN analyst John Avalon dismissed the hacking allegations by Sen. Leahy as “baggage” and “ancient history.” Two days later, Jake Tapper did attempt to address Kavanaugh’s allegations of perjury on CNN, but instead of reporting on the intricacies of the issue, he invited on Republican Sen. Ben Sasse, who obviously defended Kavanaugh
The Washington Post (9/5/18, 9/7/18) reexamined the document theft scandal and the recently released memo on the matter by Kavanaugh, but not in the context of potential perjury charges. Otherwise, the paper has been silent on the issue. Likewise, the Post’s Aaron Blake reviewed the issue of whether Kavanaugh lied about his involvement in the Pryor nomination, but without using the words “lie” or “perjury” — instead gently suggesting that the story may “require some explaining by Kavanaugh.”
As FAIR associate Sam Husseini pointed out, in a recent NPR interview with Ken Starr, Morning Edition host Steve Inskeep declined to press the former independent counsel on Kavanaugh’s perjury allegations. Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court nomination wasn’t even brought up at all in the interview.
Whether the perjury allegations against Kavanaugh turn out to have legal basis or not, such accusations against a Supreme Court nominee deserve at least one article with a thorough examination of the issue in establishment media sources like the New York Times, Washington Post, CNN and NPR. This is especially true when the nominee threatens to shift the ideological balance of the court for decades.
Facebook’s collaboration with the NED organizations is particularly troubling, as both have aggressively pursued regime change against leftist governments overseas. The NDI undermined the Sandinista government of Nicaragua in the 1980s, and continues to do so to this day, while the IRI claimed a key role in the 2002 coup against leftist President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela, announcing that it had
served as a bridge between the nation’s political parties and all civil society groups to help Venezuelans forge a new democratic future…. We stand ready to continue our partnership with the courageous Venezuelan people.
The Reuters report on Sept. 19 mentioned that Facebook was anxious to better curate what Brazilians saw on their feeds in the run-up to their presidential elections, which pits far-right Jair Bolsonaro against leftist Fernando Haddad. The U.S. government has a long history of undermining democracy in Brazil, from supporting a coup in 1964 against the progressive Goulart administration to continually spying on leftist President Dilma Rousseff (BBC, 7/4/15) in the run-up to the parliamentary coup against her in 2016 (CounterSpin, 6/2/17).
Soon after it partnered with the Atlantic Council, Facebook moved to delete accounts and pages connected with Iranian broadcasting channels (CNBC, 8/23/18), while The Intercept (12/30/17) reported that in 2017 the social media platform met with Israeli government officials to discuss which Palestinian voices it should censor. Ninety-five percent of Israeli government requests for deletion were granted. Thus the U.S. government and its allies are effectively using the platform to silence dissenting opinion, both at home and on the world stage, controlling what Facebook‘s 2 billion users see and do not see.
Progressives should be deeply skeptical that these moves have anything to do with their stated objective of promoting democracy. Bloomberg Businessweek (9/29/17) reported that the far-right Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) party went to Facebook headquarters for discussions with U.S. companies about how it could use the platform for recruitment and micro-targeting in the 2017 elections. AfD tripled its previous vote share, becoming the third-largest party in Germany, the far right’s best showing since World War II.
Public trust in government is at 18 percent — an all-time low (Pew, 12/14/17). There is similar mistrust of Facebook, with only 20 percent of Americans agreeing social media sites do a good job separating fact from fiction. And yet, worldwide, Facebook is a crucial news source. Fifty-two percent of Brazilians, 61 percent of Mexicans and 51 percent of Italians and Turks use the platform for news; 39 percent of the U.S. gets their news from the site.
This means that, despite the fact that even its own public mistrusts it, the U.S. government has effectively become the arbiter of what the world sees and hears, with the ability to marginalize or simply delete news from organizations or countries that do not share its opinions. This power could be used at sensitive times, like elections. This is not an idle threat. The U.S. created an entire fake social network for Cubans that aimed to stir unrest and overthrow the Cuban government, according to the Guardian (4/3/14).
That a single corporation has such a monopoly over the flow of worldwide news is already problematic, but the increasing meshing of corporate and U.S. government control over the means of communication is particularly worrying. All those who believe in free and open exchange of information should oppose Facebook becoming a tool of U.S. foreign policy.
Angry over diversity in children's show, NRA TV depicts 'Thomas & Friends' in KKK hoods
Ryan W. Miller - usa today
9/13/18
Using a jarring image to blast increased diversity on a children's TV show, a National Rifle Association online show depicted characters from "Thomas & Friends" in white, Ku Klux Klan-style hoods on burning train tracks.
Host of NRA TV's "Relentless," Dana Loesch went after the classic children's character Thomas The Tank Engine after its maker, Mattel, joined forces with the United Nations in efforts to increase gender diversity and representation on the program and include new characters from around the globe.
Loesch, a conservative spokeswomen for the gun rights group, specifically called out one new character – Nia, a steam engine from Kenya.
"That's where it gets really strange to me," Loesch says on Friday's episode. "Am I to understand this entire time that Thomas and his trains were white? Because they all have gray faces. How do you bring ethnic diversity? I mean they had to paint what I guess they thought was some sort of African pattern on the side of Nia's engine."
The program cut to an image with three trains wearing white hoods and tracks on fire. "Fair, I get it," Loesch sarcastically says. "Thomas the Tank Engine has been a blight on race relations for far too long. Clearly this is overdue."
The NRA did not immediately respond to USA TODAY's request for comment.
Mattel announced Friday that "Thomas & Friends," a Nick Jr. show, would add characters to its newest season from around the world and partner with the UN to promote its Sustainable Development Goals.
In the new season, Thomas will travel from his fictional home Sodor for the first time in the series to visit China, India and Australia, Mattel said. More female characters will also be represented, the company added.
"This change will deepen the brand's engagement with girls who represent over 40% of the show's viewership and provide a strong message of gender equality to the young audience," Mattel said in a statement.
Host of NRA TV's "Relentless," Dana Loesch went after the classic children's character Thomas The Tank Engine after its maker, Mattel, joined forces with the United Nations in efforts to increase gender diversity and representation on the program and include new characters from around the globe.
Loesch, a conservative spokeswomen for the gun rights group, specifically called out one new character – Nia, a steam engine from Kenya.
"That's where it gets really strange to me," Loesch says on Friday's episode. "Am I to understand this entire time that Thomas and his trains were white? Because they all have gray faces. How do you bring ethnic diversity? I mean they had to paint what I guess they thought was some sort of African pattern on the side of Nia's engine."
The program cut to an image with three trains wearing white hoods and tracks on fire. "Fair, I get it," Loesch sarcastically says. "Thomas the Tank Engine has been a blight on race relations for far too long. Clearly this is overdue."
The NRA did not immediately respond to USA TODAY's request for comment.
Mattel announced Friday that "Thomas & Friends," a Nick Jr. show, would add characters to its newest season from around the world and partner with the UN to promote its Sustainable Development Goals.
In the new season, Thomas will travel from his fictional home Sodor for the first time in the series to visit China, India and Australia, Mattel said. More female characters will also be represented, the company added.
"This change will deepen the brand's engagement with girls who represent over 40% of the show's viewership and provide a strong message of gender equality to the young audience," Mattel said in a statement.
Facebook’s idea of ‘fact-checking’: Censoring ThinkProgress because conservative site told them to
A perfect example of how Facebook is catering to conservatives.
IAN MILLHISER - thinkprogress
SEP 11, 2018, 1:05 PM
Last year, Facebook announced that it would partner with The Weekly Standard, a conservative magazine, to “fact check” news articles that are shared on Facebook. At the time, ThinkProgress expressed alarm at this decision.
The Weekly Standard has a history of placing right-wing ideology before accurate reporting. Among other things, it labeled the Iraq War “A War to Be Proud Of” in 2005, and it ran an article in 2017 labeling climate science “Dadaist Science,” and promoted that article with the phrase “look under the hood on climate change ‘science’ and what you see isn’t pretty.”
The Weekly Standard brought its third-party “fact-checking” power to bear against ThinkProgress on Monday, when the outlet determined a ThinkProgress story about Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh was “false,” a category defined by Facebook to indicate “the primary claim(s) in this content are factually inaccurate.”
The article in question, which this reporter wrote, pointed out that, when you read a statement Kavanaugh made during his confirmation hearing alongside a statement he made in a 2017, it becomes clear he is communicating that he opposes Roe v. Wade. Our article is factually accurate and The Weekly Standard’s allegation against us is wrong.
There are serious consequences for publishing an article that one of Facebook’s third-party fact checkers decrees to be false.
As Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg recently wrote in the Washington Post, “we demote posts rated as false, which means they lose 80 percent of future traffic.”
When an article is labeled false under Facebook’s third-party fact-checking system, groups that share that article on Facebook receives a notification informing them that the article received a “False Rating” and that “pages and websites” that share that piece “will see their overall distribution and their ability to monetize and advertise removed.”
Facebook’s notification regarding our piece on Kavanaugh and Roe v. Wade effectively warned outlets not to share ThinkProgress content or risk censorship themselves. One group emailed ThinkProgress after receiving this notification to say they found it “threatening.”
ThinkProgress reached out to Facebook for comment on its third-party fact checking program and did not receive a response before this story was published.
The definition of the word “say”
After Facebook sent the push notification stating that our article received a “False Rating,” ThinkProgress reached out to Facebook taking issue with the fact check. A Facebook employee responded by email that Facebook defers to each independent fact-checker’s process and publishers are responsible for reaching out to the fact-checkers directly to request a correction.
The editors at The Weekly Standard do not appear to be interested in correcting their “fact check.”
The Weekly Standard’s fact-check appears to hinge on the definition of the word “said.”
Kavanaugh cited in his confirmation hearing the “Glucksberg test” — which refers to Washington v. Glucksberg, a 1997 Supreme Court decision establishing that the Constitution does not protect a right to physician-assisted suicide. Under Glucksberg, courts should determine which rights are protected by the Constitution by asking which rights are “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.”
Kavanaugh also said in 2017 that “even a first-year law student could tell you that the Glucksberg’s approach to unenumerated rights was not consistent with the approach of the abortion cases such as Roe vs. Wade in 1973, as well as the 1992 decision reaffirming Roe, known as Planned Parenthood vs. Casey.”
Our article also cited law professors Jim Oleske and Jamal Greene, both of whom reached similar conclusions regarding Kavanaugh’s embrace of Glucksberg.
The Weekly Standard’s piece labeling this piece “false” provides no analysis of this argument. It merely asserts that our “article does not provide evidence that ‘Kavanaugh said he would kill Roe v. Wade.’”
According to Merriam-Webster’s dictionary, the verb “say” or “said” can mean to “indicate,” “show,” or “communicate” an idea. Our argument is that Kavanuagh indicated, showed, or communicated his intention to overrule Roe when he endorsed the Gluckberg test after saying that Gluckberg is inconsistent with Roe.
Pandering to the rightThe Weekly Standard is one of only five outlets that enjoys the power to “fact check” other people’s work on Facebook. The other four are the Associated Press and three outlets that specialize in fact-checking — Factcheck.org, PolitiFact, and Snopes.com. No left-leaning outlet has this special ability to “fact check” other writers’ work.
To become a Facebook “fact checker,” an outlet must complete a verification process managed by the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN) at the Poynter Institute.
Last November, IFCN determined that The Weekly Standard was only in “partial” compliance with its standards. Though the IFCN’s November report on The Weekly Standard indicated that the conservative news site eventually was likely to meet the IFCN’s standards, it also determined that “the current version of” the Weekly Standard’s operation “has existed for only three weeks, and the IFCN calls for three months of consistent fact-checking before it is recognized as a distinct unit.”
“The Fact Check needs to build up a larger sample of work in order to stabilize and be fully assessed in its current form,” according to IFCN’s November report.
Nevertheless, Facebook approved The Weekly Standard as one of its “fact-checking” partners in early December.
It appears that the Weekly Standard was added to Facebook’s roster of “fact-checking” outlets as part of a deliberate effort to pander to conservatives. A source told the news outlet Quartz that Facebook’s partnership with The Weekly Standard was part of an effort to “appease all sides.”
Earlier this year, Facebook also hired Republican Sen. John Kyl of Arizona to lead an “audit” of alleged “liberal bias at the expense of conservative voices” at the social media juggernaut. Kyl, according to Vice, “was regularly ranked among the country’s most conservative senators when he served from 1995 to 2013.” He was recently appointed to serve out the remainder of the late Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) term in office.
Shortly after Facebook hired Kyl to determine whether the site has a liberal bias, the Trump White House tapped Kyl to act as Judge Kavanaugh’s “sherpa” through his confirmation process.
There’s much more at stake
If Facebook continues its partnership with The Weekly Standard, the consequences could be quite severe for left-leaning outlets generally — or potentially for any other outlet which publishes a news article that The Weekly Standard disagrees with.
It’s no secret that the digital news business is driven by clicks. A news site that brings in many readers will also bring in a great deal of ad revenue, and this money can be used to hire reporters and to continue the outlet’s work. An outlet that loses a significant portion of its readership may have to lay off reporters or could even go under.
At its peak, Facebook provided as much as 40 percent of ThinkProgress’ traffic. Facebook recently changed its algorithm in ways that reduced the amount of traffic it sent to most news outlets, but it still accounts for between 10 to 15 percent of our readers. The difference between keeping those readers and losing them could decide whether we can hire more reporters who will continue to report on subjects that the Weekly Standard may have ideological disagreements about.
Yet, as Facebook’s push notification makes clear, any group that shares a piece that The Weekly Standard deems false could be punished for doing so.
News outlets aren’t the only players at risk under this system. As a legal matter, Facebook is treading on very dangerous ground by providing no oversight of its own “fact checking” operation.
In its landmark decision in New York Times v. Sullivan, the Supreme Court held that an outlet can be liable for defamation if it publishes false information “with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.”
By deferring to The Weekly Standard’s “expertise and process,” Facebook acted with reckless disregard of whether The Weekly Standard’s article was false or not.
Indeed, Facebook’s entire relationship with The Weekly Standard appears driven by reckless disregard for the truth.
The Weekly Standard has a history of placing right-wing ideology before accurate reporting. Among other things, it labeled the Iraq War “A War to Be Proud Of” in 2005, and it ran an article in 2017 labeling climate science “Dadaist Science,” and promoted that article with the phrase “look under the hood on climate change ‘science’ and what you see isn’t pretty.”
The Weekly Standard brought its third-party “fact-checking” power to bear against ThinkProgress on Monday, when the outlet determined a ThinkProgress story about Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh was “false,” a category defined by Facebook to indicate “the primary claim(s) in this content are factually inaccurate.”
The article in question, which this reporter wrote, pointed out that, when you read a statement Kavanaugh made during his confirmation hearing alongside a statement he made in a 2017, it becomes clear he is communicating that he opposes Roe v. Wade. Our article is factually accurate and The Weekly Standard’s allegation against us is wrong.
There are serious consequences for publishing an article that one of Facebook’s third-party fact checkers decrees to be false.
As Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg recently wrote in the Washington Post, “we demote posts rated as false, which means they lose 80 percent of future traffic.”
When an article is labeled false under Facebook’s third-party fact-checking system, groups that share that article on Facebook receives a notification informing them that the article received a “False Rating” and that “pages and websites” that share that piece “will see their overall distribution and their ability to monetize and advertise removed.”
Facebook’s notification regarding our piece on Kavanaugh and Roe v. Wade effectively warned outlets not to share ThinkProgress content or risk censorship themselves. One group emailed ThinkProgress after receiving this notification to say they found it “threatening.”
ThinkProgress reached out to Facebook for comment on its third-party fact checking program and did not receive a response before this story was published.
The definition of the word “say”
After Facebook sent the push notification stating that our article received a “False Rating,” ThinkProgress reached out to Facebook taking issue with the fact check. A Facebook employee responded by email that Facebook defers to each independent fact-checker’s process and publishers are responsible for reaching out to the fact-checkers directly to request a correction.
The editors at The Weekly Standard do not appear to be interested in correcting their “fact check.”
The Weekly Standard’s fact-check appears to hinge on the definition of the word “said.”
Kavanaugh cited in his confirmation hearing the “Glucksberg test” — which refers to Washington v. Glucksberg, a 1997 Supreme Court decision establishing that the Constitution does not protect a right to physician-assisted suicide. Under Glucksberg, courts should determine which rights are protected by the Constitution by asking which rights are “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.”
Kavanaugh also said in 2017 that “even a first-year law student could tell you that the Glucksberg’s approach to unenumerated rights was not consistent with the approach of the abortion cases such as Roe vs. Wade in 1973, as well as the 1992 decision reaffirming Roe, known as Planned Parenthood vs. Casey.”
Our article also cited law professors Jim Oleske and Jamal Greene, both of whom reached similar conclusions regarding Kavanaugh’s embrace of Glucksberg.
The Weekly Standard’s piece labeling this piece “false” provides no analysis of this argument. It merely asserts that our “article does not provide evidence that ‘Kavanaugh said he would kill Roe v. Wade.’”
According to Merriam-Webster’s dictionary, the verb “say” or “said” can mean to “indicate,” “show,” or “communicate” an idea. Our argument is that Kavanuagh indicated, showed, or communicated his intention to overrule Roe when he endorsed the Gluckberg test after saying that Gluckberg is inconsistent with Roe.
Pandering to the rightThe Weekly Standard is one of only five outlets that enjoys the power to “fact check” other people’s work on Facebook. The other four are the Associated Press and three outlets that specialize in fact-checking — Factcheck.org, PolitiFact, and Snopes.com. No left-leaning outlet has this special ability to “fact check” other writers’ work.
To become a Facebook “fact checker,” an outlet must complete a verification process managed by the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN) at the Poynter Institute.
Last November, IFCN determined that The Weekly Standard was only in “partial” compliance with its standards. Though the IFCN’s November report on The Weekly Standard indicated that the conservative news site eventually was likely to meet the IFCN’s standards, it also determined that “the current version of” the Weekly Standard’s operation “has existed for only three weeks, and the IFCN calls for three months of consistent fact-checking before it is recognized as a distinct unit.”
“The Fact Check needs to build up a larger sample of work in order to stabilize and be fully assessed in its current form,” according to IFCN’s November report.
Nevertheless, Facebook approved The Weekly Standard as one of its “fact-checking” partners in early December.
It appears that the Weekly Standard was added to Facebook’s roster of “fact-checking” outlets as part of a deliberate effort to pander to conservatives. A source told the news outlet Quartz that Facebook’s partnership with The Weekly Standard was part of an effort to “appease all sides.”
Earlier this year, Facebook also hired Republican Sen. John Kyl of Arizona to lead an “audit” of alleged “liberal bias at the expense of conservative voices” at the social media juggernaut. Kyl, according to Vice, “was regularly ranked among the country’s most conservative senators when he served from 1995 to 2013.” He was recently appointed to serve out the remainder of the late Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) term in office.
Shortly after Facebook hired Kyl to determine whether the site has a liberal bias, the Trump White House tapped Kyl to act as Judge Kavanaugh’s “sherpa” through his confirmation process.
There’s much more at stake
If Facebook continues its partnership with The Weekly Standard, the consequences could be quite severe for left-leaning outlets generally — or potentially for any other outlet which publishes a news article that The Weekly Standard disagrees with.
It’s no secret that the digital news business is driven by clicks. A news site that brings in many readers will also bring in a great deal of ad revenue, and this money can be used to hire reporters and to continue the outlet’s work. An outlet that loses a significant portion of its readership may have to lay off reporters or could even go under.
At its peak, Facebook provided as much as 40 percent of ThinkProgress’ traffic. Facebook recently changed its algorithm in ways that reduced the amount of traffic it sent to most news outlets, but it still accounts for between 10 to 15 percent of our readers. The difference between keeping those readers and losing them could decide whether we can hire more reporters who will continue to report on subjects that the Weekly Standard may have ideological disagreements about.
Yet, as Facebook’s push notification makes clear, any group that shares a piece that The Weekly Standard deems false could be punished for doing so.
News outlets aren’t the only players at risk under this system. As a legal matter, Facebook is treading on very dangerous ground by providing no oversight of its own “fact checking” operation.
In its landmark decision in New York Times v. Sullivan, the Supreme Court held that an outlet can be liable for defamation if it publishes false information “with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.”
By deferring to The Weekly Standard’s “expertise and process,” Facebook acted with reckless disregard of whether The Weekly Standard’s article was false or not.
Indeed, Facebook’s entire relationship with The Weekly Standard appears driven by reckless disregard for the truth.
Houston Chronicle: We're Investigating Our Own Reporter
Mike Ward resigned after he was accused of inventing sources
By Rob Quinn, Newser Staff
Posted Sep 11, 2018 3:35 AM CDT
(NEWSER) – The Houston Chronicle says it is investigating allegations of actual fake news—from one of its own journalists. "I want to be completely transparent with readers and tell you that we have launched an investigation into the work of one of our own reporters," executive editor Nancy Barnes writes, explaining that a Chronicle journalist had recently flagged concerns about the work of a colleague, veteran reporter Mike Ward. "Specifically, questions were raised about whether individuals quoted in one of his stories were real people," the editor writes. Ward insisted the quotes were real, but resigned after researchers "had difficulty finding a number of sources" cited in his recent reports.
The resignation might end the matter in a different business, but "as a journalism organization, we owe the public more," Barnes writes. "We owe our readers the truth and to tell you if, in fact, there were inaccuracies in anything we published," she writes. "To help us ferret this out, we have hired an independent, highly respected journalist to review Ward's work ... and determine whether any reporting transgressions occurred." She says the investigation will take time, but a full account of the findings will be published when it is complete. The full statement can be seen here. The Hill notes that the investigation comes amid President Trump's continued attacks on the press and its use of anonymous sources.
The resignation might end the matter in a different business, but "as a journalism organization, we owe the public more," Barnes writes. "We owe our readers the truth and to tell you if, in fact, there were inaccuracies in anything we published," she writes. "To help us ferret this out, we have hired an independent, highly respected journalist to review Ward's work ... and determine whether any reporting transgressions occurred." She says the investigation will take time, but a full account of the findings will be published when it is complete. The full statement can be seen here. The Hill notes that the investigation comes amid President Trump's continued attacks on the press and its use of anonymous sources.
SHERYL SANDBERG MISLED CONGRESS ABOUT FACEBOOK’S CONSCIENCE
Sam Biddle - the intercept
September 5 2018, 2:25 p.m.
FACEBOOK CHIEF OPERATING officer Sheryl Sandberg draped herself in the star-spangled banner of American principles before today’s Senate Select Intelligence Committee hearing on social media. Sandberg proclaimed that democratic values of free expression were integral to the company’s conscience. “We would only operate in a country where we could do so in keeping with our values,” she went on. Either this was a lie told under oath, or Facebook has some pretty lousy values.
Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., questioned Sandberg and Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey about the fact that they are both ostensibly American companies, but also firms with users around the world — including in countries with legal systems and values that differ drastically from the United States. Rubio cited various governments that crack down on, say, pro-democracy activism and that criminalize such speech. How can a company like Facebook claim that it’s committed to free expression as a global value while maintaining its adherence to rule of law on a local level? When it comes to democratic values, Rubio asked, “Do you support them only in the United States or are these principles that you feel obligated to support around the world?”
Sandberg, as always, didn’t miss a beat: “We support these principles around the world.” Shortly thereafter she made the claim that Facebook simply would not do business in a country where these values couldn’t be maintained.
Based on the information Facebook itself makes available, this is false. In its latest publicly available “transparency report,” Facebook says it helps block free expression as a matter of policy — so long as it’s technically legal in a given market. For instance, in the United Arab Emirates, a country that Human Rights Watch says “arbitrarily detains and in some cases forcibly disappears individuals who criticize the authorities,” Facebook does its part to help.
According to its most recent update on its compliance with UAE takedown requests — when a government or company requests that the social media giant remove content from its site — Facebook “restricted access to items in the UAE, all reported by the Telecommunications Regulatory Authority, a federal UAE government entity responsible for [information technology] sector in the UAE. The content was reported for hate speech and was attacking members of the royal family, which is against local laws.” It’s hard to imagine even Facebook’s legendary public relations team could construe censoring criticism of “the royal family” as anything resembling a democratic value. A similar entry from the report, on Pakistan, notes that Facebook “restricted access to items that were alleged to violate local laws prohibiting blasphemy and condemnation of the country’s independence.” (Facebook declined to comment on the record for this story.)
Twitter’s Dorsey, to his credit, admitted that his company is essentially trapped between being a business and not wanting to cave to unjust — albeit locally legal — censorship requests. “We would like to fight for every single person being able to speak freely and see everything, but we have to realize that it’s going to take some bridges to get there,” Dorsey told Rubio when asked about takedown requests from the Turkish government.
According to Adrian Shahbaz, who researches internet liberties for Freedom House, Dorsey’s reply was appreciably “more grounded in reality” than Sandberg’s, who seemed to be claiming that her company didn’t need to compromise. Shahbaz pointed out that there will be a natural, inherent tension for any global company “tasked with regulating the public space for every single country in the world.”
Rather than pointing to local laws against, say, blasphemy, Shahbaz suggested companies like Facebook “should be defending democratic values and abiding by its own terms of service” instead of local frameworks that might stifle political speech. One tack would be for Facebook to hold up its corporate terms of service as something “more like a constitution, [saying] these are the values we believe in around the world,” regardless of jurisdiction.
Such a stance would also require the spine to say no to a government whose citizens are potentially lucrative data fodder. Cynthia Wong, a senior internet researcher at Human Rights Watch, said that although it’s heartening that the social media firm has made public human rights commitments, such as joining the Global Network Initiative, “Facebook should explain what it means by democratic values if it complies with laws that don’t comply with those values.” Wong added that with Facebook’s controversial “real names” policy, which forbids the use of pseudonyms on the network, the social media company “creates a lot of danger” for democratic activists “who don’t want to use their real name because they’re facing reprisal.”
For Rubio, these questions are essentially about whether companies like Facebook are truly “built on these core values” or whether they were merely “global companies like all these other companies that come around here, who see their number one obligation to make money.” So, which is it? The easiest way to explain the apparent contradiction between “we would only operate in a country when we could do so in keeping with our values” and helping a royal family stifle criticism is that, yes, Facebook is a global company that sees the generation of profit as its number one obligation. Facebook’s values aren’t so much the promotion of global democracy, but the promotion of global Facebook.
Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., questioned Sandberg and Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey about the fact that they are both ostensibly American companies, but also firms with users around the world — including in countries with legal systems and values that differ drastically from the United States. Rubio cited various governments that crack down on, say, pro-democracy activism and that criminalize such speech. How can a company like Facebook claim that it’s committed to free expression as a global value while maintaining its adherence to rule of law on a local level? When it comes to democratic values, Rubio asked, “Do you support them only in the United States or are these principles that you feel obligated to support around the world?”
Sandberg, as always, didn’t miss a beat: “We support these principles around the world.” Shortly thereafter she made the claim that Facebook simply would not do business in a country where these values couldn’t be maintained.
Based on the information Facebook itself makes available, this is false. In its latest publicly available “transparency report,” Facebook says it helps block free expression as a matter of policy — so long as it’s technically legal in a given market. For instance, in the United Arab Emirates, a country that Human Rights Watch says “arbitrarily detains and in some cases forcibly disappears individuals who criticize the authorities,” Facebook does its part to help.
According to its most recent update on its compliance with UAE takedown requests — when a government or company requests that the social media giant remove content from its site — Facebook “restricted access to items in the UAE, all reported by the Telecommunications Regulatory Authority, a federal UAE government entity responsible for [information technology] sector in the UAE. The content was reported for hate speech and was attacking members of the royal family, which is against local laws.” It’s hard to imagine even Facebook’s legendary public relations team could construe censoring criticism of “the royal family” as anything resembling a democratic value. A similar entry from the report, on Pakistan, notes that Facebook “restricted access to items that were alleged to violate local laws prohibiting blasphemy and condemnation of the country’s independence.” (Facebook declined to comment on the record for this story.)
Twitter’s Dorsey, to his credit, admitted that his company is essentially trapped between being a business and not wanting to cave to unjust — albeit locally legal — censorship requests. “We would like to fight for every single person being able to speak freely and see everything, but we have to realize that it’s going to take some bridges to get there,” Dorsey told Rubio when asked about takedown requests from the Turkish government.
According to Adrian Shahbaz, who researches internet liberties for Freedom House, Dorsey’s reply was appreciably “more grounded in reality” than Sandberg’s, who seemed to be claiming that her company didn’t need to compromise. Shahbaz pointed out that there will be a natural, inherent tension for any global company “tasked with regulating the public space for every single country in the world.”
Rather than pointing to local laws against, say, blasphemy, Shahbaz suggested companies like Facebook “should be defending democratic values and abiding by its own terms of service” instead of local frameworks that might stifle political speech. One tack would be for Facebook to hold up its corporate terms of service as something “more like a constitution, [saying] these are the values we believe in around the world,” regardless of jurisdiction.
Such a stance would also require the spine to say no to a government whose citizens are potentially lucrative data fodder. Cynthia Wong, a senior internet researcher at Human Rights Watch, said that although it’s heartening that the social media firm has made public human rights commitments, such as joining the Global Network Initiative, “Facebook should explain what it means by democratic values if it complies with laws that don’t comply with those values.” Wong added that with Facebook’s controversial “real names” policy, which forbids the use of pseudonyms on the network, the social media company “creates a lot of danger” for democratic activists “who don’t want to use their real name because they’re facing reprisal.”
For Rubio, these questions are essentially about whether companies like Facebook are truly “built on these core values” or whether they were merely “global companies like all these other companies that come around here, who see their number one obligation to make money.” So, which is it? The easiest way to explain the apparent contradiction between “we would only operate in a country when we could do so in keeping with our values” and helping a royal family stifle criticism is that, yes, Facebook is a global company that sees the generation of profit as its number one obligation. Facebook’s values aren’t so much the promotion of global democracy, but the promotion of global Facebook.
Conservatives complain people have noticed their anti-trans junk science is, in fact, junk
"Rapid onset gender dysphoria" is not a thing.
ZACK FORD - thinkprogress
AUG 31, 2018, 11:00 AM
Opponents of LGBTQ equality are in a tizzy this week, claiming Brown University is “censoring” a study about transgender kids. That research, however, is pure junk science designed to make parents feel justified in rejecting their children’s gender identity.
Conservative outlets like Fox News, The Daily Caller, The Federalist, Breitbart, and The College Fix are blaming Brown for “caving” to activists by rescinding its press release announcing the study by Lisa Littman, a Brown professor. In a statement, Bess Marcus, the dean of Brown’s School of Public Health, explained that “removing the article from news distribution is the most responsible course of action.” In addition to community concerns about the study’s anti-trans bias, Marcus also noted that even PLOS One, the journal that published it, “will seek further expert assessment on the study’s methodology and analyses.”
Littman’s study, “Rapid-onset gender dysphoria in adolescents and young adults: A study of parental reports,” was published in PLOS One earlier this month, having been initially published as a poster abstract last year. The study claims that a adolescents are experiencing a new phenomenon called “rapid onset gender dysphoria” (ROGD), in which they are motivated to become transgender by “social contagion.”
ROGD is not a real diagnosis according to any clinical guidelines, nor is there any prior research substantiating it as a valid scientific phenomenon. As the activist Zinnia Jones has thoroughly documented, the concept of ROGD was invented by online groups of parents distressed about their transgender kids “suddenly” coming out. There is nothing that distinguishes ROGD from the diagnostic criteria that already exists for gender dysphoria in children except parents’ perception that it has come about quite suddenly. Not coincidentally, it is only parents who wish to disabuse their children of the possibility that they are transgender who have observed ROGD and insist upon its validity.
One might think that a researcher looking to understand or substantiate ROGD would actually find ways to work directly with the children who supposedly experienced it to document their experiences. Or perhaps one could simply reach out to a large swath of families with transgender kids to try to assess what distinguished supposed cases of ROGD from others. But Littman did none of that. All she did was anonymously survey parents from the exact same anti-trans online parent groups that invented the concept (4thwavenow.com, Transgendertrend.com, and Youth YouthTransCriticalProfessionals.org), codifying their totally bogus myth in the guise of a scientific study.
As the researcher Julia Serano points out in her detailed debunk of Littman’s study, all of the available guidelines for treating transgender children already account for the possibility that teens might present with gender dysphoria despite having no prior history of gender-nonconforming behaviors. Both the WPATH standards of care and the DSM-5 note that parents and other family members may be surprised by the diagnosis, but that doesn’t mean it’s not legitimate.
Serano also emphasizes that there’s nothing remarkable about the apparent increase in children experiencing gender dysphoria. It’s not social contagion, as the ROGD parents claim, but social acceptance for transgender people that easily explains the growth. The same exact thing happened with left-handedness. There used to be intense stigma against being left-handed and the 10-12 percent of kids who are naturally left-handed were forced to write right-handed. But as the stigma dissipated, there was a precipitous rise in people who identified as left-handed. It wasn’t because learning to write left-handed suddenly became the cool thing to do.
So all Littman did was prove that anti-trans parents believe that their own anti-trans views are legitimate. Unfortunately for the scientific merit of her paper, she also believed them. Her study presents the results as somehow validating the legitimacy of ROGD. “ROGD appears to represent an entity that is distinct in etiology from the gender dysphoria observed in individuals who have previously been described as transgender,” she asserts in her conclusion. She goes on to call it “plausible” that some adolescents use it as some sort of “coping mechanism” and are motivated to do so as a result of “social and peer contagion,” even though she has no direct evidence to substantiate these claims.
Notably, PLOS One does not have a standard peer-review process. Rather than requiring articles to be assessed by a group of other experts in the field — as most scientific journals do — a single PLOS One editor assesses only the technical aspects of the study, ignoring any subjective or interpretative aspects. “Community-based open peer review,” as the publication calls it, only takes place after a study has been published. And that’s exactly what’s happening to Littman’s study and her unsubstantiated conclusions.
Though both PLOS One and Brown have backed away from her study, Littman has stood by it. She has insisted that it’s a “descriptive study” consistent with other such studies that are “a first description of a new condition or population.” Though she claims the purpose was to describe “a phenomenon that has been observed by clinicians and parents,” she somehow believed she could do that without speaking to any clinicians or any of the children supposedly experiencing ROGD. The phenomenon she actually documented was not ROGD, but how parents looking to justify rejecting their trans kids can convince themselves of valid reasons to do so.
In other words, conservatives are really just upset that people have noticed that pure anti-trans propaganda wasn’t valid science.
Conservative outlets like Fox News, The Daily Caller, The Federalist, Breitbart, and The College Fix are blaming Brown for “caving” to activists by rescinding its press release announcing the study by Lisa Littman, a Brown professor. In a statement, Bess Marcus, the dean of Brown’s School of Public Health, explained that “removing the article from news distribution is the most responsible course of action.” In addition to community concerns about the study’s anti-trans bias, Marcus also noted that even PLOS One, the journal that published it, “will seek further expert assessment on the study’s methodology and analyses.”
Littman’s study, “Rapid-onset gender dysphoria in adolescents and young adults: A study of parental reports,” was published in PLOS One earlier this month, having been initially published as a poster abstract last year. The study claims that a adolescents are experiencing a new phenomenon called “rapid onset gender dysphoria” (ROGD), in which they are motivated to become transgender by “social contagion.”
ROGD is not a real diagnosis according to any clinical guidelines, nor is there any prior research substantiating it as a valid scientific phenomenon. As the activist Zinnia Jones has thoroughly documented, the concept of ROGD was invented by online groups of parents distressed about their transgender kids “suddenly” coming out. There is nothing that distinguishes ROGD from the diagnostic criteria that already exists for gender dysphoria in children except parents’ perception that it has come about quite suddenly. Not coincidentally, it is only parents who wish to disabuse their children of the possibility that they are transgender who have observed ROGD and insist upon its validity.
One might think that a researcher looking to understand or substantiate ROGD would actually find ways to work directly with the children who supposedly experienced it to document their experiences. Or perhaps one could simply reach out to a large swath of families with transgender kids to try to assess what distinguished supposed cases of ROGD from others. But Littman did none of that. All she did was anonymously survey parents from the exact same anti-trans online parent groups that invented the concept (4thwavenow.com, Transgendertrend.com, and Youth YouthTransCriticalProfessionals.org), codifying their totally bogus myth in the guise of a scientific study.
As the researcher Julia Serano points out in her detailed debunk of Littman’s study, all of the available guidelines for treating transgender children already account for the possibility that teens might present with gender dysphoria despite having no prior history of gender-nonconforming behaviors. Both the WPATH standards of care and the DSM-5 note that parents and other family members may be surprised by the diagnosis, but that doesn’t mean it’s not legitimate.
Serano also emphasizes that there’s nothing remarkable about the apparent increase in children experiencing gender dysphoria. It’s not social contagion, as the ROGD parents claim, but social acceptance for transgender people that easily explains the growth. The same exact thing happened with left-handedness. There used to be intense stigma against being left-handed and the 10-12 percent of kids who are naturally left-handed were forced to write right-handed. But as the stigma dissipated, there was a precipitous rise in people who identified as left-handed. It wasn’t because learning to write left-handed suddenly became the cool thing to do.
So all Littman did was prove that anti-trans parents believe that their own anti-trans views are legitimate. Unfortunately for the scientific merit of her paper, she also believed them. Her study presents the results as somehow validating the legitimacy of ROGD. “ROGD appears to represent an entity that is distinct in etiology from the gender dysphoria observed in individuals who have previously been described as transgender,” she asserts in her conclusion. She goes on to call it “plausible” that some adolescents use it as some sort of “coping mechanism” and are motivated to do so as a result of “social and peer contagion,” even though she has no direct evidence to substantiate these claims.
Notably, PLOS One does not have a standard peer-review process. Rather than requiring articles to be assessed by a group of other experts in the field — as most scientific journals do — a single PLOS One editor assesses only the technical aspects of the study, ignoring any subjective or interpretative aspects. “Community-based open peer review,” as the publication calls it, only takes place after a study has been published. And that’s exactly what’s happening to Littman’s study and her unsubstantiated conclusions.
Though both PLOS One and Brown have backed away from her study, Littman has stood by it. She has insisted that it’s a “descriptive study” consistent with other such studies that are “a first description of a new condition or population.” Though she claims the purpose was to describe “a phenomenon that has been observed by clinicians and parents,” she somehow believed she could do that without speaking to any clinicians or any of the children supposedly experiencing ROGD. The phenomenon she actually documented was not ROGD, but how parents looking to justify rejecting their trans kids can convince themselves of valid reasons to do so.
In other words, conservatives are really just upset that people have noticed that pure anti-trans propaganda wasn’t valid science.
McCain befuddles Fox & Friends host with funeral snub of Sarah Palin: ‘I don’t get that — it doesn’t make sense’
David Edwards - raw story
30 AUG 2018 AT 09:54 ET
Fox News host Brian Kilmeade on Thursday said he was flummoxed by Sen. John McCain’s (R-AZ) decision not to invite Sarah Palin, his 2008 running mate, to his funeral.
People reported this week that Palin and President Donald Trump had not been extended invitations to the late senator’s funeral services. Palin’s performance in the 2008 presidential race is widely considered to have contributed to McCain’s loss.
On Thursday’s edition of Fox & Friends, Kilmeade seemed to be confounded by the news.
“I don’t get that,” Kilmeade said. “It doesn’t make any sense.”
Fox & Friends co-hosts Ed Henry and Ainsley Earhardt stared silently at the camera instead of offering an explanation to Kilmeade.
People reported this week that Palin and President Donald Trump had not been extended invitations to the late senator’s funeral services. Palin’s performance in the 2008 presidential race is widely considered to have contributed to McCain’s loss.
On Thursday’s edition of Fox & Friends, Kilmeade seemed to be confounded by the news.
“I don’t get that,” Kilmeade said. “It doesn’t make any sense.”
Fox & Friends co-hosts Ed Henry and Ainsley Earhardt stared silently at the camera instead of offering an explanation to Kilmeade.
lying to the suckers!!!
One of Trump’s favorite journalists busted for passing off quotes from GOP officials as independent swing voters
Brad Reed - raw story
30 AUG 2018 AT 10:27 ET
Salena Zito has made a name for herself as a journalist whose job is to “explain” support in the American Heartland for President Donald Trump to coastal liberals.
In fact, Zito has become so prominent as a “Trump voter whisperer” that the president himself even plugged her book on Twitter this past spring.
As part of her routine, she regularly talks with people whom she characterizes as independent swing voters who have supported Democrats in the past, but who swung hard toward Trump in 2016.
However, it seems that many of the supposedly “independent” people whom she quotes in her stories are actually Republican Party officials.
As the Huffington Post’s Ashley Feinberg documents, Zito has a habit of interviewing people whom she claims are voters that Democrats should be able to persuade but who turn out to be hardcore Republicans.
One particularly prominent example is Pennsylvania voter David Rubbico, whom Zito describes as someone “who could either turn hard against the congressional GOP during the 2018 elections or swing back to voting Democratic once Trump is done.”
But as Feinberg documents, Rubbico is a committee member of his local chapter of the Republican Party. What’s more, he wrote a letter to his local newspaper shortly after Trump’s election in which he attacked people who say “Happy Holidays” instead of “Merry Christmas,” while also declaring that former President Barack Obama had “decimated” the United States.
Another case is Pennsylvania voter Patty Bloomstine, whom Zito describes as “exactly the kind of voter who was at the top of Hillary Clinton’s persuasion-target list during the 2016 campaign.”
However, it turns out that Bloomstine is a member of her local Republican committee — and Feinberg found that she donated money to former Republican Sen. Rick Santorum in 2006 and also shared articles on Facebook claiming that Obama was a Muslim.
Read Feinberg’s full analysis of Zito’s work at this link.
In fact, Zito has become so prominent as a “Trump voter whisperer” that the president himself even plugged her book on Twitter this past spring.
As part of her routine, she regularly talks with people whom she characterizes as independent swing voters who have supported Democrats in the past, but who swung hard toward Trump in 2016.
However, it seems that many of the supposedly “independent” people whom she quotes in her stories are actually Republican Party officials.
As the Huffington Post’s Ashley Feinberg documents, Zito has a habit of interviewing people whom she claims are voters that Democrats should be able to persuade but who turn out to be hardcore Republicans.
One particularly prominent example is Pennsylvania voter David Rubbico, whom Zito describes as someone “who could either turn hard against the congressional GOP during the 2018 elections or swing back to voting Democratic once Trump is done.”
But as Feinberg documents, Rubbico is a committee member of his local chapter of the Republican Party. What’s more, he wrote a letter to his local newspaper shortly after Trump’s election in which he attacked people who say “Happy Holidays” instead of “Merry Christmas,” while also declaring that former President Barack Obama had “decimated” the United States.
Another case is Pennsylvania voter Patty Bloomstine, whom Zito describes as “exactly the kind of voter who was at the top of Hillary Clinton’s persuasion-target list during the 2016 campaign.”
However, it turns out that Bloomstine is a member of her local Republican committee — and Feinberg found that she donated money to former Republican Sen. Rick Santorum in 2006 and also shared articles on Facebook claiming that Obama was a Muslim.
Read Feinberg’s full analysis of Zito’s work at this link.
Here’s why Fox News reporters are fleeing the network
Rachel Leah, Salon - raw story
25 AUG 2018 AT 08:38 ET
Two Fox News reporters in the last three weeks have departed from the network, reportedly after feeling frustrated with the cable news giant’s direction and tone in the Trump era.
Adam Housley, a Los Angeles-based reporter who had been a part of the network since 2001, plans to depart the network soon. Two former Fox News employees told Politico that Housley complained of a decline in opportunity for non-pundit personalities.
“He’s not doing the type of journalism he wants to be doing,” one of the former employees said. “And he is unhappy with the tone of the conversation of the channel.”
Conor Powell, who served as Middle East correspondent at Fox News for nine years, reportedly left Fox News for similar reasons. Powell’s former colleague and friend told Politico that the reporter felt like network had moved away from news in favor of opinion.
Both Powell and Housley’s reasons for leaving the network after years of working there, signal frustration over a network that seemed to marginalize the news and those who were reporting it, a problem that has become increasingly unbearable with President Donald Trump in office.
“Conor was growing increasingly embarrassed by the channel, by the positions, by the relentless blind defense of Trump,” Powell’s colleague told Politico. “If you’re overseas and doing important work like Conor was, you can certainly focus on the work and tell yourself, ‘Hey I’m doing important things and I’m just going to focus on this and ignore all the rest.’ But it just became impossible to ignore.”
Though former employees said Housley had cited similar objections to the direction of the network under Trump, his exit statement was more diplomatic. He released a statement via a Fox News spokesperson that said:
After nearly two decades at Fox News, I have decided to leave the network and take some time in northern California to raise our two young children closer to my family, which includes running the family winery and even coaching their sports teams. I could not be more proud of the journalism I did at the network, from war zones, to tsunamis, to watching miners pulled from the ground in Chile, I am grateful for the extraordinary opportunities to have a front seat to history and cover news all over the world. A huge thank you to the many Fox employees, especially behind the scenes, who have supported me every step of the way. We are friends for life.
But reportedly, unrest at the network is shared widely by reporters. “Many Fox News employees I talked to would jump at an opportunity to leave if there was one, just out of frustration,” a former employee told Politico. “There is a frustration with being tied to the Trump administration. At the end of the day, journalists want to report facts.”
“Lots of reporters are very unhappy with directions of FNC [Fox News Channel] right now,” an individual close to Powell told the Wrap. “Fewer news shows. More opinion shows. Less resources for reporters to report.”
However, it’s unclear what avenues are even open to former Fox News employees once they leave. Neither Housley nor Powell have new jobs in media. In fact, in Powell’s farewell statement posted to Facebook, he said: “After nearly 9 years I have decided to resign from Fox News. Those of you who have spoken to me in recent months, you will understand why I am leaving FNC. . . If anyone knows of any jobs in media and journalism please contact me.”
Adam Housley, a Los Angeles-based reporter who had been a part of the network since 2001, plans to depart the network soon. Two former Fox News employees told Politico that Housley complained of a decline in opportunity for non-pundit personalities.
“He’s not doing the type of journalism he wants to be doing,” one of the former employees said. “And he is unhappy with the tone of the conversation of the channel.”
Conor Powell, who served as Middle East correspondent at Fox News for nine years, reportedly left Fox News for similar reasons. Powell’s former colleague and friend told Politico that the reporter felt like network had moved away from news in favor of opinion.
Both Powell and Housley’s reasons for leaving the network after years of working there, signal frustration over a network that seemed to marginalize the news and those who were reporting it, a problem that has become increasingly unbearable with President Donald Trump in office.
“Conor was growing increasingly embarrassed by the channel, by the positions, by the relentless blind defense of Trump,” Powell’s colleague told Politico. “If you’re overseas and doing important work like Conor was, you can certainly focus on the work and tell yourself, ‘Hey I’m doing important things and I’m just going to focus on this and ignore all the rest.’ But it just became impossible to ignore.”
Though former employees said Housley had cited similar objections to the direction of the network under Trump, his exit statement was more diplomatic. He released a statement via a Fox News spokesperson that said:
After nearly two decades at Fox News, I have decided to leave the network and take some time in northern California to raise our two young children closer to my family, which includes running the family winery and even coaching their sports teams. I could not be more proud of the journalism I did at the network, from war zones, to tsunamis, to watching miners pulled from the ground in Chile, I am grateful for the extraordinary opportunities to have a front seat to history and cover news all over the world. A huge thank you to the many Fox employees, especially behind the scenes, who have supported me every step of the way. We are friends for life.
But reportedly, unrest at the network is shared widely by reporters. “Many Fox News employees I talked to would jump at an opportunity to leave if there was one, just out of frustration,” a former employee told Politico. “There is a frustration with being tied to the Trump administration. At the end of the day, journalists want to report facts.”
“Lots of reporters are very unhappy with directions of FNC [Fox News Channel] right now,” an individual close to Powell told the Wrap. “Fewer news shows. More opinion shows. Less resources for reporters to report.”
However, it’s unclear what avenues are even open to former Fox News employees once they leave. Neither Housley nor Powell have new jobs in media. In fact, in Powell’s farewell statement posted to Facebook, he said: “After nearly 9 years I have decided to resign from Fox News. Those of you who have spoken to me in recent months, you will understand why I am leaving FNC. . . If anyone knows of any jobs in media and journalism please contact me.”
Fox News host Sean Hannity scrambles to dismiss Donald Trump’s worst day in office
After Michael Cohen pleads guilty and Paul Manafort is found guilty by a jury, a pro-Trump Fox News host meltdowns
JOSEPH NEESE - salon
AUGUST 22, 2018 4:19PM (UTC)
Fox News' biggest Trump booster was busy Tuesday night spinning to defend a pair of former Trump allies who were both found guilty of multiple criminal counts hours earlier. After a jury of his peers convicted Paul Manafort of multiple financial crimes and Michael Cohen admitted his own criminal deeds to federal prosecutors, Fox News host Sean Hannity staunchly defended the newly-minted felons and former members of Trump's inner circle.
"I will tell you tonight that the sovereignty of your vote is now in question," an unglued Hannity declared at the end of his nearly 12-minute opening monologue following the Republican commander-in-chief's worst day in office. Early in the fiery rant, the Fox News host had warned: "every American that cares about our constitutional republic, the rule of laws, equal application of the laws: You better be concerned tonight!"
Manafort was convicted by a federal jury Tuesday on five counts of tax fraud, two counts of bank fraud and one count of failing to properly disclose his foreign bank accounts. In tandem, Cohen pleaded guilty to multiple counts of tax evasion, bank fraud and making false statements regarding a credit decision. But most astonishing was a violation of federal campaign finance laws, including his admission that he had paid off adult film actress Stormy Daniels "at the direction of the candidate."
Both Manafort and Cohen, now felons, face decades behind bars and will lose their right to vote. Yet Hannity openly expressed deep empathy for the pair of financial crooks, seemingly because of their shared loyalty to Trump. (Hannity and the president infamously talk to each other before bed most nights.)
"It's not funny, because these are real peoples' lives," Hannity bemoaned. "These are real families. This is way beyond what this mandate was."
The Fox News host then claimed, with questionable evidence, that by mere virtue of being associated with Trump one's life could now be "scoured for potential crimes."
"Well, your doors will be kicked down late at night, early in the morning raids, the screws are going to be turned as Judge Ellis said," Hannity decried. "And they will ask you to sing or compose, or you'll go to jail for crimes that other people have committed and don't go to jail for." (All searches in special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation have been executed using search warrants issued by judges.)
Hannity then invoked the name of the numerous felons in Trump's orbit. In addition to Manafort and Cohen, the Fox News primetime star brought up Michael Flynn and George Papadopoulos. Of Flynn, Hannity offered empathy for the former general's service to "his country for 30 years." Of Papadopoulos, he lamented, "I bet he regrets volunteering for the Trump campaign!"
Using selective evidence, the Fox News host then asserted that America now has a "two-tiered justice system." According to Hannity, by mere virtue of being a Democrat, Americans can apparently get away with certain crimes. And – surprise! – it all somehow relates to Hillary Clinton.
"You can delete subpoenaed emails! Not one! Not ten! 33,000 of them! And acid-wash your hard drive with bleach bit! And eliminate the evidence! And then have an aide smash up your devices with hammers, and get away with it!" Hannity exclaimed as he melted down. "And you can even have an exoneration written months before you're even investigated!" (Fact check: There is no evidence that suggests Clinton washed her computer's hard drive with acid.)
Clinton, who was cleared of all criminal wrongdoing by former FBI Director James Comey in the lead-up to Election Day, has cast blame on her White House loss at the bureau's handling of the investigation into her emails. Yet Tuesday night, Hannity continued to demonize Clinton, who was exonerated, rather than actual felons. Of the pair, he asked, "How did we get to taxi cabs and tax fraud and bank fraud and lies to the FBI?"
Clinton was investigated over her use of a private email server — not alleged meddling with a foreign government, which is why Mueller's team is investigating Trump's 2016 presidential campaign. However, Hannity argued Tuesday night that Mueller's "witch hunt" was never actually about Russian collusion.
This is what we have been telling you for a long time, and we have the evidence," Hannity said, without providing any. "It is an attempt at a political takedown of a man who the deep state never wanted to be the president of the United States."
"I will tell you tonight that the sovereignty of your vote is now in question," an unglued Hannity declared at the end of his nearly 12-minute opening monologue following the Republican commander-in-chief's worst day in office. Early in the fiery rant, the Fox News host had warned: "every American that cares about our constitutional republic, the rule of laws, equal application of the laws: You better be concerned tonight!"
Manafort was convicted by a federal jury Tuesday on five counts of tax fraud, two counts of bank fraud and one count of failing to properly disclose his foreign bank accounts. In tandem, Cohen pleaded guilty to multiple counts of tax evasion, bank fraud and making false statements regarding a credit decision. But most astonishing was a violation of federal campaign finance laws, including his admission that he had paid off adult film actress Stormy Daniels "at the direction of the candidate."
Both Manafort and Cohen, now felons, face decades behind bars and will lose their right to vote. Yet Hannity openly expressed deep empathy for the pair of financial crooks, seemingly because of their shared loyalty to Trump. (Hannity and the president infamously talk to each other before bed most nights.)
"It's not funny, because these are real peoples' lives," Hannity bemoaned. "These are real families. This is way beyond what this mandate was."
The Fox News host then claimed, with questionable evidence, that by mere virtue of being associated with Trump one's life could now be "scoured for potential crimes."
"Well, your doors will be kicked down late at night, early in the morning raids, the screws are going to be turned as Judge Ellis said," Hannity decried. "And they will ask you to sing or compose, or you'll go to jail for crimes that other people have committed and don't go to jail for." (All searches in special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation have been executed using search warrants issued by judges.)
Hannity then invoked the name of the numerous felons in Trump's orbit. In addition to Manafort and Cohen, the Fox News primetime star brought up Michael Flynn and George Papadopoulos. Of Flynn, Hannity offered empathy for the former general's service to "his country for 30 years." Of Papadopoulos, he lamented, "I bet he regrets volunteering for the Trump campaign!"
Using selective evidence, the Fox News host then asserted that America now has a "two-tiered justice system." According to Hannity, by mere virtue of being a Democrat, Americans can apparently get away with certain crimes. And – surprise! – it all somehow relates to Hillary Clinton.
"You can delete subpoenaed emails! Not one! Not ten! 33,000 of them! And acid-wash your hard drive with bleach bit! And eliminate the evidence! And then have an aide smash up your devices with hammers, and get away with it!" Hannity exclaimed as he melted down. "And you can even have an exoneration written months before you're even investigated!" (Fact check: There is no evidence that suggests Clinton washed her computer's hard drive with acid.)
Clinton, who was cleared of all criminal wrongdoing by former FBI Director James Comey in the lead-up to Election Day, has cast blame on her White House loss at the bureau's handling of the investigation into her emails. Yet Tuesday night, Hannity continued to demonize Clinton, who was exonerated, rather than actual felons. Of the pair, he asked, "How did we get to taxi cabs and tax fraud and bank fraud and lies to the FBI?"
Clinton was investigated over her use of a private email server — not alleged meddling with a foreign government, which is why Mueller's team is investigating Trump's 2016 presidential campaign. However, Hannity argued Tuesday night that Mueller's "witch hunt" was never actually about Russian collusion.
This is what we have been telling you for a long time, and we have the evidence," Hannity said, without providing any. "It is an attempt at a political takedown of a man who the deep state never wanted to be the president of the United States."
aliens threw rejected her!!!
Miami Herald throws support behind Republican who says she was abducted by aliens
Sarah K. Burris - raw story
19 AUG 2018 AT 19:46 ET
Bettina Rodriguez Aguilera (Screen cap).
The Miami Herald has endorsed a Republican candidate running for Congress in Florida’s 27th District that says she was abducted by aliens when she was 7-years-old.
According to The Herald, the editorial board was put in an awkward position by the front-runners in the GOP primary, who refused to sit down with the paper. Another candidate said that he wasn’t interested in the endorsement. It left few options for the paper to consider for their political endorsements. However, they said that they were impressed by business consultant Bettina Rodriguez-Aguilera.
They touted her “working class agenda” with detailed reforms to make to housing, credit scores, student loan payments and other issues. She’s the daughter of Cuban political prisoner, Rodriguez Aguilera.
However, The Herald acknowledged that she’s an unusual candidate.
“Last year, she told the Miami Herald — and several Spanish-language media outlets — that she believes in extra-terrestrials,” the endorsement stated. “She says when she was 7, she was taken aboard a spaceship and, throughout her life, she has communicated telepathically with the beings, which remind her of the concrete Christ in Brazil.”
They were quick to explain that her secret telepathic conversations with aliens were “non-issues” because as a former official and businesswoman she is a professional.
The race is to fill a seat left vacant by Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL). In the Democratic Primary, The Herald endorsed Democrat David Richardson, who spent 10 years at The Herald and as program director for the Knight Foundation.
Sen. Ben Nelson (D-FL) served as a payload specialist on the Space Shuttle Columbia. He has not revealed whether or not he saw aliens while in space.
According to The Herald, the editorial board was put in an awkward position by the front-runners in the GOP primary, who refused to sit down with the paper. Another candidate said that he wasn’t interested in the endorsement. It left few options for the paper to consider for their political endorsements. However, they said that they were impressed by business consultant Bettina Rodriguez-Aguilera.
They touted her “working class agenda” with detailed reforms to make to housing, credit scores, student loan payments and other issues. She’s the daughter of Cuban political prisoner, Rodriguez Aguilera.
However, The Herald acknowledged that she’s an unusual candidate.
“Last year, she told the Miami Herald — and several Spanish-language media outlets — that she believes in extra-terrestrials,” the endorsement stated. “She says when she was 7, she was taken aboard a spaceship and, throughout her life, she has communicated telepathically with the beings, which remind her of the concrete Christ in Brazil.”
They were quick to explain that her secret telepathic conversations with aliens were “non-issues” because as a former official and businesswoman she is a professional.
The race is to fill a seat left vacant by Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL). In the Democratic Primary, The Herald endorsed Democrat David Richardson, who spent 10 years at The Herald and as program director for the Knight Foundation.
Sen. Ben Nelson (D-FL) served as a payload specialist on the Space Shuttle Columbia. He has not revealed whether or not he saw aliens while in space.
‘Fox & Friends’ dehumanizes trans candidate, treats her victory as a joke
"That transgender."
AARON RUPAR - thinkprogress
AUG 15, 2018, 9:52 AM
On Tuesday night, Christine Hallquist won her Democratic primary election in Vermont, thereby becoming the first openly transgender gubernatorial candidate from a major political party in the United States.
The following morning, Fox & Friends‘ Ainsley Earhardt responded to Hallquist’s historic win by dehumanizing her as “that transgender.”
According to the GLAAD, NLGJA, and AP media guides, using “transgender” as a noun, as Earhardt did, is offensive.
Hallquisttold the Associated Press that while she’s proud to be the first major transgender gubernatorial candidate in the country, in Vermont she wants to be known primarily for her progressive platform.
For Fox & Friends, however, Hallquist’s victory amounted to little more than a punchline. The only detail that hosts mentioned about the Vermont race was that Hallquist beat a 14-year-old candidate — the implication being that a major victory for the trans community amounted to little more than a joke.
The following morning, Fox & Friends‘ Ainsley Earhardt responded to Hallquist’s historic win by dehumanizing her as “that transgender.”
According to the GLAAD, NLGJA, and AP media guides, using “transgender” as a noun, as Earhardt did, is offensive.
Hallquist
For Fox & Friends, however, Hallquist’s victory amounted to little more than a punchline. The only detail that hosts mentioned about the Vermont race was that Hallquist beat a 14-year-old candidate — the implication being that a major victory for the trans community amounted to little more than a joke.
Trump ally Scaramucci delivers a surprisingly harsh takedown of Laura Ingraham’s ‘ignorant’ racist rant
Tom Boggioni - raw story
09 AUG 2018 AT 14:40 ET
Former White House communications shop head Anthony Scaramucci delivered a harsh appraisal of Fox News host Laura Ingraham’s Wednesday night attack on immigrants, calling her editorial comments “un-American.”
Appearing on CNN with host Wolf Blitzer, the New York businessman who spent a brief 11 days working for President Donald Trump in the White House before leaving after an expletive-filled interview with a writer, was blunt in his assessment of Ingraham’s rant.
According to the way Ingraham sees a changing U.S. population, “The America we know and love doesn’t exist anymore. Massive demographic changes have been foisted on the American people, and they are changes that none of us ever voted for, and most of us don’t like.”
To get her nativist point across, she added, “This is related to both illegal and, in some cases, legal immigration that, of course, progressives love.”
Asked about the Fox News personality’s comments, Scaramucci hearkened back to another famous radio bigot from the 1930’s and 40’s: Father Charles Coughlin.
“I’m super not happy with that,” Scaramucci began. “I like her as a person, but if you remember Father Coughlin in the 1930’s — my grandparents certainly remember him.”
“It’s the same rhetoric, it’s the same sentence structure it’s the same level of xenophobia that, frankly, my immigrant grandparents faced as Italian-Americans,” he explained. “I’m not in love with it. I love the concept of America, the ideas of America, the great American experiment.”
“I wish she wouldn’t talk like that because it sounds ignorant, ” he said of Ingraham. “And it is unfortunate, particularly when you know your grandparent’s generation story. I hope she walks it back, I hope she realizes what she said is not — it’s against the American values that she is supposedly touting.”
“It may get a lot of media attention, Wolf, but I really think it is un-American and, by and large, most Americans are great people and they don’t like that nonsense,” he concluded.
RELATED: Historian dismantles Laura Ingraham’s shocking racist tirade
fox News host Laura Ingraham went on a shocking racist tirade during the Wednesday night broadcast of her show.
“The America we know and love doesn’t exist anymore. Massive demographic changes have been foisted on the American people, and they are changes that none of us ever voted for, and most of us don’t like,” she said. “This is related to both illegal and, in some cases, legal immigration that, of course, progressives love.”
Historian Kevin Kruse delivered a massive and scholarly Twitter response that traced Ingraham’s comments to the rise of the second Ku Klux Klan in the 20th century.
“This bears strong echoes of the racist screeds of the 1910s and 1920s that paved the way for the rise of the Second Ku Klux Klan and immigration restriction at home, and much worse abroad,” he wrote.
“The Ku Klux Klan used this popular panic over immigration to revive itself as a national organization in the 1920s,” Kruse continued.
He discussed a Grand Dragon meeting in 1923 that “focused a great deal on the supposed demographic threat that new immigration posed to old-stock Americans and the need to crack down on it.
Kruse then explained how America helped the Nazis form their ideology through racist legislation.
“The popular panic over immigration, and the pseudo-scientific justifications for nativism and racism, came together in the push for the National Origins Act of 1924, a measure that drastically reduced immigration from SE Europe and banned Asians from immigrating entirely,” Kruse explains.
This law “served as a model for the racial citizenship laws that took root in Nazi Germany a decade later.”
Kruse concludes with a warning: “We need to remember that, a century ago, unhinged fear-mongering about “demographic changes” in the American population led not just to drastic immigration restrictions at home, but to disastrous horrors abroad.”
Appearing on CNN with host Wolf Blitzer, the New York businessman who spent a brief 11 days working for President Donald Trump in the White House before leaving after an expletive-filled interview with a writer, was blunt in his assessment of Ingraham’s rant.
According to the way Ingraham sees a changing U.S. population, “The America we know and love doesn’t exist anymore. Massive demographic changes have been foisted on the American people, and they are changes that none of us ever voted for, and most of us don’t like.”
To get her nativist point across, she added, “This is related to both illegal and, in some cases, legal immigration that, of course, progressives love.”
Asked about the Fox News personality’s comments, Scaramucci hearkened back to another famous radio bigot from the 1930’s and 40’s: Father Charles Coughlin.
“I’m super not happy with that,” Scaramucci began. “I like her as a person, but if you remember Father Coughlin in the 1930’s — my grandparents certainly remember him.”
“It’s the same rhetoric, it’s the same sentence structure it’s the same level of xenophobia that, frankly, my immigrant grandparents faced as Italian-Americans,” he explained. “I’m not in love with it. I love the concept of America, the ideas of America, the great American experiment.”
“I wish she wouldn’t talk like that because it sounds ignorant, ” he said of Ingraham. “And it is unfortunate, particularly when you know your grandparent’s generation story. I hope she walks it back, I hope she realizes what she said is not — it’s against the American values that she is supposedly touting.”
“It may get a lot of media attention, Wolf, but I really think it is un-American and, by and large, most Americans are great people and they don’t like that nonsense,” he concluded.
RELATED: Historian dismantles Laura Ingraham’s shocking racist tirade
fox News host Laura Ingraham went on a shocking racist tirade during the Wednesday night broadcast of her show.
“The America we know and love doesn’t exist anymore. Massive demographic changes have been foisted on the American people, and they are changes that none of us ever voted for, and most of us don’t like,” she said. “This is related to both illegal and, in some cases, legal immigration that, of course, progressives love.”
Historian Kevin Kruse delivered a massive and scholarly Twitter response that traced Ingraham’s comments to the rise of the second Ku Klux Klan in the 20th century.
“This bears strong echoes of the racist screeds of the 1910s and 1920s that paved the way for the rise of the Second Ku Klux Klan and immigration restriction at home, and much worse abroad,” he wrote.
“The Ku Klux Klan used this popular panic over immigration to revive itself as a national organization in the 1920s,” Kruse continued.
He discussed a Grand Dragon meeting in 1923 that “focused a great deal on the supposed demographic threat that new immigration posed to old-stock Americans and the need to crack down on it.
Kruse then explained how America helped the Nazis form their ideology through racist legislation.
“The popular panic over immigration, and the pseudo-scientific justifications for nativism and racism, came together in the push for the National Origins Act of 1924, a measure that drastically reduced immigration from SE Europe and banned Asians from immigrating entirely,” Kruse explains.
This law “served as a model for the racial citizenship laws that took root in Nazi Germany a decade later.”
Kruse concludes with a warning: “We need to remember that, a century ago, unhinged fear-mongering about “demographic changes” in the American population led not just to drastic immigration restrictions at home, but to disastrous horrors abroad.”
JARED KUSHNER PERSONALLY ASKED FOR STORIES ABOUT HIS FRIENDS TO BE DELETED AT HIS NEWSPAPER: REPORT
BY HARRIET SINCLAIR - newsweek
ON 8/7/18 AT 3:56 AM
Jared Kushner has been accused of ordering the deletion of negative stories about his friends during his time as owner of the New York Observer.
Pr*sident Donald Trump’s son-in-law, who stepped down from the Observer in order to take a role in the administration, told a software developer to scrap articles about his real estate connections and friends in 2012, Buzzfeed News reported.
Among the stories Kushner asked to be deleted were two printed in 2010 about real estate firm vantage properties, and a story printed in 2012 about NBA Commissioner Adam Silver (a friend of Kushner) buying an expensive property, according to software developer Austin Smith, who said he carried out Kushner’s requests.
“After Jared Kushner originally bought the New York Observer, I was hired to lead the tech team, which I did for a year and a half in house then for three more as a vendor. He asked me, out of band, to blackhole articles critical of his commercial real estate colleagues and I complied,” he wrote on a Hacker News forum.
And speaking to Buzzfeed News, Smith added: “That Kushner, a newspaper owner of all people, would participate in an administration that labels news media the enemy of the people, is an affront to the very notion of the freedom of the press and an utter betrayal of those who worked hard and in good faith for him at the Observer.”
The two 2010 stores that were deleted appear to have cast a negative light on Vantage Properties; one story covered a settlement between the company and then New York attorney general Andrew Cuomo after it was alleged Vantage forced tenants out of their homes to raise rents, while another cited Vantage executive Neil Rubler as being on a list of 10 “worst landlords.”
The newspaper’s former editor, Elizabeth Spiers, who worked under Kushner and has previously criticized him, blasted the White House adviser over the claims, commenting: "If I had known about it, Jared and I would have had a big problem. Jared's such a coward. Went directly to Austin because he knew I wouldn't do it."
The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Pr*sident Donald Trump’s son-in-law, who stepped down from the Observer in order to take a role in the administration, told a software developer to scrap articles about his real estate connections and friends in 2012, Buzzfeed News reported.
Among the stories Kushner asked to be deleted were two printed in 2010 about real estate firm vantage properties, and a story printed in 2012 about NBA Commissioner Adam Silver (a friend of Kushner) buying an expensive property, according to software developer Austin Smith, who said he carried out Kushner’s requests.
“After Jared Kushner originally bought the New York Observer, I was hired to lead the tech team, which I did for a year and a half in house then for three more as a vendor. He asked me, out of band, to blackhole articles critical of his commercial real estate colleagues and I complied,” he wrote on a Hacker News forum.
And speaking to Buzzfeed News, Smith added: “That Kushner, a newspaper owner of all people, would participate in an administration that labels news media the enemy of the people, is an affront to the very notion of the freedom of the press and an utter betrayal of those who worked hard and in good faith for him at the Observer.”
The two 2010 stores that were deleted appear to have cast a negative light on Vantage Properties; one story covered a settlement between the company and then New York attorney general Andrew Cuomo after it was alleged Vantage forced tenants out of their homes to raise rents, while another cited Vantage executive Neil Rubler as being on a list of 10 “worst landlords.”
The newspaper’s former editor, Elizabeth Spiers, who worked under Kushner and has previously criticized him, blasted the White House adviser over the claims, commenting: "If I had known about it, Jared and I would have had a big problem. Jared's such a coward. Went directly to Austin because he knew I wouldn't do it."
The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Fox News host says Trump’s border wall is needed to help preserve America’s ‘demographic makeup’
Geraldo Rivera says the wall will keep out "the Juan and Maria, the fruit-picker, the babysitter, the lawnmower, the dishwasher."
DANIELLE MCLEAN - thinkprogress
AUG 3, 2018, 3:13 PM
Fox News analyst Geraldo Rivera said Friday that President Trump’s proposed wall on the Mexican border is needed to keep out “Juan and Maria,” immigrants including babysitters, agricultural workers and manual laborers and keep its current “demographic makeup.”
During a Fox and Friends segment Friday, Rivera conceded that the border wall would not keep out transnational “dopers” or drug traffickers. But he said it would help keep out immigrant laborers who cross the border.
“The wall, I think, will cut down on the ‘Juan and Maria,’ the fruit-picker, the you know, the babysitter, the lawnmower, the dishwasher — those immigrants will be, I think, kept out by the wall,” Rivera said during the segment, according to Media Matters for America.
“Psychologically, we need the wall on the southern border because we are scared that the demographic makeup of the country is changing,” he continued. “There are so many people coming in. We need some enforcement.”
Since launching his presidential campaign in 2015, Trump repeatedly has vowed to build the southern wall and make Mexico pay for it. His supporters eat it up, often chanting “build that wall!” at his campaign events.
And while Trump claims the wall is needed to keep drugs and “bad hombres” out, according to Rivera, people are mostly afraid of changing demographics, as Latino immigrants continue to settle in the United States.
Immigration from Latin America has been greeted with hostility by the Trump administration. In May, the government launched a “Zero Tolerance” policy, prosecuting anyone crossing the border outside an official port of entry, and in the process separating thousands of children from their parents.
After a public outcry, Trump issued an executive order requiring immigration officers to detain families together. However more than 2,000 kids were separated from their parents and despite a court order, many still have not been reunited.
Trump repeatedly has said that construction for his border wall has begun — a claim that has no relationship to the truth, since he has no funding for it. Congress has not appropriated funds for the wall, and former Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto and his successor President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador have both insisted that Mexico will not pay for it either.
During a Fox and Friends segment Friday, Rivera conceded that the border wall would not keep out transnational “dopers” or drug traffickers. But he said it would help keep out immigrant laborers who cross the border.
“The wall, I think, will cut down on the ‘Juan and Maria,’ the fruit-picker, the you know, the babysitter, the lawnmower, the dishwasher — those immigrants will be, I think, kept out by the wall,” Rivera said during the segment, according to Media Matters for America.
“Psychologically, we need the wall on the southern border because we are scared that the demographic makeup of the country is changing,” he continued. “There are so many people coming in. We need some enforcement.”
Since launching his presidential campaign in 2015, Trump repeatedly has vowed to build the southern wall and make Mexico pay for it. His supporters eat it up, often chanting “build that wall!” at his campaign events.
And while Trump claims the wall is needed to keep drugs and “bad hombres” out, according to Rivera, people are mostly afraid of changing demographics, as Latino immigrants continue to settle in the United States.
Immigration from Latin America has been greeted with hostility by the Trump administration. In May, the government launched a “Zero Tolerance” policy, prosecuting anyone crossing the border outside an official port of entry, and in the process separating thousands of children from their parents.
After a public outcry, Trump issued an executive order requiring immigration officers to detain families together. However more than 2,000 kids were separated from their parents and despite a court order, many still have not been reunited.
Trump repeatedly has said that construction for his border wall has begun — a claim that has no relationship to the truth, since he has no funding for it. Congress has not appropriated funds for the wall, and former Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto and his successor President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador have both insisted that Mexico will not pay for it either.
Networks Ignore Trump Florida Rally As He Brags About The Number of Cameras Present
TUE, JUL 31ST, 2018
BY JASON EASLEY - politicus usa
Every network but Fox News refused to cover his Florida rally, but Trump is so detached from reality that he thinks that the TV networks can’t get enough of him.
Trump said, “Fake news. Fake news. They are fake. Do you believe — look at this, every night it’s the same thing. Wouldn’t you think they would get tired of the speeches? Wouldn’t you think? And here’s one thing I will tell you. If they don’t get ratings, those speeches don’t go on, doesn’t matter. Look how many they have back there. They just can’t get enough. They can’t get enough. They cannot get enough.”
It is important to point out that the television networks have had more than enough of Trump’s rallies. Every network with the exception of Fox News, no longer covers his rallies live. The percentage of live coverage that Trump’s rallies have been getting has been steadily decreasing, as there has been a growing consensus among journalists and newsrooms that the president’s rallies aren’t newsworthy.
Trump said it best himself. It is the same thing every night, which is why the networks outside of state-run TV Fox News have stopped broadcasting them. Trump’s rallies are the same greatest hits package of fake news, build the wall, lies about Democrats, immigrant bashing, and attacks related to the Russia investigation that everyone has heard one hundred times or more.
Donald Trump has nothing new to say. His rallies are extended ranting sessions that are never newsworthy in their entirety. Networks monitor Trump’s rallies in case he says something worth reporting, but Trump’s claim that the television networks can’t enough is another delusion from the mind of a man who has never really left the 2016 election behind.
Trump said, “Fake news. Fake news. They are fake. Do you believe — look at this, every night it’s the same thing. Wouldn’t you think they would get tired of the speeches? Wouldn’t you think? And here’s one thing I will tell you. If they don’t get ratings, those speeches don’t go on, doesn’t matter. Look how many they have back there. They just can’t get enough. They can’t get enough. They cannot get enough.”
It is important to point out that the television networks have had more than enough of Trump’s rallies. Every network with the exception of Fox News, no longer covers his rallies live. The percentage of live coverage that Trump’s rallies have been getting has been steadily decreasing, as there has been a growing consensus among journalists and newsrooms that the president’s rallies aren’t newsworthy.
Trump said it best himself. It is the same thing every night, which is why the networks outside of state-run TV Fox News have stopped broadcasting them. Trump’s rallies are the same greatest hits package of fake news, build the wall, lies about Democrats, immigrant bashing, and attacks related to the Russia investigation that everyone has heard one hundred times or more.
Donald Trump has nothing new to say. His rallies are extended ranting sessions that are never newsworthy in their entirety. Networks monitor Trump’s rallies in case he says something worth reporting, but Trump’s claim that the television networks can’t enough is another delusion from the mind of a man who has never really left the 2016 election behind.
Facebook busts dozens of fake accounts attempting to influence the mid-term elections
Brad Reed - raw story
31 JUL 2018 AT 12:34 ET
Facebook is set to reveal that it has identified multiple bogus user accounts that have been tied to what it says is a political influence campaign leading up to the 2018 midterm elections.
The New York Times reports that Facebook has “discovered coordinated activity around issues like a sequel to last year’s deadly ‘Unite the Right’ white supremacist rally,” as well as “around #AbolishICE, a left-wing campaign on social media that seeks to end the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency.”
The Times’ sources say that Facebook will publicly reveal more information about the alleged influence campaign on Tuesday afternoon, and the publication reports that it briefed Congress last week on its investigation into the accounts.
According to CNN, Facebook has already removed this network of accounts — one of which promoted a counter-demonstration to this summer’s planned “United the Right” white nationalist rally in Washington, D.C.
Although Facebook isn’t saying for certain that Russia is behind these bogus accounts, it does claim that it has “found evidence of some connections between these accounts” and similar accounts used by Russian trolls during the 2016 presidential election.
“We know that Russians and other bad actors are going to continue to try to abuse our platform — before the midterms, probably during the midterms, after the midterms, and around other events and elections,” Nathaniel Gleicher, Facebook’s head of cybersecurity policy, said on a conference call with reporters earlier this month. “We are continually looking for that type of activity, and as and when we find things, which we think is inevitable, we’ll notify law enforcement, and where we can, the public.”
Earlier this month, security experts claimed that Russian bots were pushing the #WalkAway hashtag on social media, which was created as a response to Democrats’ protests against the Trump administration’s treatment of undocumented immigrant families. The hashtag was meant to allegedly show longtime Democrats “walking away” from their party because they were supposedly disgusted by the party’s embrace of undocumented immigrants.
The New York Times reports that Facebook has “discovered coordinated activity around issues like a sequel to last year’s deadly ‘Unite the Right’ white supremacist rally,” as well as “around #AbolishICE, a left-wing campaign on social media that seeks to end the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency.”
The Times’ sources say that Facebook will publicly reveal more information about the alleged influence campaign on Tuesday afternoon, and the publication reports that it briefed Congress last week on its investigation into the accounts.
According to CNN, Facebook has already removed this network of accounts — one of which promoted a counter-demonstration to this summer’s planned “United the Right” white nationalist rally in Washington, D.C.
Although Facebook isn’t saying for certain that Russia is behind these bogus accounts, it does claim that it has “found evidence of some connections between these accounts” and similar accounts used by Russian trolls during the 2016 presidential election.
“We know that Russians and other bad actors are going to continue to try to abuse our platform — before the midterms, probably during the midterms, after the midterms, and around other events and elections,” Nathaniel Gleicher, Facebook’s head of cybersecurity policy, said on a conference call with reporters earlier this month. “We are continually looking for that type of activity, and as and when we find things, which we think is inevitable, we’ll notify law enforcement, and where we can, the public.”
Earlier this month, security experts claimed that Russian bots were pushing the #WalkAway hashtag on social media, which was created as a response to Democrats’ protests against the Trump administration’s treatment of undocumented immigrant families. The hashtag was meant to allegedly show longtime Democrats “walking away” from their party because they were supposedly disgusted by the party’s embrace of undocumented immigrants.
Trump defenders downplay evidence of Russian collusion: “So what?”
Tucker Carlson and friends insist that colluding with a foreign adversary to win an election is not a big deal
TAYLOR LINK - salon
JULY 28, 2018 2:25PM (UTC)
More and more evidence is mounting in the case against President Donald Trump and Russia's meddling in the 2016 election. The latest information from Trump's own attorney, Michael Cohen, indicates that the president knew in advance about the June 2016 meeting in Trump Tower between his son and Kremlin-connected Russians. It is the most persuasive proof yet that the president had knowledge of Russia's intentions to influence the election.
Some Americans don't seem to care. Many right-wing pundits and politicos have tried to wave off the significance of this evidence. National Review editor Andrew McCarthy, for example, told Fox News viewers on Thursday that it would be acceptable for the Trump campaign to "turn to foreign governments for dirt."
Federalist editor Mollie Hemmingway, meanwhile, told her Twitter followers she didn't "have a problem" with presidential candidates "getting dirt on election opponents from foreigners."
Mollie✔
@MZHemingway
I don't have a problem w/ getting dirt on election opponents from foreigners. But if you do, why was it OK for Hillary Clinton to secretly hire a foreign spy to get dirt on her opponent from Kremlin officials, and seed that info into the media and weaponize it in the US gov't?
9:39 AM - Jul 27, 2018
On Friday night, Tucker Carlson was the latest Trump sycophant to endorse lite treason.
"It's hard to see the point of all of this hysteria," he said on his show.
"What exactly would the crime here be? It's not illegal to talk to foreigners," he continued. "Nobody's claiming that any information changed hands. And even it did, so what?"
Like Hemmingway, Carlson attempted to equate what the Trump campaign allegedly did to the Hillary Clinton campaign's attempt to dig up information on Russia's election interference, which came in the form of the Christopher Steele dossier.
Carlson said the dossier was "based on misinformation," despite the fact that much of the content in the dossier has been verified by U.S. officials.
No one is exactly surprised that Carlson and other right-wing commentators are trying to normalize collusion with a foreign adversary. Trump's defenders have continuously moved the goalposts when it comes to the Russia-election story. First, they insisted the Trump Tower meeting never happened. Then they conceded the meeting did happen, but it was not about the presidential election. Now that there is concrete evidence that the Trump campaign was aware of Russian meddling, the state of play is to ask: "So what?"[...]
Some Americans don't seem to care. Many right-wing pundits and politicos have tried to wave off the significance of this evidence. National Review editor Andrew McCarthy, for example, told Fox News viewers on Thursday that it would be acceptable for the Trump campaign to "turn to foreign governments for dirt."
Federalist editor Mollie Hemmingway, meanwhile, told her Twitter followers she didn't "have a problem" with presidential candidates "getting dirt on election opponents from foreigners."
Mollie✔
@MZHemingway
I don't have a problem w/ getting dirt on election opponents from foreigners. But if you do, why was it OK for Hillary Clinton to secretly hire a foreign spy to get dirt on her opponent from Kremlin officials, and seed that info into the media and weaponize it in the US gov't?
9:39 AM - Jul 27, 2018
On Friday night, Tucker Carlson was the latest Trump sycophant to endorse lite treason.
"It's hard to see the point of all of this hysteria," he said on his show.
"What exactly would the crime here be? It's not illegal to talk to foreigners," he continued. "Nobody's claiming that any information changed hands. And even it did, so what?"
Like Hemmingway, Carlson attempted to equate what the Trump campaign allegedly did to the Hillary Clinton campaign's attempt to dig up information on Russia's election interference, which came in the form of the Christopher Steele dossier.
Carlson said the dossier was "based on misinformation," despite the fact that much of the content in the dossier has been verified by U.S. officials.
No one is exactly surprised that Carlson and other right-wing commentators are trying to normalize collusion with a foreign adversary. Trump's defenders have continuously moved the goalposts when it comes to the Russia-election story. First, they insisted the Trump Tower meeting never happened. Then they conceded the meeting did happen, but it was not about the presidential election. Now that there is concrete evidence that the Trump campaign was aware of Russian meddling, the state of play is to ask: "So what?"[...]
Baltimore Ravens reporter for USA Today used N-word to bash players — also mocked Asians and gays
MARTIN CIZMAR - raw story
23 JUL 2018 AT 18:34 ET
Lindsay Ok and one of her offensive tweets/Screenshot
A reporter covering the Baltimore Ravens has a history of racist and homophobic statements, reports Black Sports online.
Lindsey Ok covers the Baltimore NFL team for Ravens Wire, part of the USA Todaynetwork.
But tweets collected by BSO show her referring to the NFL as “Niggers For Life” and mocking Asians, the homeless and gays.
OK has so many racist and homophobic tweets that they have not all been deleted as of press time.
Help me there's Asians everywhere
— lindsey ok (@lindseyyok) September 22, 2011
We have a gay flight attendant in first class who told us he only likes his vodka on the rocks and he might shake us around a bit. Great
— lindsey ok (@lindseyyok) May 14, 2010
Lindsey Ok covers the Baltimore NFL team for Ravens Wire, part of the USA Todaynetwork.
But tweets collected by BSO show her referring to the NFL as “Niggers For Life” and mocking Asians, the homeless and gays.
OK has so many racist and homophobic tweets that they have not all been deleted as of press time.
Help me there's Asians everywhere
— lindsey ok (@lindseyyok) September 22, 2011
We have a gay flight attendant in first class who told us he only likes his vodka on the rocks and he might shake us around a bit. Great
— lindsey ok (@lindseyyok) May 14, 2010
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.
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.
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
|
|
