Elections

Meet Kari Lake. She is the election-denying, antisemite-endorsing former television news anchor who is the Republican candidate for governor of Arizona.She is Donald Trump in lipstick. But she delivers her divisiveness in the calm and measured tones of a person reading the news rather than a man who froths at the mic.She parrots Trump’s disgusting generalizations about immigrants, saying last month: “The media might have a field day with this one, but I’m going to just repeat something President Trump said a long time ago, and it got him in a lot of trouble. They are bringing drugs. They are bringing crime, and they are rapists, and that’s who’s coming across our border. That’s a fact.”Like Trump, she refuses to commit to accepting the result of the Arizona election — unless she wins. All she would say last week when asked on CNN’s “State of the Union” whether she would accept the outcome was, “I’m going to win the election, and I will accept that result.” Well, of course.In the same way that Trump sought to brand Hillary Clinton a racist — calling her in 2016 “a bigot who sees people of color only as votes, not as human beings worthy of a better future” — Lake is telling CNN that her opponent Katie Hobbs is “a twice-convicted racist.”Convicted? If racism were a crime for which one could be convicted, America wouldn’t have enough prisons to hold the guilty, and Lake’s buddy Trump would be the mascot of the cellblock.Now Lake is joining Trump in invoking the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. in self-serving ways. On Martin Luther King Day in 2020, Trump tweeted: “It was exactly three years ago today, January 20, 2017, that I was sworn into office. So appropriate that today is also MLK jr DAY. African-American Unemployment is the LOWEST in the history of our Country, by far. Also, best Poverty, Youth, and Employment numbers, ever. Great!” Trump will always find a way to make things about himself.But Lake one-upped Trump in disrespecting King’s legacy, at a campaign event on Tuesday with the failed Democratic presidential hopeful (and now former Democrat) Tulsi Gabbard.Gabbard said during their exchange that she became a Democrat because she was “inspired” by the “party of Dr. Martin Luther King” and John F. Kennedy, “a party that said we respect your individual freedoms and civil liberties and a government of, by and for the people.” But, she added, “unfortunately that party no longer exists today.”Let’s stop here and start to set the record straight. The Democratic Party is not the party of Dr. King. He was devoted to principles and policies, not parties. In fact, he once said: “I don’t think the Republican Party is a party full of the almighty God, nor is the Democratic Party. They both have weaknesses. And I’m not inextricably bound to either.”He was, however, bound to the idea of equality, fairness and truth, things that are anathema to the modern Republican Party. Democrats, on the other hand, are fighting for voting rights, which King championed, even as Republicans rush to suppress voting.Gabbard is obscene in her obtuseness, but what else can you expect from her?After Gabbard’s distortions about the Democratic Party of her youth disappearing, Lake chimed in, saying, “I’m a true believer that if M.L.K., Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., were alive today, if J.F.K. were alive today, if our founding fathers were alive today, they would be America First Republicans.”Let’s set aside for a moment the fact that the founders worried and wrote endlessly about their fear of demagogues like Trump, whom Lake supports and whose lies she propagates.Let’s set aside the fact that Kennedy railed against core Republican policies that remain relatively unchanged, saying in a 1947 speech that the “Republican policies that brought disaster to the country in the late ’20s are good enough for the Republicans of today” and describing their agenda as “stringent labor laws, which strangle labor’s freedom by restraint” and “tax reductions which benefit the prosperous at the expense of the poor, at a time when the buying power in the upper ranges of income is abnormally high, while the buying power in the lower ranges of income is abnormally low.”Let’s instead focus on what has become a standard tactic for Republicans: co-opting King’s legacy, saying that he would have supported people who now stand for exactly what he opposed.It is a brazen act of blaspheming, an attempted theft of moral authority being conducted in broad daylight. And it’s not new. It has been happening for at least a decade, and writers and researchers have long been writing about it. What is striking to me is not that it happened but the consistency and longevity of the fraud.This is not an extemporaneous error but a concerted, coordinated effort to distract and deceive, to claim the antithesis of their political position as their own political avatar.So I say to Lake and all Republicans invoking King while working against his ideals: Keep Dr. King’s name out of your mouths!The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: [email protected] The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook and Twitter (@NYTopinion), and Instagram. More

ALBANY, N.Y. — Closing the chapter on a lengthy and bitter exchange, the Republican candidate for governor, Representative Lee Zeldin, has agreed to debate Gov. Kathy Hochul this week.The debate — the only one before the general election on Nov. 8 — will be held at 7 p.m. on Tuesday and hosted by Spectrum News NY1.That even one debate would be held has been a matter of some contention. Mr. Zeldin had previously challenged Ms. Hochul to a series of debates, but she agreed to this single one.Mr. Zeldin refused to accept the date in protest, noting that because it came so late, many voters would already have received and filled out absentee ballots. But Ms. Hochul held firm, and on Sunday, Mr. Zeldin agreed to appear.When asked on Sunday on Channel 7’s “Up Close” about her refusal to agree to additional dates, Ms. Hochul noted that a single debate was not unusual for New York governor’s races.“I also want to point out, I’m still running the state of New York government. I don’t have time to stand on a street corner screaming into the wind,” Ms. Hochul said.Previous governors have also played hardball with debate scheduling — Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo was notoriously reluctant to debate challengers. But unlike previous incumbents Ms. Hochul has not yet been elected to the office of governor, having ascended from the lieutenant governorship only after Mr. Cuomo resigned amid allegations of sexual harassment.Mr. Zeldin has repeatedly accused Ms. Hochul of avoiding the debates to avoid answering questions about her record, a line of attack he reprised in his statement Sunday. Even so, he said, did not intend to “let her off the hook.”Jerrel Harvey, a spokesman for the Hochul campaign, welcomed the news that Mr. Zeldin would debate, saying: “Governor Hochul looks forward to highlighting her strong record of delivering results and exposing Lee Zeldin’s dangerous lies.”The debate will be held at Pace University in Manhattan and will be available to New York viewers on Spectrum news channels and will be moderated by Susan Arbetter and Errol Lewis. More

Objectors cover More

Plus Britain prepares for a new leader and Russia forcibly resettles Ukraine’s children.Xi Jinping is poised to push his vision of a swaggering, nationalist China even further, with himself at the center.Kevin Frayer/Getty ImagesXi Jinping tightens his gripTo no one’s surprise, Xi Jinping has formally secured a third term as head of China’s Communist Party.He thoroughly shook up the party’s top tiers, elevating loyalists and forcing out moderates. In so doing, Xi consolidated his power and created a new ruling elite primed to elevate his agenda of bolstering national security and turning China into a technological great power. And in a moment packed with symbolism, Hu Jintao, who presided over one of China’s more open and prosperous periods, was ushered out of an important political meeting.Xi chose six men with longstanding ties to him for the Politburo Standing Committee, the top echelon of the party. Wang Huning, his chief theoretician, remains on the body, a sign that hard-line policies and the role of ideology will persist. Xi also appointed to the Politburo, the party’s second tier, a number of domestic security officials and military commanders, as well as several people with backgrounds in science and engineering.As Xi tightens his control, Beijing is likely to remain defiant in the face of international criticism of its authoritarian policies. Notably, at the party congress this week, Xi did not mention two long-repeated maxims about peace and strategic opportunity. The omissions revealed Xi’s anxieties about an increasingly volatile world, and warned of a looming conflict with the U.S. for global dominance.Analysis: To supporters, Xi’s centralized control and continuity are strengths. But some argue that ousting critics could leave Xi’s government vulnerable to failures like its mismanagement during the early days of Covid-19.Standing Committee: New appointees include Ding Xuexiang, Xi’s right-hand man, and Li Qiang, who worked under Xi when they were local officials in Zhejiang Province. Li oversaw a contentious Covid lockdown in Shanghai and is now in line to become China’s new premier.Other updates:For the first time in decades, no women will be on the Politburo.Hu Chunhua, once seen as a potential successor to Premier Li Keqiang, has been sidelined: He’s not in the Standing Committee or the Politburo.From Opinion: Ai Weiwei, an artist and outspoken critic of the Chinese government, argues that the Communist Party has suppressed all possible dissent, despite hopes that capitalism and the internet would create opportunities for rebellion.Liz Truss’s departure plunged Britain deeper into financial uncertainty.Sam Bush for The New York TimesBoris Johnson bows outBritain’s Conservative Party plans to select a new prime minister this week, days after Liz Truss resigned.One thing is for sure: It won’t be Boris Johnson, who was forced to resign as prime minister in July. Johnson pulled out of the race yesterday evening, despite speculation that he was eyeing a return to power.The State of the WarA Looming Crisis: Russia’s stepped-up attacks on infrastructure and vital utility networks in Ukraine herald a new phase of the war — one that threatens millions of Ukrainians with the prospect of a winter without electricity, water and heat in half-destroyed buildings.A New Front?: Russia is massing thousands of troops in its western neighbor Belarus, raising fears that Moscow might plan to open another front in the war. But officials in Kyiv and Washington are casting doubt on whether the buildup represents a serious threat.Occupied Regions: President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia declared martial law in four illegally annexed regions of Ukraine as pro-Kremlin authorities in the city of Kherson said they would evacuate tens of thousands of people in advance of a possible Ukrainian counterattack.An Opportunity Ahead: American officials are convinced that the next six weeks, before fall mud spreads, could allow Ukraine’s military to press forward in the Donbas region and potentially retake Kherson.Rishi Sunak, the former chancellor of the Exchequer who had lost to Truss, is now the favorite to win. He had lined up at least 147 votes by late afternoon yesterday, according to a tally by the BBC.Sunak could become prime minister as early as today: If only one candidate receives 100 or more nominations from the 357 Conservative members of Parliament, that person will become the next prime minister.Analysis: Some experts link Truss’s downfall to the bitter factions Brexit created in the Conservative Party.A broken window at a hospital in Mariupol, where many resettled children once lived.Evgeniy Maloletka/Associated PressRussia resettles Ukraine’s childrenSince Russia’s invasion started in February, thousands of Ukrainian children have been transferred to Russia, often against their will, to be adopted and become citizens.Russian authorities have celebrated the adoptions with patriotic fanfare. On state-run television, officials offer teddy bears to new arrivals, who are portrayed as abandoned children being rescued from war.But this mass transfer of children is a potential war crime. Some were taken after their parents had been killed or imprisoned by Russian troops, according to Ukrainian officials. And while many did come from orphanages and group homes, the authorities also took children whose relatives or guardians want them back.“I didn’t want to go,” one 14-year-old girl told my colleague Emma Bubola. “But nobody asked me.” Fighting: Russian forces pounded Ukraine’s power plants with some of the heaviest missile strikes in weeks.THE LATEST NEWSAsia PacificThe women say that they have suffered lasting trauma from the episode at Hamad International Airport in Doha, Qatar.Karim Jaafar/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesFive Australian women have sued Qatar two years after they underwent invasive medical procedures when a newborn was found in an airport bathroom.Pakistan’s election commission effectively barred former Prime Minister Imran Khan from office, escalating a political showdown and raising the possibility of mass unrest.Indonesia has banned cough syrup sales amid worries that tainted product from India may be connected to the deaths of dozens of children in Gambia.BTS members can still perform at South Korean national events during their upcoming military service, The Korea Times reports.Around the WorldThe Jan. 6 committee subpoenaed Donald Trump for testimony and documents.At least 50 people died when security forces in Chad opened fire on protesters, who were demanding that the military junta stick to a promise to hold elections.Palestinians have moved into caves as Israel tries to expel them from their villages and demolish their homes, which could amount to a war crime. Other Big StoriesSteve Bannon, a former adviser to Donald Trump, was found guilty of two counts of contempt of Congress.Chip Somodevilla/Getty ImagesSteve Bannon was sentenced to four months in prison for defying a Jan. 6 committee subpoena.A U.S. court temporarily blocked the Biden administration from canceling any student debt.Protests, a riot and gunshots: Here’s how a fire at a notorious Iranian prison spread.A Morning ReadTamara Plieshkova, right, feels like “an old, mature tree being replanted into new soil,” her daughter said. Plieshkova reunited with her granddaughter in Colorado after escaping the war in Ukraine in September.Theo Stroomer for The New York TimesThere is a name for the specific type of grief that both refugees and migrants experience. It’s “cultural bereavement.”Lives lived: Peter Schjeldahl, an art critic whose enthusiasm and elegant reviews helped define New York’s art scene, died at 80. Read his witty essay from 2019 on his lung cancer diagnosis.GLOBAL GASTRONOMYNoma in KyotoNoma, the celebrated Danish restaurant, will open a 10-week pop-up in Kyoto, Japan. It will span sakura (cherry-blossom) season and incorporate ingredients and methods from the region, which is the historic center of Japanese Buddhism.The very structure of the meal also references Buddhist culinary traditions. The ubiquitous modern tasting menu has its roots in kaiseki, a carefully orchestrated progression of small plates that grew from a Buddhist tea ceremony into a luxurious cuisine in Kyoto. In the late 1960s, elements of the meal began to flow from Japan into fine dining, often through the influential Tsuji culinary school in Osaka.The conceptual approach to ingredients was partially born in kaiseki, too: Kyoto’s kaiseki menus have always changed to reflect the seasons. That idea has given rise to foraging, restaurant gardens and the farm-to-table movement.“I was taught that the tasting menu was invented by the French and then reinvented in Spain,” René Redzepi, Noma’s chef, told The Times. “I had no idea of the vast repository of ideas and techniques that is Japanese food.”Details: Noma Kyoto will be open from March 15 through May 20. The meal will cost just over 850 euros (about $839) per person and reservations will open on Nov. 7 on Noma’s website.PLAY, WATCH, EATWhat to CookKate Sears for The New York TimesYou only need one pan for this shrimp scampi with crispy gnocchi.What to Listen toTaylor Swift’s new album, “Midnights,” comments on life as a deeply observed figure.What to Read“Is Mother Dead,” a harrowing Norwegian novel, features a middle-aged painter desperate to reconcile with her estranged parent.Now Time to PlayPlay the Mini Crossword, and a clue: British baked good (five letters).Here are the Wordle and the Spelling Bee.You can find all our puzzles here.That’s it for today’s briefing. Best wishes for a great week. — AmeliaP.S. The Concorde made its last commercial flight 19 years ago today.Start your week with this narrated long read about Yiyun Li, a novelist beloved for her powerful distillations of grief. And here’s Friday’s edition of “The Daily,” on Liz Truss’s downfall.You can reach Amelia and the team at [email protected]. More

Democratic Party leaders turned toward inflation and the economy after a summer focus on abortion. Representative Nancy Mace, a Republican, said the G.O.P. would seek spending cuts.With less than three weeks to go before Election Day and polls showing Republicans gaining ground, Democrats dispatched surrogates to the Sunday morning talk shows to make their case for control of Congress. They focused on inflation and wages, a notable shift after months in which they leaned on abortion rights.Widespread anger at the Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade fueled Democrats through the summer, lifting them in special House races and raising their hopes of defying the historical pattern of midterm elections, in which the party in power usually loses seats. But polls suggest voters are prioritizing other issues.Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont emphasized Social Security and Medicare on Sunday, pointing to Republicans’ calls for spending cuts, while adding that they still considered abortion an important issue that would motivate many voters.“The Republicans have said that if they win, they want to subject Medicare, Social Security — health blackmail — to lifting the debt ceiling,” Ms. Pelosi said on CBS’s “Face the Nation.” “They have said they would like to review Medicare and Social Security every five years. They have said that they would like to make it a discretionary spending that Congress could decide to do it or not, rather than mandatory. So Social Security and Medicare are on the line.”Mr. Sanders, on CNN’s “State of the Union,” rejected the argument that Democrats were to blame for inflation, noting that the inflation rate was also very high in Britain and the European Union. He argued that Republicans had put forward no workable plans to combat it.“They want to cut Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid at a time when millions of seniors are struggling to pay their bills,” he said. “Do you think that’s what we should be doing? Democrats should take that to them.” More

Conservative Party lawmakers have so far put more weight behind Rishi Sunak to be their next leader, but Boris Johnson is still in the fight to reclaim Downing Street.LONDON — The competition to replace Liz Truss as Britain’s prime minister intensified on Sunday, with Rishi Sunak pulling ahead in the scramble for votes of Conservative lawmakers, but Boris Johnson mounting a lively campaign to reclaim the job he gave up three months ago amid a cascade of scandals.Mr. Sunak, who formally declared his candidacy with a promise to “fix our economy,” had lined up at least 144 votes by early Sunday afternoon, according to a tally by the BBC, more than double the 56 votes pledged to Mr. Johnson. A third candidate, Penny Mordaunt, had 23.Beyond the numerical advantage, Mr. Sunak has picked up significant endorsements from people on the right flank of the Conservative Party. On Sunday morning, Steve Baker, a lawmaker who represents an influential group of euro-skeptics in Parliament, announced he would support Mr. Sunak.“Boris Johnson would be a guaranteed disaster,” Mr. Baker told Sophy Ridge of Sky News. “We cannot allow it to happen.”That is important because it suggests that not only do party leaders view Mr. Johnson as an intolerable risk, they also believe that Mr. Sunak, who served as chancellor of the Exchequer under Mr. Johnson, could bridge some of the bitter ideological fissures in the party, which were deepened by Ms. Truss’s turbulent six weeks in office. In the last contest, many figures on the party’s right flocked to Ms. Truss, which put her in a good position to beat Mr. Sunak.More on the Situation in BritainA Rapid Downfall: Liz Truss is about to become the shortest-serving prime minister in British history. How did she get there?Lifelong Allowance: The departing prime minister is eligible for a taxpayer-funded annual payout for the rest of her life. Some say she shouldn’t be allowed to receive it.Staging a Comeback?: When Boris Johnson left his role as prime minister in September, he hinted he might return. He is now being mentioned as a successor to Ms. Truss.Under the rules set out by the party, candidates are required to have nominations from at least 100 of the 357 Conservative lawmakers to advance to a second round of voting, among rank-and-file members of the party.Candidates have until 2 p.m. Monday to gather nominations. On Monday, the party will hold two rounds of voting to winnow the field to one or two. If two remain, party members will cast online ballots later in the week.Boris Johnson on Saturday at Gatwick Airport near London after returning from a vacation.Henry Nicholls/ReutersIf Mr. Johnson can drum up 100 nominations, it would significantly raise his odds of returning to Downing Street, as opinion polls suggest he would win the vote among members. Allies of the former prime minister insist he already has those 100 votes, but political analysts have expressed skepticism, noting that barely half that number have publicly declared their intention to back him.Mr. Johnson did receive a notable endorsement from a member of his last cabinet, Nadhim Zahawi, who served briefly as chancellor of Exchequer after the resignation of Mr. Sunak. Mr. Sunak’s departure helped set in motion the wholesale walkout of ministers that finally toppled Mr. Johnson.“When I was Chancellor, I saw a preview of what Boris 2.0 would look like,” Mr. Zahawi wrote on Twitter. “He was contrite & honest about his mistakes. He’d learned from those mistakes how he could run No10 & the country better.”In July, Mr. Zahawi was among those urging Mr. Johnson to resign. “The country deserves a government that is not only stable, but which acts with integrity,” he wrote in a letter to his boss. “Prime Minister, you know in your heart what the right thing to do is, and go now.”Mr. Johnson, who flew home on Saturday from a vacation in the Dominican Republic to begin lobbying lawmakers, has yet to formally declare his candidacy. But another of his former ministers, Jacob Rees-Mogg, told the BBC that he had spoken with Mr. Johnson, and that he would “clearly stand.”Ms. Mordaunt, who officially threw her hat in the ring on Friday, is viewed as unlikely to advance past the first round of voting. But she insisted on Sunday that she, too, was confident of lining up more than 100 lawmakers.Penny Mordaunt on Sunday in London. She declared on Friday that she would stand in the leadership race.Alberto Pezzali/Associated PressBritish newspapers reported that Mr. Johnson was seeking to strike a deal with Mr. Sunak to join forces in a unity ticket, and that the two had met on Saturday. But the shape of such a ticket was unclear, given Mr. Sunak’s large lead among lawmakers, and the animosity between the two men makes any cooperation look far-fetched.In the statement announcing his candidacy, Mr. Sunak said his experience as chancellor would equip him to lead Britain through the economic challenges that loom. He promised a government of “integrity, professionalism, and accountability,” drawing a clear comparison to the ethical failings of Mr. Johnson’s tenure.The success of Mr. Sunak’s message will hinge on how lawmakers weigh that against their own electoral fortunes. The Conservatives are trailing the opposition Labour Party by more than 30 percentage points in polls. Though the Conservative Party’s steep erosion in support began under Mr. Johnson, he is still viewed by many as a proven vote-getter after his landslide victory in the 2019 general election.Mr. Rees-Mogg, repeating the claim that Mr. Johnson had more than 100 votes, described him as the party’s “greatest electoral asset,” contending that only he could engineer a victory over the Labour Party. More

Hundreds of Republicans running for offices this year have questioned the 2020 election.Hundreds of Republicans running for national and statewide offices have questioned or spread misinformation about the 2020 election, in some cases outright denying President Biden’s victory. To understand how thoroughly these views have seeped into American politics, my colleagues Karen Yourish and Danielle Ivory combed through statements from more than 550 Republican candidates. I spoke with them about what they found.Ashley: Why do many Republicans continue to question the 2020 election?Danielle: There are candidates who seem to genuinely believe what they’re saying, and some who probably feel like they have to talk about it. Donald Trump and many of the party’s core supporters have made questioning 2020 a litmus test for Republican candidates.Some Republicans have learned that they can’t drop this issue because there’s pressure from Trump or the people around him. One example is Tim Michels, a candidate for governor in Wisconsin. He said he would not prioritize decertification of the 2020 election, which is not legally possible. Then there was an uproar from Trump’s camp. So Michels started promoting “2000 Mules,” a documentary that purports to show election fraud but is based on an erroneous premise.You put the candidates into different categories: those who openly said the election was stolen and those who questioned the election in other ways. Why distinguish between them?Karen: We wanted to help readers understand the range of ways that candidates are promoting misinformation about 2020. We felt it was incorrect to label all candidates who questioned specific aspects of the election — including many who voted to object to the Electoral College count on Jan. 6 — as “election deniers.” There has been a lot of coverage on the most extreme examples, the people who explicitly say that the election was stolen. But many others cast doubt, often frequently, in ways that might seem more reasonable but are possibly more insidious.What are some of those ways?Karen: A great example is Robert Burns, a New Hampshire House candidate. In a local TV news interview in February, he said he didn’t believe that the “stolen election is a winning issue.” He then went on to say that Trump did not get more votes than Biden, but votes were “absolutely” stolen, without actually saying that the whole election was fraudulent.Another is Senator Mike Lee of Utah, who said on C-SPAN that “President Biden is the president of the United States” but then added that the conspiracy film “2000 Mules” raised “significant questions as to what might have happened” in the election and that those allegations should be investigated.Many candidates have recently taken to promoting an unfounded theory that the media, Facebook and the F.B.I. conspired to interfere in the 2020 election by censoring coverage of a negative news story about Hunter Biden, the president’s son.What surprised you about your findings?Danielle: Falsehoods about the election seem to have staying power that I didn’t expect, and that resilience seems increasingly relevant as we head into the midterm elections. So we thought it was important to separate out more recent statements about the election, almost two years after Donald Trump lost, versus those that were made in 2020 or 2021.What do your findings mean for next month’s midterm elections?Danielle: Hundreds of the candidates we identified as questioning the past presidential election are favored to win their races and take office. They represent a growing consensus in the Republican Party and a potential threat to one of the bedrock principles of democracy — that voters decide elections and candidates accept the results. And we will be interested to see how these candidates react if they do not win.Read the investigation here.Karen Yourish joined The Times in 2013 from The Washington Post. She has read all of Donald Trump’s tweets (twice) and watched more than 1,000 episodes of “Tucker Carlson Tonight.” Danielle Ivory joined The Times in 2013 from Bloomberg News. She has led efforts to collect and analyze data on Covid deaths in nursing homes and Russia’s war strategy in Ukraine.For more“These people are SICK”: Polarizing rhetoric has become entrenched among House Republicans.Some voters have already lost faith in the ability of America’s system of government to represent them.NEWSWar in UkraineMissile damage in Zaporizhzia, Ukraine.Ivor Prickett for The New York TimesRussian forces pounded Ukraine’s power plants with some of the heaviest missile strikes in weeks.Russian authorities have resettled thousands of Ukrainian children in Russia, including some whose relatives want them back.InternationalXi Jinping formally secured another term as head of China’s Communist Party. Follow our updates.What Xi doesn’t say is as revealing as what he does. Key omissions from his messages at the Communist Party congress suggested worry about threats ahead.The former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson returned home yesterday from a vacation abroad, feeding expectations that he would seek another term.Liz Truss’s resignation was a result of the fallout from Brexit and the opposing factions it created among British conservatives, experts said.Hurricane Roslyn is expected to bring high winds and heavy rainfall to west-central Mexico as it makes landfall today.Other Big StoriesCases of the flu and other viruses are returning in the U.S. and could collide with an expected winter rise in Covid infections.New York City will increase the presence of police officers on the subway.FROM OPINIONLiberals must confront the demands of the Trumpist right and the illiberal left, not just denounce them, Ross Douthat argues in his inaugural newsletter. Sign up to receive it.Truss turned out to be a stooge for Boris Johnson, Maureen Dowd writes.The politics of Los Angeles’s affordable housing crisis are terrible. The politics of what’s needed to solve it are worse, Ezra Klein says.New York has a long history of moderate Republican governors. Lee Zeldin is not part of that tradition, The Times’s editorial board writes in its endorsement of Gov. Kathy Hochul.The Sunday question: Has Xi Jinping made China stronger?As he begins his third term as China’s leader, Xi has grown its economy, strengthened its military and made himself its most dominant politician since Mao, Bloomberg Opinion’s editorial board argues. But an economic slowdown, Xi’s disruptive zero-Covid strategy and his increasingly dictatorial rule could threaten those successes, says CNN’s Selina Wang.MORNING READSSkiers made their way up Mount Hood this year.Ruth Fremson for The New York TimesShifting snowmelt: What happens when the Pacific Northwest loses its snow?Something navy? Bold colors, beads and big sleeves at New York Bridal Fashion Week.Breaking up: With Peloton.Sunday routine: A 60-year-old D.J. pretends she’s a tourist in New York.Advice from Wirecutter: Bring these essentials trick-or-treating.BOOKSPaul Newman: His autobiography reveals a new side of “a man we imagined we knew,” the novelist Richard Russo writes for The Times.“The Passenger”: Cormac McCarthy’s novel offers two ways of seeing.Times best sellers: “Down and Out in Paradise,” Charles Leerhsen’s book about Anthony Bourdain, debuted as a hardcover nonfiction best seller. See all our lists here.THE SUNDAY TIMES MAGAZINEStephen Voss for The New York Times.On the cover: The rise of Marjorie Taylor Greene.Katricia Dotson: She was killed by the police. Why were her bones in a museum?Recommendation: Use “y’all,” the most inclusive pronoun.Humbled champions: What we lose when athletes retire on top.Eat: This Salisbury steak is no TV dinner.Read the full issue.THE WEEK AHEADWhat to Watch ForBritain’s Conservative Party plans to select a new prime minister this week.Candidates will meet for debates on several nights this week, including in Florida’s governor’s race tomorrow and Pennsylvania’s Senate matchup on Tuesday.The Trump Organization will face trial on Monday in a New York State Court on tax fraud and other charges.Two Minneapolis officers involved in George Floyd’s death go to trial on Monday on state charges.The W.N.B.A. star Brittney Griner is due in court on Tuesday in Russia to appeal her drug conviction.The deadline for Elon Musk, Tesla’s C.E.O., to complete an acquisition of Twitter is Friday.The World Series begins on Friday. The National League champion, either the San Diego Padres or the Philadelphia Phillies, will face the American League champion, either the Houston Astros or the New York Yankees.What to Cook This WeekLinda Xiao for The New York Times. Food Stylist: Monica Pierini.Cravings are highly personal, Emily Weinstein writes. She shares a few of her own: stuffed shells, roasted chicken with crispy mushrooms and breakfast burritos.NOW TIME TO PLAYHere’s a clue from the Sunday crossword:74 Across: “Mad” figure of fictionTake the news quiz to see how well you followed the week’s headlines.Here’s today’s Spelling Bee. Here’s today’s Wordle. After, use our bot to get better.Thanks for spending part of your weekend with The Times.Matthew Cullen, Lauren Hard, Lauren Jackson, Claire Moses, Ian Prasad Philbrick, Tom Wright-Piersanti and Ashley Wu contributed to The Morning. You can reach the team at [email protected] up here to get this newsletter in your inbox. More

La proliferación de redes sociales alternativas ha ayudado a afianzar la información falsa y engañosa como elemento clave de la política estadounidense.La mañana del 8 de julio, el expresidente Donald Trump recurrió a Truth Social, la plataforma de redes sociales que fundó con gente cercana a él, para afirmar que había ganado las elecciones presidenciales del 2020 en el estado de Wisconsin, a pesar de todas las pruebas que evidenciaban lo contrario.Alrededor de 8000 personas compartieron esa misiva en Truth Social, cifra que distó mucho de los cientos de miles de respuestas que sus publicaciones en Facebook y Twitter solían generar antes de que esas plataformas le apagaran el micrófono tras los mortíferos disturbios en el Capitolio el 6 de enero de 2021.A pesar de ello, la afirmación infundada de Trump pululó en la conciencia pública. Saltó de su aplicación a otras plataformas de redes sociales, por no hablar de pódcast, la radio y la televisión.Al cabo de 48 horas de publicado su mensaje, más de un millón de personas lo habían visto en al menos una decena de otros lugares. Apareció en Facebook y Twitter, de donde fue eliminado, pero también en YouTube, Gab, Parler y Telegram, según un análisis de The New York Times.La difusión de la afirmación de Trump ilustra cómo la desinformación ha hecho metástasis desde que los expertos comenzaron a sonar la alarma sobre la amenaza que supone y todo esto ocurre justo antes de las elecciones de mitad de mandato de este año. A pesar de los años de esfuerzos de los medios de comunicación, de los académicos e incluso de las propias empresas de redes sociales para hacer frente al problema, se puede decir que hoy en día está más generalizado y extendido.“Para ser honesta, me parece que el problema está peor que nunca”, comentó Nina Jankowicz, experta en desinformación que condujo durante un periodo breve un consejo consultivo dentro del Departamento de Seguridad Nacional dedicado a combatir la desinformación. La creación del panel desató furor y provocó su renuncia y la disolución del consejo consultivo.No hace mucho, la lucha contra la desinformación se centraba en las principales plataformas de redes sociales, como Facebook y Twitter. Cuando se les presionaba, solían eliminar los contenidos problemáticos, incluida la información errónea y la desinformación intencionada sobre la pandemia de COVID-19.Sin embargo, ahora hay decenas de plataformas nuevas, incluidas algunas que se enorgullecen de no moderar —censurar, como lo denominan— las declaraciones falsas en nombre de la libertad de expresión.Otras personalidades siguieron los pasos de Trump y se cambiaron a estas nuevas plataformas tras ser “censuradas” por Facebook, YouTube o Twitter. Entre ellos, Michael Flynn, el general retirado que sirvió brevemente como principal asesor de Seguridad Nacional de Trump; L. Lin Wood, una abogada pro-Trump; Naomi Wolf, una autora feminista y escéptica de las vacunas, así como diversos seguidores de QAnon y los Oath Keepers, un grupo de militantes de extrema derecha.Al menos 69 millones de personas se han unido a plataformas como Parler, Gab, Truth Social, Gettr y Rumble, que se promueven como alternativas conservadoras a las grandes empresas tecnológicas, según declaraciones de las empresas mismas. Aunque muchos de esos usuarios ya no tienen cabida en las plataformas más grandes, siguen difundiendo sus opiniones, que a menudo aparecen en capturas de pantalla publicadas en los sitios que les prohibieron la entrada.“Nada en internet existe de manera aislada”, afirmó Jared Holt, gestor principal en la investigación sobre odio y extremismo del Instituto para el Diálogo Estratégico. “Lo que ocurre en plataformas alternas como Gab o Telegram o Truth tarde o temprano llega a Facebook, Twitter y otras”, agregó.Los usuarios han migrado a aplicaciones como Truth Social luego de haber sido “censuradas” por Facebook, YouTube o Twitter.Leon Neal/Getty ImagesEl discurso político se ha radicalizado por la difusión de las personas que propagan desinformación, indicó Nora Benavidez, abogada sénior en Free Press, un grupo de defensa de los derechos digitales y la transparencia.“Nuestro lenguaje y nuestros ecosistemas en línea se están volviendo cada vez más corrosivos”, dijo.Los cambios en el paisaje de la desinformación se están haciendo más evidentes con el ciclo electoral en Estados Unidos. En 2016, la campaña encubierta de Rusia para difundir mensajes falsos y divisorios parecía una aberración en el sistema político estadounidense. Hoy la desinformación, procedente de enemigos extranjeros y nacionales, se ha convertido en una característica del mismo.La idea infundada de que el presidente Joe Biden no fue electo de manera legítima se generalizó entre los miembros del Partido Republicano, e hizo que funcionarios de los estados y los condados impusieran nuevas restricciones para votar, a menudo solo con base en teorías de la conspiración que se cuelan en los medios de comunicación de derecha.Los votantes no solo deben filtrar un torrente cada vez mayor de mentiras y falsedades sobre los candidatos y sus políticas, sino también información sobre cuándo y dónde votar. Los funcionarios nombrados o elegidos en nombre de la lucha contra el fraude electoral han adoptado una postura que implica que se negarán a certificar los resultados que no sean de su agrado.Los proveedores de desinformación también se han vuelto cada vez más sofisticados a la hora de eludir las normas de las principales plataformas, mientras que el uso del video para difundir afirmaciones falsas en YouTube, TikTok e Instagram ha hecho que los sistemas automatizados tengan más dificultades para identificarlos que los mensajes de texto.TikTok, propiedad del gigante chino de la tecnología ByteDance, se ha vuelto uno de los principales campos de batalla en la lucha actual contra la desinformación. Un informe del mes pasado de NewsGuard, una organización que da seguimiento al problema en línea, mostró que casi el 20 por ciento de los videos que aparecían como resultados de búsqueda en TikTok contenían información falsa o tendenciosa sobre temas como los tiroteos en las escuelas y la guerra de Rusia en Ucrania.Katie Harbath en el “sala de operaciones” de Facebook, donde se monitoreaba el contenido relacionado con las elecciones en la plataforma, en 2018Jeff Chiu/Associated Press“La gente que hace esto sabe cómo aprovechar los vacíos”, explicó Katie Harbath, exdirectora de políticas públicas de Facebook que ahora dirige Anchor Change, una consultora estratégica.A pocas semanas de las elecciones de mitad de mandato, las principales plataformas se han comprometido a bloquear, etiquetar o marginar todo lo que infrinja las políticas de la empresa, incluida la desinformación, la incitación al odio o los llamados a la violencia.Sin embargo, la industria artesanal de expertos dedicados a contrarrestar la desinformación —los grupos de expertos, las universidades y las organizaciones no gubernamentales— mencionan que la industria no está haciendo suficiente. El mes pasado, por ejemplo, el Centro Stern para los Negocios y los Derechos Humanos de la Universidad de Nueva York advirtió que las principales plataformas seguían amplificando el “negacionismo electoral” de maneras que debilitaban la confianza en el sistema democrático.Otro desafío es la proliferación de plataformas alternativas para esas falsedades y opiniones aún más extremas.Muchas de esas nuevas plataformas florecieron tras la derrota de Trump en 2020, aunque todavía no han alcanzado el tamaño o el alcance de Facebook y Twitter. Estas plataformas afirman que las grandes empresas tecnológicas están en deuda con el gobierno, el Estado profundo o la élite liberal.Parler, una red social fundada en 2018, era uno de los sitios que más crecía, hasta que las tiendas de aplicaciones de Apple y Google lo expulsaron tras los disturbios mortales del 6 de enero, alimentados por la desinformación y los llamados a la violencia en línea. Desde entonces ha vuelto a ambas tiendas y ha empezado a reconstruir su audiencia apelando a quienes sienten que sus voces han sido silenciadas.“En Parler creemos que el individuo es quien debe decidir lo que cree que es la verdad”, dijo en una entrevista, Amy Peikoff, la directora de políticas de la plataforma.Argumentó que el problema con la desinformación o las teorías de la conspiración se derivaba de los algoritmos que las plataformas usan para mantener a la gente pegada a internet y no del debate sin moderar que fomentan sitios como Parler.El lunes, Parler anunció que Kanye West había, en principio, accedido a comprar la plataforma en un acuerdo que el rapero y el diseñador de moda, ahora conocido como Ye, formuló en términos políticos.“En un mundo en que las opiniones conservadoras se consideran controversiales, debemos de asegurarnos de tener el derecho a expresarnos libremente”, dijo, según el comunicado de la compañía.Los competidores de Parler son ahora BitChute, Gab, Gettr, Rumble, Telegram y Truth Social, y cada uno de ellos se presenta como un santuario frente a las políticas de moderación de las principales plataformas en todo tipo de temas, desde la política hasta la salud.Una nueva encuesta del Centro de Investigaciones Pew descubrió que el 15 por ciento de las cuentas destacadas en esas siete plataformas habían sido desterradas previamente de otras como Twitter y Facebook.Las aplicaciones como Gettr se publicitan como alternativas a los gigantes tecnológicosElijah Nouvelage/Getty ImagesSegún la encuesta, casi dos terceras partes de los usuarios de esas plataformas dijeron que habían encontrado una comunidad de personas que compartían sus opiniones. La mayoría son republicanos o se inclinan por ese partido.Una consecuencia de esta atomización de las fuentes de las redes sociales es que se refuerzan las burbujas de información partidista en las que viven millones de estadounidenses.Según el Centro Pew, al menos el seis por ciento de los estadounidenses se informa de manera habitual en al menos uno de estos sitios relativamente nuevos, que a menudo “ponen de relieve puntos de vista del mundo que no pertenecen a la corriente dominante y, a veces, utilizan un lenguaje ofensivo”. La encuesta encontró que una de cada 10 publicaciones en estas plataformas que mencionaban cuestiones relacionadas con la comunidad LGBTQ incluían alegatos peyorativos.Estos nuevos sitios siguen siendo marginales comparados con las plataformas más grandes; por ejemplo, Trump tiene 4 millones de seguidores en Truth Social, en comparación con los 88 millones que tenía cuando Twitter cerró su cuenta en 2021.Aun así, Trump ha retomado cada vez más sus publicaciones con el ímpetu que antes mostraba en Twitter. El allanamiento del FBI en Mar-a-Lago volvió a poner sus últimos pronunciamientos en el ojo del huracán político.Para las principales plataformas, el incentivo financiero para atraer usuarios, y sus clics, sigue siendo poderoso y podría hacer que den marcha atrás a las medidas que tomaron en 2021. También hay un componente ideológico. El llamado a la libertad individual, con tintes emocionales, impulsó en parte la oferta de Elon Musk para comprar Twitter, que parece haberse reactivado tras meses de maniobras legales.Nick Clegg, el presidente de asuntos globales de Meta, la empresa matriz de Facebook, incluso sugirió hace poco que la plataforma podría restablecer la cuenta de Trump en 2023, antes de la que podría ser otra carrera presidencial. Facebook había dicho previamente que solo lo haría “si el riesgo para la seguridad pública ha disminuido”.Nick Clegga, el presidente de asuntos globales de MetaPatrick T. Fallon/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesUn estudio de Truth Social realizado por Media Matters for America, un grupo de monitoreo de medios con tendencia de izquierda, examinó la forma en que la plataforma se ha convertido en hogar de algunas de las teorías de conspiración más marginales. Trump, que empezó a publicar en la plataforma en el mes de abril, ha amplificado cada vez más el contenido de QAnon, la teoría de conspiración en línea.Ha compartido publicaciones de QAnon más de 130 veces. Los seguidores de QAnon promueven una falsedad amplia y compleja centrada en Trump como líder que se enfrenta a una conspiración de una camarilla de pedófilos del Partido Demócrata. Dichas opiniones han hallado cabida durante las primarias de este año en las campañas electorales de los republicanos.Jankowicz, la experta en desinformación, mencionó que las divisiones sociales y políticas habían agitado las olas de la desinformación.Las controversias sobre la mejor manera de responder a la pandemia de COVID-19 profundizaron la desconfianza en el gobierno y los expertos médicos, sobre todo entre los conservadores. La negativa de Trump a aceptar el resultado de las elecciones de 2020 condujo a la violencia en el Capitolio, pero no terminó con ella.“Deberían habernos unido”, dijo Jankowicz, refiriéndose a la pandemia y a los disturbios. “Pensé que quizás podrían servir como una especie de poder de convocatoria, pero no lo fueron”Steven Lee Myers cubre desinformación para el Times. Ha trabajado en Washington, Moscú, Bagdad y Pekín, donde contribuyó a los artículos que ganaron el Premio Pulitzer al servicio público en 2021. También es el autor de The New Tsar: The Rise and Reign of Vladimir Putin. @stevenleemyers • FacebookSheera Frenkel es una reportera de tecnología premiada que tiene su sede en San Francisco. En 2021, ella y Cecilia Kang publicaron Manipulados. La batalla de Facebook por la dominación mundial. @sheeraf More