Elections

Subterms

    More stories

    • 163 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Fox Leaders Wanted to Break From Trump but Struggled to Make It Happen

      by

      Executives and top hosts found themselves in a bind after Donald Trump began pushing unfounded claims about election fraud, court filings show.Five days after a pro-Trump mob attacked the U.S. Capitol, a board member of the Fox Corporation, Anne Dias, reached out to Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch with an urgent plea.“Considering how important Fox News has been as a megaphone for Donald Trump,” she said, it was time “to take a stance.” Ms. Dias, who sounded shaken by the riot, said she thought Fox News and the nation faced “an existential moment.”As quickly as the two Murdochs began discussing how to respond, their bind became evident.“Just tell her we have been talking internally and intensely,” Rupert Murdoch, whose family controls the company, wrote in an email. Fox News, he told his son, “is pivoting as fast as possible.” But he sounded a note of caution: “We have to lead our viewers, which is not as easy as it might seem.”Ever since Donald J. Trump announced his presidential campaign in 2015, Rupert Murdoch and his Fox News Channel have struggled with how to handle the man and the movement they helped create.“Navigating” the delicate balance between truth and “crazy” was how Mr. Murdoch described his challenge in emails made public this week as part of Dominion Voting Systems’ $1.6 billion defamation lawsuit against Fox News, which is expected to go to trial in April.For the most part, Mr. Murdoch has been wildly successful at striking the balance. Fox converted Mr. Trump’s mass following into loyal viewers who deliver Mr. Murdoch and his shareholders huge profits.A 2018 headline about President Donald J. Trump that was displayed outside Fox News studios in New York.Mark Lennihan/Associated PressBut the emails among the Murdochs and the senior leadership of their companies, along with depositions of both men as part of the case, revealed just how Fox and its leaders strained to push back against Mr. Trump when he began spreading unfounded claims about widespread election fraud.The leadership of Fox and its star hosts are often viewed from the outside as power brokers in Republican politics — with much justification. But in the wake of the election, they appeared fearful of alienating Mr. Trump’s supporters, almost to the point of powerlessness, court filings containing internal communications and depositions show.Privately, the executives and hosts expressed despair and disgust at the Trump associates who were using Fox News’s platforms to spread bogus allegations of voter fraud. Yet the wishes of the audience — or how the network’s executives interpreted them — dictated which guests were booked, what kind of new programming was created, what correspondents could say on the air and even which people lost their jobs, according to the details in a 212-page brief that Dominion filed in a Delaware state court this week.Understand the Events on Jan. 6Timeline: On Jan. 6, 2021, 64 days after Election Day 2020, a mob of supporters of President Donald J. Trump raided the Capitol. Here is a close look at how the attack unfolded.A Day of Rage: Using thousands of videos and police radio communications, a Times investigation reconstructed in detail what happened — and why.Lost Lives: A bipartisan Senate report found that at least seven people died in connection with the attack.Jan. 6 Attendees: To many of those who attended the Trump rally but never breached the Capitol, that date wasn’t a dark day for the nation. It was a new start.Fox News has expressed confidence that Dominion’s claims will fall apart once their full context becomes apparent at the trial. “Dominion blatantly misconstrued the facts by cherry-picking sound bites, omitting key context and mischaracterizing the record,” a Fox News spokeswoman said.As it became evident that some of Fox’s audience was turning against it after it projected President Biden’s victory, and viewers started switching to hard-right alternatives like Newsmax, people inside the network scrambled to stanch the bleeding.Even as executives raised concerns about Mr. Trump to one another, they came down hard on those seen as too tough on him.Eleven days after the election, for instance, Lachlan Murdoch became irritated watching the Fox News correspondent Leland Vittert’s reporting on a pro-Trump rally in Washington, considering it too critical. Mr. Murdoch called Mr. Vittert’s coverage “smug and obnoxious” in a message to Suzanne Scott, chief executive of Fox News Media. Ms. Scott responded that she was “calling now,” to direct someone to relay the message to the correspondent and his producer.As word of Mr. Murdoch’s complaint made its way down the food chain, the executive in charge of Fox’s weekend programming, David Clark, also weighed in, telling a colleague in an email that he had texted Mr. Vittert “and told him to cut it out.”To Lachlan Murdoch, there seemed to be no detail too small to complain about if he believed it was hurting the bond that Fox News had forged with its audience over the years. He also complained to Ms. Scott at one point about what he saw as the negative tone toward Mr. Trump in the chyron — the block of text that appears at the bottom of the screen. It was too wordy, he said, and too negative about the president.Lachlan Murdoch complained that a Fox News reporter’s coverage of a pro-Trump rally was “smug and obnoxious.”Mike Cohen for The New York TimesRupert Murdoch offered Ms. Scott suggestions on booking guests who were known to Trump supporters as loyal defenders. One person he proposed in late November 2020 was the former national security adviser Michael T. Flynn, who had pleaded guilty in 2017 to lying to federal investigators about his contacts with a Russian ambassador. A week after Mr. Murdoch sent his note, Dominion’s filing says, Mr. Flynn appeared on Maria Bartiromo’s Fox Business program.The elder Mr. Murdoch also told Ms. Scott to get rid of a senior Fox News manager, Bill Sammon, telling her that it would go a long way with the former president’s core supporters. “Maybe best to let Bill go right away,” he told Ms. Scott on Nov. 20. Mr. Sammon ran the network’s Washington bureau and oversaw the unit that was responsible for Fox’s early — and correct — decision to project that Mr. Biden would win Arizona. That call had infuriated Mr. Trump and his supporters.Mr. Murdoch explained to Ms. Scott that the firing would “be a big message with Trump people.” According to the Dominion brief, Mr. Sammon was told that he was being let go that same day.As Fox executives stamped out skepticism of Mr. Trump in the network’s coverage, they also grew disillusioned with the increasing amount of “crazy” on their airwaves, as Rupert Murdoch described the Trump legal adviser Sidney Powell in an email to a friend, according to the legal filings. By early December 2020, as Mr. Trump’s claims of being cheated grew more far-fetched, Mr. Murdoch acknowledged how difficult it had become to continue delivering coverage that didn’t insult loyal, pro-Trump viewers without stating the obvious: The president was lying to them about his loss.In one message to Ms. Scott, Mr. Murdoch lamented Mr. Trump’s performance at a rally in Georgia where he called for Gov. Brian Kemp to help overturn the election, as well as other recent comments from the president. “All making it harder to straddle the issue! We should talk through this,” he wrote.After Jan. 6, 2021, as hopes among many conservatives skeptical of Mr. Trump swelled that the Republican Party might finally be done with him, some of his biggest stalwarts inside Fox News seemed to be backing away from him — even the host Sean Hannity, one of Mr. Trump’s most dedicated on-air supporters, according to Mr. Murdoch’s emails.“Wake-up call for Hannity,” Mr. Murdoch wrote in an email on Jan. 12, 2021, to Paul D. Ryan, the former Republican speaker of the House and a Fox Corporation board member. Mr. Murdoch explained that the host had been “privately disgusted by Trump for weeks, but was scared to lose viewers.”For a time, at least. It did not take long for Mr. Hannity and other prime-time hosts, including Tucker Carlson, to begin talking about the attack and its aftermath as Mr. Trump and his supporters preferred.In the opening monologue of one of his shows in June 2022, with a congressional investigation into the assault in full swing, Mr. Hannity told his audience, “January 6 is just another excuse to smear Donald Trump and anyone who supports them.” More

    • 113 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Your Wednesday Briefing: A U.S. Push to Isolate Russia

      by

      Also, China’s attempt to erase “zero Covid” and Nigeria’s contested election.Secretary of State Antony Blinken, left, meeting with Kazakhstan’s foreign minister, Mukhtar Tleuberdi.Pool photo by Olivier DoulieryA U.S. push in Central AsiaThe U.S. secretary of state met with the president of Kazakhstan in Astana at the start of a new effort to isolate Russia as Belarus’s leader began a state visit to China — the latest examples of dueling diplomacy related to the war in Ukraine.Antony Blinken, the top U.S. diplomat, is urging five Central Asian countries that were part of the former Soviet Union — Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan — not to help Russia evade sanctions imposed by the West over its invasion of Ukraine. The countries have strong ties to Russia, but leaders there have made comments reflecting concerns about maintaining their sovereignty.One of Russia’s staunchest allies, President Aleksandr Lukashenko of Belarus, arrived in Beijing for talks with China’s leader, Xi Jinping. The U.S. has suggested that China was preparing to supply military aid to Russia, a claim rejected by the Chinese government.U.S. officials said they viewed Lukashenko’s visit as another sign of China’s growing engagement with Russia. Blinken’s trip to Central Asia follows recent visits to Kyiv by President Biden and U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen that were intended to shore up support for Ukraine.Context: China is trying to present itself as a neutral observer while maintaining close ties with Russia, a precarious balancing act. Beijing’s position has alienated European leaders who might have helped invigorate China’s economy following years of pandemic lockdowns.Other news from the war:The promised torrent of tanks from European nations to Ukraine now seems like more of a trickle.Volodymyr Zelensky, Ukraine’s president, warned that the situation in the eastern city of Bakhmut was “getting more and more difficult.”Removing a Covid testing booth at a park in Beijing. Jade Gao/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesChina moves to erase ‘zero Covid’China’s ruling Communist Party is trying to rewrite the public’s memory of “zero Covid,” the country’s strict lockdown policy. Analysts say the move is aimed at quashing any resentment over the enormous price China paid in economic loss and trauma to enforce its coronavirus restrictions.In a decree that was published after a recent meeting of top officials, a newly triumphant narrative has emerged in which the country’s Covid response was a “miracle in human history” and “completely correct.” China’s official messaging acknowledges none of the extremes of “zero Covid,” nor does it mention the chaos that ensued after the policy’s abrupt dismantling in early December, which left hospitals unprepared for an explosion in new infections.Instead, the party has declared that its efforts led China to a “decisive victory” over the virus. The term “zero Covid” itself, once ubiquitous, has vanished from the party’s rhetoric. The State of the WarRussia’s New Offensive: The Russian military is relying on tens of thousands of inexperienced conscripts to carry out its latest maneuver, which has barely budged over the last month.Deploying High-Powered Aides: President Biden has dispatched Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen and Secretary of State Antony Blinken in a concerted diplomatic push to show support for Ukraine.A War of Words: Russia and the West have been arguing for months about which side is more willing to negotiate ending the war in Ukraine peacefully.Analysis: The government’s messaging is in line with efforts to restore the public’s confidence, both in the party’s leadership and in the country’s future. But the aftermath of the pandemic may be especially challenging for the party to bury, as feelings of whiplash, grief and frustration simmer just beneath the surface for many Chinese residents.Counting votes in Lagos.James Oatway/ReutersNigeria’s opposition calls for a rerunThree days after Nigeria held its most wide-open presidential election in years, two opposition parties called for the vote to be canceled and rerun, saying it was compromised by vote rigging and violence.The call came as vote counting showed that the candidate of the governing party appeared to be taking the lead. With about one-third of the 36 states reporting results, Bola Tinubu, the candidate of the governing All Progressives Congress party, had won 44 percent of the vote.Many polls had predicted a win for Peter Obi, the so-called youth candidate of the little-known Labour Party. But early results showed Obi had just 18 percent of the vote, while Atiku Abubakar of the People’s Democratic Party also trailed behind Tinubu with 33 percent.Response: A spokesman for Tinubu’s party campaign council rejected the accusations of vote rigging. Independent observers raised concerns about whether the election was fair, but stopped short of accusing the governing party of rigging it.Context: Many Nigerians had looked to the election to put the country back on track after eight years of rule by Muhammadu Buhari, a military dictator turned democrat. Nigeria, Africa’s most populous nation, has struggled with economic and security crises under his leadership.THE LATEST NEWSAsia PacificDentsu helped coordinate the 2020 Tokyo Olympics in venues like Japan’s National Stadium.Hiroko Masuike/The New York TimesJapanese prosecutors accused the advertising giant Dentsu, a driving force behind the 2020 Tokyo Olympics, of illegally conspiring to evade the public bidding process.Hong Kong’s leader said the city would lift its Covid mask mandate, ending one of the last such policies in the world.Wendy’s, the American burger chain, is coming to Australia. Like other American imports, it might need to change its name.Around the WorldThe coffins of shipwreck victims in Crotone, Italy, on Tuesday.Valeria Ferraro/Associated PressA shipwreck off Italy’s coast that killed at least 63 people has made it clear that the E.U.’s consensus against migrants has hardened.After accusations of misconduct and mismanagement, the president of France’s soccer federation stepped down yesterday.U.S. NewsThe Supreme Court’s conservative majority seemed deeply skeptical of the legality of the administration’s plan to wipe out more than $400 billion in student debt.Jazz Pharmaceuticals exploited a safety requirement to prolong its monopoly on a narcolepsy drug that has generated more than $13 billion in revenue.Nearly two dozen dead whales have washed ashore on the East Coast since early December, in part because of collisions with cargo ships. A Morning ReadCustomers at Kuraichi, a sake shop in Brooklyn.Nico Schinco for The New York TimesSake is booming in the U.S., The Times’s wine critic writes. Exports of the fermented product of rice from Japan are soaring, and breweries and specialty stores have opened in the U.S. to quench the growing thirst. Here’s a guide to sake basics.ARTS AND IDEAS Should acting awards be gender-neutral?The cast of Season 2 of “The White Lotus” at the SAG Awards.Jordan Strauss/Invision, via Associated PressAt the Screen Actors Guild Awards Sunday in Los Angeles, there was at least one red-carpet question without an easy answer: Should awards shows eliminate separate acting categories for men and women?The debate over gender-neutral acting prizes has gained steam as more nonbinary actors have given acclaimed performances and, in some cases, chosen to withdraw from awards consideration rather than compete in a gendered category. “Right now, you need to choose,” said August Winter, a nonbinary actor, referring to awards that separate categories for men and women. “And I don’t think people should be put in that position.”Others worry that gender-neutral categories could mean fewer nominations — or that women could be shut out of awards consideration entirely.“I’m not sure what the solution is,” said Sarah Polley, director of the Oscar-nominated film “Women Talking.” “But it certainly can’t stay the way it is, because it is excluding people from being recognized.”PLAY, WATCH, EATWhat to CookBobbi Lin for The New York Times. Food Stylist: Sue Li. Prop Stylist: Sophia Pappas.This vegetarian tteokbokki features a base of butter-fried shallots, a layer of melted cheese and a crunchy blanket of raw cabbage.What to ReadThese three science fiction and fantasy novels offer a welcome break from reality.What to Listen ToThe experimental pop duo 100 gecs turns toward rock for its second album.Now Time to PlayPlay the Mini Crossword, and a clue: Paramour (5 letters).Here are the Wordle and the Spelling Bee.You can find all our puzzles here.That’s it for today’s briefing. Have a great day. — Dan and MariahP.S. Here’s how The Times has covered the war in Ukraine, one year in.“The Daily” is about why so many buildings have collapsed in Turkey. We’d like your feedback! Please email thoughts and suggestions to briefing@nytimes.com. More

    • 113 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie: After Nigeria’s Election, a Simmering Rage

      by

      Imagine standing patiently in line, waiting to vote, and suddenly men with guns arrive on motorcycles and start shooting. Imagine men dashing into your polling unit, violently seizing ballot boxes and taking them away. Imagine other ballot boxes being destroyed. Imagine being beaten to keep you from voting for a particular candidate. Imagine a crowd of people chanting “We must vote! We must vote!” when polling workers failed to arrive as expected. Imagine the police doing very little. All these things happened during the Nigerian presidential elections on Saturday. Through it all, there was a chilling lack of transparency from the Independent National Electoral Commission, or I.N.E.C., which oversees elections.Nigerian elections have a history of being rigged, of cooked-up numbers and stolen ballot boxes. This time, though, Nigerians were asked to place their faith in a new electronic voting system that would make tampering more difficult. Technology would be the savior: In each polling unit, votes would be counted in the presence of voters and then immediately uploaded to a secure central portal. Failing to upload the results in real time was the most egregious of the many irregularities of this election because it has destroyed the cautious trust with which many approached the process.The I.N.E.C. blames technical issues for the delay. How, Nigerians wonder, can a well-funded electoral body that had four years to prepare for an important presidential election make such a significant blunder? It is reasonable, then, that many voters have assumed purposeful intent, that election workers were instructed not to upload results so that they could later be secretly manipulated.I know Nigeria, the country of my birth, intimately. I know the political culture, where the exchange of large amounts of money makes so many people conscience-deficient, where the mainstream media’s instinct is political deference and where the will of the people is often ignored. Nigerians, especially young Nigerians, are determined that this time, their votes will matter. A majority of Nigerians are below the age of 35. They are a bright, innovative and talented generation, a hungry generation, starved of good leadership, who do not merely sit back and complain but who act and push back and want to forge their own futures.On Saturday, many went out to vote, enthusiastic but cautious, their phone cameras ready to record any irregularities. They waited for election workers who arrived many hours late to polling stations. They braved the harassment and beatings of men paid to create chaos. They went off and bought their own ink for finger-printing when election workers claimed to have run out of it. They provided their own light from their phones as they stood in line in the dark, and according to one recorded case, a voter brought a small generator to a polling place when the voting machine stopped working. They refused to leave even though they had to wait so long that it was almost dawn when they could finally vote. And when it began to rain, they came together and sang beautiful songs. I have never been so proud of my fellow Nigerians. Many were voting for the first time, inspired by one candidate, Peter Obi, who has brought to them that ineffable thing that we humans need to thrive: hope.Now, as results are being counted, there is growing disillusionment. A sludge of tension is in the air. A simmering rage. Some voters say that the official numbers trickling in do not match the numbers from their polling units, that the results tell a story different from what they witnessed on Saturday. They are convinced of the complicity of those who should be caretakers of the democratic process.Demonstrators accusing the election commission of irregularities and disenfranchising voters marched in downtown Abuja, Nigeria, on Tuesday.Ben Curtis/Associated PressElections must always be transparent, of course, but for an abysmally low-trust society like Nigeria, a radical transparency is needed for credibility. Elections must be completely transparent and must be widely seen to be completely transparent; sadly, neither seems to apply to Nigeria’s presidential election.African democracies are criticized, often condescendingly so, in ways that stoke resentment, not because the criticism isn’t valid, but because it isn’t fair. Africa is full of young nation-states, and democracy takes time to establish its roots, and even when it does, the fragility always remains.I’ve always found it curious that African countries were expected to form functioning democracies right after independence, even though the colonial governments they had only just freed themselves from were dictatorships in everything but name. Nigerians want a functioning democracy, and they are starting on the path to it but might be derailed unless the international community pays attention now.Nigeria is Africa’s tottering giant, the continent’s most populous country, the most politically and culturally dominant. To pay real attention to Nigeria is to signal that Africa matters, as the United States has always maintained. The Biden administration needs to stand behind the Nigerian people now and make a firm commitment to support election transparency. Besides — my tongue is lodged in my cheek — you don’t want a wave of Nigerian asylum seekers fleeing the unbearable discontent of living under an illegitimate government.Sometimes democracies are threatened by foreign invasions and sometimes democracies are most at risk from internal forces. All of them need support.Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie is a novelist and the author, most recently, of “Notes on Grief.”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: letters@nytimes.com.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Opposition Parties in Nigeria Call for Election Rerun, Citing Vote Rigging

      by

      Two parties say that the presidential vote in Africa’s biggest democracy was marred by fraud and violence, and they called for the head of the election commission to step down.Nigeria’s two major opposition parties on Tuesday called for the presidential election to be canceled and rerun, saying that it had been compromised by rigging and widespread violence.The election over the weekend in the West African nation — the most populous on the continent, with 220 million people — was the most wide open in years, with a surprise third-party candidate putting up an assertive challenge.On Tuesday, the chairmen of the two opposition parties — the People’s Democratic Party and the Labour Party — called for the head of the government’s electoral commission to resign, even as the commission continued to release results.With about one-third of the 36 states reporting results by Tuesday afternoon, the candidate of the governing All Progressives Congress party, Bola Ahmed Tinubu, appeared some distance ahead of his rivals in the count. Some 87 million people were registered to vote, but results from the first tabulations suggested low voter turnout.“This is not a credible election,” said Iyorchia Ayu, the chairman of the People’s Democratic Party, Nigeria’s main opposition party, at a joint news conference on Tuesday afternoon in Abuja, the capital. “It is not acceptable.”International observers who monitored the election reported delays, technical hitches and violence.The Independent National Electoral Commission had said in a statement on Monday that it took “full responsibility” for the logistical problems and delays.As of Tuesday afternoon, Atiku Abubakar of the People’s Democratic Party trailed behind Mr. Tinubu with 32 percent of the votes, and Peter Obi, the so-called “youth candidate” of the opposition Labour Party, had 17 percent.On Monday, Mr. Obi pulled off an unexpected victory in Lagos State, home to the country’s largest city and traditionally a stronghold of Mr. Tinubu, who was its governor for eight years. More

    • 113 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      After Santos’s Résumé Unraveled, a Reporter Asks, ‘Now What?’

      by

      After two New York Times reporters published an explosive investigation into Representative George Santos’s past, more revelations have come to light. Times Insider explains who we are and what we do and delivers behind-the-scenes insights into how our journalism comes together.After Representative George Santos, Republican of New York, was elected to office in November, Grace Ashford and Michael Gold, two New York Times reporters, were given a seemingly straightforward assignment: write a deep-dive article about the new congressman. But when the reporters tried to verify details of Mr. Santos’s campaign biography, they ended up with more questions than answers. “We started to get a sense that perhaps he might not always be telling the truth, and that gave us a different way of looking at him,” Ms. Ashford said. So, they kept digging — and what they found, Ms. Ashford said, “ended up blowing our minds.”Weeks of research and interviews revealed that Mr. Santos had embellished his résumé in alarming ways. Baruch College, the school from which Mr. Santos said he graduated in 2010, was unable to find records of his graduation; companies he claimed to have worked for had no record of his employment. He was also facing criminal charges for check fraud in Brazil, The Times found.In the weeks following the publication of the investigation, more revelations have come to light about the freshman congressman, who, amid calls to resign and multiple investigations, has stepped down from multiple House committee assignments. The Times has continued to cover the controversy; for example, an investigation this month of Mr. Santos’s campaign finances uncovered $365,000 in unexplained campaign spending. In an interview, Ms. Ashford and Mr. Gold discussed the aftermath of their reporting and how they shape follow-up coverage. This interview has been edited.Were you surprised by the kind of attention the initial article received?MICHAEL GOLD: This was a two-day assignment that turned into multiple months. I don’t think I fully understood the impact that this might have had. We spent that first week reeling from the fact that so many people were gravitating toward this story. When you’re working in isolation for as long as we were working, you had no idea what would happen. We reached out to the Santos team leading up to publication, and their posture initially was the one that you usually get from spokespeople. It gradually became more aggressive, I would say, and defensive at the same time.More on George SantosHouse Committees: Representative George Santos said that he would temporarily recuse himself from sitting on congressional committees as he faces multiple investigations over his lies.An Expunged Charge: Mr. Santos was able to get a criminal theft charge dismissed and then expunged in 2017. The circumstances of the case — centering on bad checks and puppies — hew closely to other dubious episodes in his history.Marriage to Brazilian Woman: A letter to ethics watchdogs in the House of Representatives questioned if Mr. Santos’s seven-year marriage was a scheme to aid a woman’s immigration bid.Divisions on Display: A tense run-in between Senator Mitt Romney of Utah and Mr. Santos at the State of the Union encapsulates broader tensions inside the Republican Party.To have him that next week come out and say, as he put it, I did embellish my résumé,was an interesting moment. We stood by our reporting at that point, but we realized there was possibly more to the story.GRACE ASHFORD: And then the question becomes: Now what? Now that this is not just a report in The New York Times that has been denied — this is something that’s been admitted. That also broadened the horizon of what the impact of the story might be.When did you start thinking the initial investigation would need a wider focus?ASHFORD: The decision to publish when we did was a difficult one. What we were really saying in that first story was, he’s not who he claims to be — and we don’t totally know who he is. But what we do know paints a very different portrait. That was part of the reason I think that this story garnered so much attention: It invited America to help figure out what was really going on under the surface.GOLD: There were also things that we mentioned in that first story that became a bigger deal later on, like the pet charity. Then other reporting came out by Patch, originally, that suggested that there was much more about his involvement with pets. If you look back at that first story, there are a lot of things that maybe at the time felt like minor details that have become a major part of this.How do you think about formulating coverage going forward?GOLD: Since our first story ran, a lot of people who have known Santos have come out of the woodwork. That first week we were able to publish the story from friends, former co-workers and former neighbors who had spoken to us more about him and provided new avenues.ASHFORD: We had to learn that the things that Representative Santos says about himself cannot be taken at face value. And they run the gamut from the very serious, like his claims of Jewish heritage and ties to the Holocaust, 9/11 and the Pulse shooting, to losing both of his knees to volleyball. There are a lot of things that can be distracting from the bigger thing that is actually at stake here, which is, frankly: What kind of representative can you be when you’re not able to stand in front of your constituents and have a conversation, when your own personal story is clouding the discourse? It’s been very important for Michael and I to maintain focus on those things.Did this reporting make you a little more skeptical of public figures?GOLD: I am definitely more skeptical. If I’m ever in a situation where I have to write about a candidate again, I’m not going to take their bio at face value. One of the interesting reporting challenges here is when you talk to friends or former friends, family or people who knew him back in the day, they’ll say, “George Santos told me this,” and we have to stop and say, “OK, did you believe that was true?” It’s layers of skepticism.How do you divide up reporting?ASHFORD: Sort of naturally; we have totally different things that we’re drawn to. We’ve been lucky to have a really good working dynamic. It’s always more fun to work with someone than it is to work alone. Especially on a story like this, it’s incredibly valuable to have someone to share the questions and revelations with.GOLD: There are definitely things that we are pursuing separately, but there are a lot of things that we end up pursuing together. It’s flowed really naturally. We’re very happy to help each other on certain targets, and we’re lucky in that regard. More

    • 125 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      This Is Not How Pete Buttigieg Wanted to Visit Ohio

      by

      Gail Collins: Bret, Democratic strategists are worried about hanging on to support in the working class. The good news, from my perspective, is that it looks like the big problem is economic concerns, not cultural ones.Saying that’s good news because the Biden administration can respond to those worries by pointing to a ton of effort to create jobs and fight inflation.Guessing you may, um, disagree?Bret Stephens: In the immortal words of the “Airplane” sequel: “Just a tad.”The big problem for Democrats is that their economic message — that happy times are here again — isn’t landing in the places where they need to win, particularly factory towns where elections in states like Wisconsin or Ohio are sometimes decided. Inflation is still too high and probably means the Fed will continue to raise interest rates. Unemployment is low in part because so many people have dropped out of the labor force. Years of lax border control creates a perception that cheap immigrant labor will further undercut working-class wages. And a lot of the projects that President Biden’s spending bills are supposed to fund will take years to get off the ground because there’s rarely such a thing as a “shovel-ready” project.Gail: Yeah, gearing up for a big construction effort does take time. But people who’ve suffered with terrible transportation problems for years do know the shovels are coming. Like the bridge project over the Ohio River that Democrats in Cincinnati have joined hands with Mitch McConnell to celebrate.Bret: The other problem for Democrats is that if they aren’t winning the messaging battle when it comes to the economy, they are losing it badly when it comes to cultural issues. You and I often rue the collapse of the moderate wing of the G.O.P. that was occasionally willing to break with right-wing orthodoxies, but Democrats could also do more to embrace candidates who depart from progressive orthodoxies on issues like guns, immigration, school choice, trans issues and so on.Gail: “Depart from progressive orthodoxies” is a nice way of saying “embrace the bad.” I appreciate that it would be strategic for some purple-state Democrats to take moderate positions on guns, immigration, etc. But I’m not gonna be applauding somebody who, for instance, votes against an assault weapon ban.Bret: You’re reminding me of the story, probably apocryphal, of the supporter who told Adlai Stevenson, during one of his presidential runs in the 1950s, that “Every thinking person in America will be voting for you.”“I’m afraid that won’t do,” he supposedly replied. “I need a majority.”Gail: Let’s go back to infrastructure for a minute. Big story about that train wreck in Ohio. Do you agree with me that the whole thing is the fault of Republicans caving in to pressure from the rail industry to loosen regulations?Bret: Er, no. I read recently that there were more than 1,000 train derailments last year, which averages out to more than two a day, and that there’s been a 60 percent decline in railroad safety incidents since 1990. Accidents happen. When they do, they shouldn’t become a partisan issue.Gail: When major accidents happen in an industry that’s both necessarily regulated and greatly lobbied over, it should be a call for investigation.And while we’re on this subject, please let’s talk about our transportation secretary, Pete Buttigieg ….Bret: So, to illustrate my point, I’m not going to raise an accusing finger at him. Not even remotely his fault, even if Republicans are trying hard to pin him with the blame. Although, for someone with presidential aspirations, he didn’t exactly help himself by showing up a day after Donald Trump did.Gail: Sort of embarrassed that while I was trying to ponder rail regulation, my thoughts kept drifting off to Buttigieg the possible presidential candidate.He’s one of the guys we always mention when we talk about who might be nominated if Biden doesn’t go for a second term. But Buttigieg’s performance in Ohio was definitely not the work of a guy who knows how to run for that job.Steve McCurry/Magnum PhotosBret: Switching subjects again, we should talk about the legacy of President Jimmy Carter. I was a 7-year-old child living in Mexico City when he left office, so your recollections of him are much more valuable and interesting than mine.Gail: I distinctly remember bemoaning the energy shortage that left drivers waiting in long lines at the gas stations, but that’s hardly an insider’s story.Bret: Those lines put last year’s spike in gas prices in perspective.Gail: And every Democrat worried about Carter’s minimal talent for communication. He made a big TV appearance to promote energy conservation, wearing a sweater and sitting next to a fire, looking more silly than inspiring.Now, when I recall some of the stuff he did — environmental protection, promoting diversity, negotiating a peace agreement between Israel and Egypt — I appreciate him a lot more.Bret: Airline deregulation, too. Made air travel affordable to middle-class America for the first time. And he had the guts to nominate Paul Volcker to the Federal Reserve in 1979 to jack up interest rates and finally tame inflation, even though it would help cost him his presidency the next year.Gail: But the biggest thing he’s leaving us, Bret, is the story of his post-presidency. Campaigning endlessly for human rights, fair voting around the world and housing for the poor. Rather than holding press conferences to make his point, he’d swing a hammer with the crew at low-income housing construction sites.If high-ranking politicians see retirement from their top jobs as just a path to giving big-money speeches and writing the occasional memoir, they set a bad example for every older American. Carter showed how the later stages of life can actually be the richest and most rewarding.Bret: There’s a lot about Carter’s policy views that didn’t square with my own, and his persona sometimes struck me as … immodestly modest. But he was a unique figure in American political life, and he single-handedly disproved F. Scott Fitzgerald’s contention about there being no second acts in American lives.Gail: Not to mention third acts!Bret: He also showed how much more valuable a purpose- and values-driven life can be than one consumed by the culture of celebrity, wealth and pleasure — something that seriously tarnished the post-presidential legacy of a certain Southern Democrat who succeeded him, to say nothing of an even more saturnalian Republican president.Totally different topic, Gail, but I want to recommend our colleague Michelle Goldberg’s terrific column on the terrible mental-health effects of social media, particularly for teenagers. She mentions a proposal by Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri to totally ban social media for kids under 16. It’s one to which, as a father of three teenagers, I’m pretty sympathetic. Your thoughts?Gail: I read Michelle’s great piece and remembered how paranoid I was as a teenager when I thought two of my friends might be talking about me on the phone after school. Can’t imagine how I’d have felt if they had the capacity to do it as a group, while they were supposed to be studying after dinner. With a transcript available to the entire class later in the evening.Bret: Not only frequently abusive but also addictive. Someone once said that there are only two industries that speak of their customers as “users” — drug dealers and social-media companies.Gail: Just saying that kids can’t use social media sounds very attractive. But somehow I have my doubts it’ll work. Wonder if the more likely outcome might be a system the more sophisticated kids could use while the poorer, or less technologically cool ones, got sidelined.Am I being overly paranoid?Bret: No ban works perfectly. But if we were able to more or less end teenage cigarette smoking over the last 20 years, it shouldn’t be out of the question to try to do the same with social-media use. I can’t imagine that it’s beyond the technological reach of a company like Apple to write some code that stops social-media apps from being downloaded to phones whose primary users they know are under the age of 16.Gail: Well, happy to insist they do that. Even if they don’t know how, it’d increase pressure for them to find a way.Bret: I would welcome it, and I suspect most teenagers would, too. It’s hard enough being 14 or 15 without needing to panic about some embarrassing Instagram pic or discovering too late that something stupid or awful you wrote on Facebook or Twitter at 16 comes back to haunt you at 20.Gail: Hey, it’s traumatic enough being haunted by what I said last month.Bret: Or last week.As columnists, we volunteered to have a paper trail for our critics to pick through. We owe it to the kids to shield them from creating public records of their own indiscretions and idiocies. Life will come roaring at them soon enough. I say no social media till they’re old enough to vote, smoke and maybe even buy a drink. Full-frontal stupidity should be left to the grown-ups — like us!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: letters@nytimes.com.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More

    • 75 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Nikki Haley Hits the Campaign Trail

      by

      John Tully for The New York TimesIn New Hampshire, where she also leaned into her age, calling for “new generational leadership,” she was endorsed by Don Bolduc, a Trump ally and on-again, off-again election denier who was the state’s G.O.P. Senate nominee last year. More

    • 138 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Más de 100.000 personas marchan en México contra el Plan B

      by

      Se registraron manifestaciones en más de un centenar de ciudades del país contra una serie de medidas que van a limitar a la autoridad electoral y que, según sus funcionarios, dificultará garantizar elecciones libres y justas.Demonstrators gathered in Mexico City’s main square to protest new measures diminishing the nation’s electoral watchdog, changes they see as a threat to democracy.Luis Antonio Rojas for The New York TimesCIUDAD DE MÉXICO — Más de 100.000 personas salieron a las calles de México el domingo para protestar las leyes recién aprobadas que restringen al instituto electoral del país, en lo que los manifestantes dijeron era un repudio a los esfuerzos del presidente de debilitar a un pilar de la democracia.Vestidos en varios tonos de rosa, el color oficial del órgano de supervisión electoral que ayudó a terminar con el régimen de partido único hace dos décadas, los manifestantes llenaron el Zócalo de la capital y gritaron: “¡El voto no se toca!”.Los asistentes dijeron que buscaban enviar un mensaje al presidente de México, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, quien respaldó las medidas y reside en el Palacio Nacional, frente a la principal plaza de la capital.Pero también se dirigían directamente a la Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación, que se espera que atienda las impugnaciones a las modificaciones al instituto electoral en los próximos meses. Muchos consideran que se trata de un momento que plantea un desafío crucial a la corte, que ha sido objeto de críticas por parte del presidente.La mañana del domingo, los manifestantes también gritaron: “¡Yo confío en la corte!”.Horas antes del inicio oficial de la protesta, los asistentes, algunos vistiendo camisas de botones bien planchadas y sombreros de paja, se reunían en cafeterías y tomaban desayuno en una terraza con vista a la sede de gobierno.Los manifestantes dijeron que los cambios ponen en riesgo a un pilar clave de la democracia del país.Luis Antonio Rojas para The New York TimesPero en la calle, el ambiente era de ansiedad.“Yo pagué mis propios gastos y mi estancia, pero no me pesa: haría eso y más por mi país”, dijo Marta Ofelia González, de 75 años, quien voló de Mazatlán, en el estado costero de Sinaloa, y llevaba una visera de paja para cubrirse de un sol intenso.Acudió, dijo, porque teme “perder la democracia y que nos convirtamos en una dictadura”.El presidente argumenta que los cambios van a ahorrar millones de dólares y mejorarán el sistema de votación. Pero los funcionarios electorales comentan que la modificación va a dificultar que se garanticen elecciones libres y justas, incluida la contienda presidencial del próximo año.“Es la última esperanza”, dijo Guadalupe Acosta Naranjo, un exdiputado de izquierda y uno de los organizadores de la protesta. “Queremos generar un respaldo”, dijo, “para fortalecer la idea de que la Suprema Corte debe declarar inconstitucionales estas leyes”. De otro modo, agregó Acosta Naranjo, “tendríamos que ir a la elección con un árbitro parcial y un árbitro disminuido”.No se sabía con certeza de inmediato cuántas personas protestaron en todo el país —se organizaron manifestaciones en más de 100 ciudades— a pesar de que las cifras solo en Ciudad de México superaron los 100.000 asistentes, según organizadores y autoridades locales.Sobre las protestas se cernía la condena reciente en un tribunal de Brooklyn de Genaro García Luna, un exalto funcionario de seguridad mexicano, quien fue declarado culpable de recibir sobornos de los cárteles del narcotráfico: en México, el veredicto se percibe ampliamente como dañino a uno de los partidos de la oposición que ayudaron a organizar la protesta del domingo.José Ramón Cossío Díaz, un ministro retirado de la Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación, habló el domingo frente al edificio del tribunal.Luis Antonio Rojas para The New York TimesGarcía Luna fungió como un funcionario de seguridad de alto rango durante más de una década con dos presidentes del Partido Acción Nacional —Vicente Fox y Felipe Calderón— que hicieron llamados públicos para que los ciudadanos se unieran a la protesta.En las calles que recorrieron los manifestantes el domingo había afiches con el rostro de García Luna y la palabra “culpable”.El presidente ha insinuado que a los manifestantes los motiva el deseo de devolver el país a manos de los líderes corruptos del pasado.“Van a venir porque hay un grupo de intereses creados, de corruptos, que quiere regresar al poder para seguir robando”, dijo López Obrador en una conferencia de prensa reciente refiriéndose a los manifestantes del domingo. “No vengan aquí a decir: ‘Es que nos importa la democracia, es que se afecta la democracia’”.Era la segunda vez en alrededor de cuatro meses que los mexicanos se habían manifestado en apoyo del instituto de vigilancia electoral, que el presidente y sus seguidores aseguran que se ha convertido en una burocracia inflada cooptada por intereses políticos.“Tiene un poder desmesurado y desviado”, dijo Pedro Miguel, un periodista de La Jornada, un diario de izquierda, quien se describió como “militante” del proyecto político del presidente. Miguel criticó al INE por pagarle demasiado a sus integrantes, incluido un bono al retirarse.“Esa marcha parece más bien en defensa de ese bono y de esos sueldos miserables”, dijo de la protesta del domingo.Fue la segunda vez en unos cuatro meses que los mexicanos mostraron apoyo público al Instituto Nacional Electoral, que el presidente y sus seguidores aseguran se ha convertido en un organismo con burocracia inflada.Luis Antonio Rojas para The New York TimesLas medidas, aprobadas la semana pasada por la legislatura, van a recortar el personal del instituto, socavar su autonomía y limitar su capacidad para sancionar a los políticos que quebranten la ley electoral. Los funcionarios electorales indican que la modificación también eliminará a la mayoría de trabajadores que supervisan directamente el voto e instalan las casillas de votación en todo el país.“Pone en riesgo incluso la validez de las propias elecciones”, dijo en una entrevista Lorenzo Córdova, el presidente saliente del INE.Las manifestaciones suceden cuando el país se prepara para el inicio de la campaña presidencial de 2024, en medio de serias dudas sobre si una oposición maltrecha e incipiente cuenta con los medios para ganarse a los votantes desencantados.“Es una prueba muy importante de qué tanto van a poder movilizar a su base social”, dijo Blanca Heredia, profesora en el Centro de Investigación y Docencia Económicas, refiriéndose a los partidos que se oponen al presidente, conocido por sus iniciales, AMLO.La multitud del domingo, según algunos analistas, era suficientemente grande para señalar que muchos mexicanos están ansiosos de apoyar a sus instituciones y también de expresar su descontento con el presidente.González, la manifestante de Mazatlán, dijo que no había votado por López Obrador, “porque todavía me sube el agua al tinaco”.Está por verse si la oposición puede sacar provecho electoral de ese desencanto.“Nada más tienen el sentimiento anti-AMLO”, dijo Heredia de los partidos que se enfrentan a López Obrador. “Si quieren captar a más votantes, distintos a los que son anti-AMLO, necesitan un proyecto en positivo, algún plan que proponer al país”.Los manifestantes que marcharon contra las medidas impulsadas por el presidente Andrés Manuel López Obrador, quien ha insinuado que los que protestan buscan volver a poner el país en manos de líderes corruptos.Luis Antonio Rojas para The New York TimesElda Cantú More