More stories

  • in

    Trump says he would debate on Fox News – but Harris insists on ABC

    Donald Trump says he would be willing to debate Kamala Harris on the friendly environs of Fox News in September – but the vice-president has not signed on to what would be a switch-up.Trump had previously agreed to appear on ABC News and debate Joe Biden a second time this year before the president ended his re-election campaign.In a statement on his Truth Social platform, Trump said the debate would be held on 4 September in Pennsylvania. The former president said that there was a conflict of interest at play after filing a defamation lawsuit against ABC and network host George Stephanopoulos over the anchor’s assertion that Trump had been “found liable for rape” in the E Jean Carroll case.Trump earlier this year was ordered to pay $83m for defamatory statements he had made about the magazine columnist after an earlier case found him liable for defamation and sexual abuse.“The Debate was previously scheduled against … Biden on ABC, but has been terminated in that Biden will no longer be a participant, and I am in litigation against ABC Network and George Slopadopoulos, thereby creating a conflict of interest,” Trump wrote.The former Republican president added that the site of the debate on Fox News – which is generally welcoming to the GOP – had not been determined. But he said the moderators would be Fox News’ Bret Baier and Martha MacCallum, and the rules would be similar to his 27 June debate with Biden – except that this time there would be a studio audience.But on Saturday, in a statement that invoked Trump’s previous challenge to debate Biden at any time or place, Harris’s campaign made clear she did not agree to the terms of the proposed Fox News debate. And she particularly rejected using that debate to replace the ABC one.“Donald Trump is running scared and trying to back out of the debate he already agreed to and running straight to Fox News to bail him out,” Harris campaign spokesperson Michael Tyler said in a statement shared on X by NBC News political correspondent Yamiche Alcindor.“He needs to stop playing games and show up to the debate he already committed to on [10 September]. The vice-president will be there one way or the other to take the opportunity to speak to a prime-time national audience. We’re happy to discuss further debates after the one both campaigns have already agreed to.“Mr Anytime, anywhere, any place should have no problem with that unless he’s too scared to show up on the 10th.”In a post on X, Harris herself added: “It’s interesting how any time, any place’ becomes ‘one specific time, one specific safe space.’”The vice-president said in July that she was “ready” to debate Trump and accused him of stepping back from the previous agreement involving ABC.In a post on Saturday, Trump alleged that Harris was “afraid” to “do a REAL debate” against him. He added: “I’ll see [Harris] on September 4th or I won’t see her at all.”Democratic party alarm at Biden’s June debate performance on CNN set in motion his dramatic withdrawal from the race, with polls indicating he was likely headed for a blowout electoral defeat.Trump and Harris are now polling neck-and-neck.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThe political dance over presidential debates is now set to escalate. Earlier this year, Biden and Trump agreed to sidestep the typical arrangement of three debates, typically held in the fall and organized by the bipartisan Commission on Presidential Debates.Democrats said reducing the number to two and moving them up to June and September reflected changes in the “structure of our elections and the interests of voters”.Biden said he had won two debates with Trump in 2020 and challenged him to two this year. “I hear you’re free on Wednesdays,” Biden said, referring to a weekly off-day during the New York criminal trial that saw Trump convicted of falsifying business records in connections with hush-money payments to the adult film actor Stormy Daniels.But that decision ultimately backfired for Biden.The latest twist in the 2024 debate drama comes after Trump said he would not face Harris because she was not the party’s official candidate. On Friday, Harris secured enough Biden delegates to officially become her party’s nominee.At a rally in Atlanta on Tuesday, Harris said she welcomed a debate against Trump, who days earlier had called her a “bum”.“As the saying goes, you got something to say, say it to my face,” Harris said. More

  • in

    David Cameron: the Boy’s Own robot made of ham was nearly out-Foxed

    How much have you really engaged with David Cameron, since he became foreign secretary in November? I always get a discombobulating strobe effect, all the alternative futures that could have been: the not-Brexit, the not-Boris Johnson, the not-austerity and social fracturing, if it hadn’t been for this rosy-face Duff Cooper in 21st-century fancy dress, and the incomprehensible number of people who didn’t take one look at that face and run a mile. So I find him quite hard to look at.As he does the American media rounds, talking Ukraine and Gaza to wingnuts (Fox News) and sensible centrists (CNN), the look he’s going for is somewhat changed. You know what they say about America, that it went from barbarism to decadence without the intervening period of civilisation (no offence, Fox News!)Cameron went from floppy young man in a hurry to elder statesman without the intervening period of regular, middle-aged statesman; did he ever really govern? Was he ever really real? Well, he must have been. Because all that stuff happened.He was fresh from meeting Donald Trump in Mar-a-Lago, which he couldn’t say much about because it was a private meeting – the US anchors of every channel nodded delightedly when he said that. I think it sounds saucy yet quaint when a posh person says it, but he said this much to This Morning on CNN: “The point I’m making is …” (ah, memories … Cameron saying, “Let me be clear on this point that I am making,” piping busy words, the catchphrase of a man who’s never once wondered whether he’s interesting) “is that I think profoundly in Britain’s interest, but also to America’s interests, that Trump doesn’t get to win in Ukraine.”We can come to why not if you really think it’s necessary, but what a profoundly weird thing to say. Get to win what? The US election? Because, if he doesn’t win that, it’s hard to see how he wins anything in Ukraine. But if he does win the US election, then he, rather than the British foreign secretary, does sadly “get to” decide what their interests are.Trump, you’ll remember, wants the Ukrainians to cede Crimea and the Donbas border regions to Vladimir Putin in return for no longer getting shot at. Cameron is probably right, it “wouldn’t just be bad for our European security, our adversaries around the world, whether it’s Iran or China or whoever, would draw lessons that we don’t stand by our allies”. And, OK, this next bit is a little flabby, but odds on, there will be “risk of further aggression and further danger in our world”.Yet I worry that Cameron really thinks this is what geopolitics are – a nice, rule-based game where you might get the odd leader who huffs and puffs, but all the other players, nice chaps, will step in and say, as one: “No, you don’t get to do that.”His language is pure Boy’s Own adventure – “the bravery of the Ukrainians”, “Europe and America sticking together and standing up against bullies”. Sure, he’s not swimming in very complicated waters (Trump, for comparison, said that Russia should do “whatever the hell they want to Nato countries who do not spend enough on defence”), but you don’t, from Cameron, get the deep sense of security that settles upon one while listening to a sensible adult, with a full complement of faculties, rooted in reality.He was introduced as “Britain’s top diplomat”, which made him sound kind of cute, like he’d won his title in a Britain’s Got Diplomats quizshow. I’m not sure they take us tremendously seriously, as a nation. Conceivably, because of all that stuff that happened.Fox News went a different way, as they say, with a question you’d call dumb, except that’s what they want you to think, so you’re playing into their hands, except what are you going to do, not call it dumb? It remains dumb. What did Cameron think about London, our London, where “streets are taken over by pro-Hamas folks” and the “Jewish community is describing a country that’s become almost unrecognisable, in terms of the toleration of this”.Cameron’s face is famously hard to read. Caitlin Moran once said he looked like a robot made of ham. But this must surely have ruffled him on the inside: this is what half his party says, round the clock.This is the means by which they threaten the right to protest, and the tactic they use to deflect any serious consideration of the situation in Gaza; that it can’t be a massacre because Hamas and any right-thinking person disputing that slaughter must love Hamas, and that British Jews are terrified of their own country, because the streets are lined with Hamas-lovers. Everyone knows that’s not true but, for as long as it’s useful, that’s what a lot of Conservatives will claim to think.Did it give the foreign secretary, who himself mourns the bloodshed, a second’s pause, to be confronted with this live on air? Did it make him think how far the Tory party had moved, how obliterated the one-nation lot, his lot, were? Did he stop and wonder about his part in all that?Really hard to say – see robots, ham – but he deflected it quite well, stressing all the freedoms, stressing the rule of law, stressing that Benjamin Netanyahu ought to observe laws, too, particularly with regards to civilians.“The Brits and the Americans didn’t provide aid to Germans, in World War Two,” the anchor replied.Britain’s top diplomat didn’t dignify that. More

  • in

    Trump and his toadies are trying to rewrite history so he’s not an insurrectionist | Sidney Blumenthal

    OJ Simpson decided he could make some “blood money”, as he called it, by writing a “hypothetical” book on the murders of his estranged wife Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend Ron Goldman entitled If I Did It. When it was announced in 2006, the outrage was so overwhelming that the publisher, HarperCollins, owned by Rupert Murdoch, fired the editor, Judith Regan, and cancelled a scheduled Fox network special. The OJ book fiasco appeared to be a rare moment of Murdoch sensitivity, but he was concerned that the association besmirched his own reputation.A week after Donald Trump’s attorney argued in the DC district court that he could not be prosecuted for his attempted coup culminating in the January 6 assault on the Capitol and could order the assassination of any opponent, Trump took to his Truth Social account on 18 January to insist that he “MUST HAVE COMPLETE & TOTAL PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY” even for “EVENTS THAT ‘CROSS THE LINE’”. If the glove fits, you must still acquit.Trump’s If I Did It moment was followed, not with repulsion, but instead with his former warm embrace by Murdoch’s Fox News, reflexive bended knee by the entire Republican leadership, and Polonius-like advice from JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon to Democrats to “grow up” and “listen” to Maga.After 6 January 2021, Murdoch swore that Trump was an “asshole”, “a fucking idiot” and a “loser”. Fox News itself agreed to pay $787m to settle a case alleging that Fox News broadcast falsehoods to advance Trump’s lies about the Dominion Voting Systems company. The day after Trump’s OJ-like confession, Fox News host Brian Kilmeade said: “He’s gone out of his way not to look back,” and “there’s a sereneness about him.” Fox’s Laura Ingraham urged Ron DeSantis “to step aside and endorse Trump”. Murdoch had touted DeSantis in his New York Post and on Fox, but he is now back to round-the-clock promotion of Trump, whom he appeared to privately wish dead: “This would all be solved if … ” If I Did It …The day after the US Capitol attack in 2021, Jamie Dimon of JPMorgan Chase felt morally compelled to issue a formal corporate statement: “This is not who we are as a people or a country.” But at the Davos World Economic Forum last week, Dimon said that Democrats should “grow up”, “listen” to “Maga”, stop “scapegoating” Trump supporters, and “treat other people with respect”. “I think people should be a little more respectful of our fellow citizens.”Wearing a Ukrainian flag pin in his lapel, but seemingly unaware of its meaning, Dimon remarked that Trump was “kind of right about Nato”. Trump, according to his national security adviser John Bolton, pledged to wreck Nato, and bluntly told European leaders that he would not honor the US treaty commitment to defend them if they were attacked.After Trump’s Iowa romp and apparent unobstructed path to the Republican nomination, the corporate statesman, holding forth from the pinnacle of globalism, hedged. His studied ambivalence came a week after his bank reported that in 2023, under Joe Biden, its profits surged to its best year in its history. But Dimon still swiveled. “I have to be prepared for both. I will be prepared for both. We will deal with both.”Dimon’s grave words after 6 January 2021 were from a discarded balance sheet: “Our elected leaders have a responsibility to call for an end to the violence, accept the results, and, as our democracy has for hundreds of years, support the peaceful transition of power.” His condescension against condescension against the Trumpetariat is risk management. But his hypocrisy is more than interest on his capital. His feigned empathy about Maga as an oppressed minority community garbles bits and pieces of the half-digested drivel of table talk of Republican billionaires with whom he breaks bread.While Dimon and others at the Davos aerie considered the annual Economic Forum’s Global Risks Report, which identified disinformation and misinformation from artificial intelligence as the greatest short-term threat to democracy, a Manhattan courtroom was hearing the second defamation case of the adjudicated rapist Trump against E Jean Carroll.Carroll testified that she had been inundated with death threats from Trump supporters. Trump’s incitement against the judges and their staff overseeing his various trials has provoked constant death threats against them, and they are surrounded by security details. The jurors’ anonymity is closely guarded to protect their safety. Trump’s antics are deliberate tactics of intimidation and political base mobilization. The shadow of stochastic violence hangs over the justice system. Everyone under threat “listens” to Maga.While Dimon suggested learning from Maga, Trump provided educational lessons in two courtrooms. In his New York trial for financial fraud, he broke the judge’s conditions that he should not to attack the court or use the forum to make a “campaign speech”. After the closing arguments, Trump raged in the court that the judge has an “agenda”, and that the trial is a “political witch hunt” and “a fraud on me”. Judge Arthur Engoron, who would probably have declared another defendant in contempt, told Trump’s attorney: “Control your client.”At the E Jean Carroll trial, Trump interrupted Carroll’s lawyer repeatedly with loud remarks from the defendant’s table. Judge Lewis Kaplan staid that if he continued his disruptions he could be excluded from the courtroom.“I would love it,” Trump replied.“I know you would, because you just can’t control yourself in this circumstance, apparently. You just can’t,” Kaplan said.“Neither can you,” Trump countered, using one of his favorite gambits – accusing the person calling him out for his actions of doing the same thing. (“Puppet, puppet, you’re the puppet,” he shouted at Hillary Clinton in a debate, to claim she was Putin’s plaything.)During the lunch break in the trial, Trump posted a series of attacks on the judge, calling him a “seething and hostile Clinton-appointed Judge”. “He is abusive, rude, and obviously not impartial but, that’s the way this crooked system works!” Another defendant would have been held in contempt, subjected to a gag order, or excluded from the proceedings. His Maga followers were listening and watching.Then, at a New Hampshire rally, on 20 January, Trump staged an Orwellian exercise in projection, appearing before a gigantic sign reading: “Biden Attacks Democracy.”The very day of Trump’s cross-the-line If I Did It statement, the Republican congressional leaders en masse affixed their signatures to a document unprecedented in US political history. It was a declaration of unconditional surrender to Trump. In an amicus brief filed before the US supreme court in the case in which the Colorado supreme court ruled to remove Trump from the ballot for engaging in an insurrection under the constitution’s 14th amendment, section 3, they defended him as an innocent victim. To depict the guiltless Trump, they offered a story of alternative facts.During the protests in the summer of 2020, he was the real target of violence: “Violence aimed towards the sitting President was perhaps unsurprising … ” Then, during the election, “both sides could attempt to label the other as having actively opposed the peaceful transfer of power to the rightful winner, or at least being morally complicit in those actions – and thus both Trump and Biden partisans could try to disqualify each other under Section 3, in tit-for-tat … ” But Trump on 6 January 2021 was the voice of peace and reason, telling his supporters to “go home now.”The amicus brief that is the white flag raised by the congressional Republicans has been signed by 44 senators and 135 members of the House, all the leadership in both chambers. The signers are a confederacy of cynics and co-conspirators.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionOf the senators, Ted Cruz, Lindsey Graham and Mike Lee were almost certainly privy to far more of the “stop the steal” movement, the fake electors scheme and the events of January 6 than they have revealed. The Georgia grand jury recommended Graham’s indictment for election fraud, but he was let off the hook when the prosecutor opted not to charge him.Of the House members, speaker Mike Johnson and Jim Jordan, among others, were extensively involved in Trump’s plot. Johnson, among other things, was central to organizing objections to certification of the electoral college count. Jordan refused to honor the subpoena of the January 6 committee.“Leader Mitch McConnell” is listed on the amicus brief. On the day of January 6, McConnell was hustled by the Capitol police to a secure location, where with Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer they frantically called for military intervention to end the assault. McConnell was in physical danger. He is frail. He has unstable balance. He cannot run. He had a bad fall the year before, fracturing his shoulder. He has heart trouble.That evening, after the Capitol was cleared of the attackers, McConnell quaked with anger. “The mob was fed lies,” he said. “They were provoked by the president and other powerful people.” He told his staffers that Trump was a “despicable human being”.He thought Trump was done. Now, McConnell has lent his name to a legal document that claims Trump did not “engage” in an insurrection.The brief, prepared by a Federalist Society chop-shop of rightwing lawyers, provides an à la carte menu for the conservative majority on the US supreme court to select an excuse for Trump. There are the sophistries – the president is not an “officer” of the US; his oath differs by a word from that of a senator; Trump didn’t “engage in” an insurrection.There is whataboutism – as in, what about antifa in Portland and Maxine Waters. There is twisted illogic – the falsehood that a state lacks power to disqualify a candidate because it “interferes” with the congressional authority to remove a “disability” through an amnesty.There is constitutional nonsense – that the 14th amendment is not self-executing; that the qualification mentioned in the 20th amendment, the “lame-duck” amendment, that prevented a lame duck Congress from choosing a president and established the line of succession in case of an electoral deadlock or a death, had anything to do with the qualification regarding insurrection provided by the 14th amendment, section 3.In its defense of Trump, the brief winds up conceding the entire case. Invoking the non sequitur of the 20th amendment, the lawyers argue it “confirms that a candidate may be elected President even if he is not qualified to hold the office”. Splitting hairs, they have beheaded Trump.Finally, in an even weirder conclusion, they cite George Orwell’s 1984 to defend Trump as the victim of authoritarian tyranny. “It is hard to imagine an actual insurrectionist quickly asking for peace and encouraging disbandment. But once ‘engage in’ is defined so broadly, even significant countervailing evidence can simply be labeled as a ruse, as insufficient, or even as an implied recognition and praise of ongoing violence. Enterprising state officials, in other words, may conclude that ‘Peace means War.’ Cf. George Orwell, 1984.”But, then, after all that, Trump demands immunity for “EVENTS THAT ‘CROSS THE LINE” – If I Did It.For McConnell, his fellow signers, and the Republicans racing to endorse Trump, the clock is striking thirteen.
    Sidney Blumenthal is a Guardian US columnist. He is a former senior adviser to President Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton, has published three books of a projected five-volume political life of Abraham Lincoln: A Self-Made Man, Wrestling With His Angel and All the Powers of Earth More

  • in

    Network of Lies review: Brian Stelter on Fox News, Trump and Dominion

    This week, Rupert Murdoch formally stepped down as the chairman of News Corp. At the annual shareholder’s meeting, the 92-year-old media mogul inveighed against the “suppression of debate by an intolerant elite who regard differing opinions as anathema”. He also passed the baton to Lachlan Murdoch, his 52-year-old son, “a believer in the social purpose of journalism”.Murdoch also told those assembled that “humanity has a high destiny”. Unmentioned: how Fox News’s coverage of the 2020 election led to its shelling out of hundreds of millions to settle a defamation lawsuit from Dominion Voting Systems, or how other suits continue.Five days after the election, insisting Donald Trump could not have lost to Joe Biden – as he clearly did – Maria Bartiromo defied management to become “the first Fox host to utter the name ‘Dominion’”, writes Brian Stelter, a veteran Fox-watcher and former CNN host. “All gassed up on rage and righteousness, [Bartiromo] heaped shame onto the network and spurred a $787.5m settlement payment.”Bartiromo popularized the Trump aide Sidney Powell and her special brand of insanity. Their enthusiasm became fatally contagious. January 6 and the insurrection followed. Two and a half years later, Bartiromo is still on the air. Powell is a professional defendant. Last month, she pleaded guilty in Fulton county, Georgia, to six counts of misdemeanor election interference and agreed to six years of probation. She still faces potential civil liability and legal sanction.“What Bartiromo began on a Sunday morning in November … destroyed America’s sense of a shared reality about the 2020 election,” Stelter laments. “The consequences will be felt for years to come.”In the political sphere, Trump shrugs off 91 criminal charges and assorted civil threats to dominate the Republican primary, focusing on retribution and weaponizing the justice department and FBI should he return to power.With less than a year before the 2024 election, Stelter once again focuses on the Murdochs’ flagship operation. Like his previous book from 2020, Hoax: Donald Trump, Fox News and the Dangerous Distortion of Truth, Network of Lies offers a readable and engrossing deep dive into the rightwing juggernaut paid for by the Murdochs and built by the late, disgraced Roger Ailes.Now a podcast host and consulting producer to The Morning Show, an Apple TV drama, Stelter also has journalistic chops earned at the New York Times. He wades through court filings and paperwork from the Dominion litigation, talks to sources close to Fox and the Murdochs, and offers insight into the firing of Tucker Carlson, the dominant, far-right prime-time host who was suddenly ditched in April. Stelter’s book is subtitled The Epic Saga of Fox News, Donald Trump, and the Battle for American Democracy. He overstates, but not by much.Unlike Bartiromo, Carlson didn’t drink the Kool-Aid. He was sly and calculated, not crazy.“Carlson privately thought Powell’s ‘software shit’ was ‘absurd’,” Stelter writes about the idea that voting machines were outlandishly rigged. “He worriedly speculated that ‘half our viewers have seen the Maria clip’, and he wanted to push back on it.” But Carlson didn’t push back hard enough. He went with the flow.He now peddles his wares on what used to be Twitter, broadcasts from a basement, and hangs out with Trump at UFC. For a guy once known for wearing bow ties, it’s a transformation. Then again, Carlson also prided himself on his knowledge of how white guys ought to fight, an admission in a text message, revealed by the Dominion suit, that earned the ire of the Fox board and the Murdochs.In Stelter’s telling, Fox “A-listers” received a heads-up on what discovery in the Dominion case would reveal.“‘They’re going to call us hypocrites,’ an exec warned.” Plaintiffs would juxtapose Fox’s public message against its internal doubts about voter fraud claims. “It was likened to ‘a seven-layer cake of shit’,” Stelter writes.The miscalculation by Fox’s legal team is now legend. It led Murdoch to believe Dominion would cost him $50m. But even Murdoch came close to concluding it was “unarguable that high-profile Fox voices” fed the “big lie”.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionStelter captures the Murdochs’ struggle to make money, keep their audience happy and avoid liability. It is a near-impossible task. The beast must be fed. There is always someone or something out there waiting to cater to Trump’s base if Fox won’t. After the 2020 election, Trump forced Fox to compete with One America News and Newsmax for his attention and his followers’ devotion.The Murdochs’ pivot toward Ron DeSantis as their Republican candidate of choice won’t be forgotten soon, at least not by voters during the GOP primary. Despite being assiduously courted by Fox to appear at the first debate, which it sponsored, Trump smirkingly and wisely declined to show. Fox still covers Trump’s events – until he plugs Carlson, the defenestrated star.Judging by the polls, none of this has hurt Trump’s hopes. He laps the pack while DeSantis stagnates, Nikki Haley threatening to take second place. At the same time, some polling shows Trump ahead of Joe Biden or competitive in battleground states and leading in the electoral college. For now, Fox needs him more than he needs Fox.In that spirit of “social purpose” reporting lauded by his dad, Lachlan Murdoch will be left to navigate a defamation action brought by Smartmatic, another voting machine company, and, among other cases, a suit filed by Ray Epps, an ex-marine who pleaded guilty to misdemeanor charges for his role in the January 6 insurrection but became the focus of conspiracy theorists. Sating the appetites of the 45th president and his rightwing base never comes cheap.In the Smartmatic litigation, Fox tried to subpoena George Soros, the bete noire of the right. It lost, but conspiracy theories die hard. US democracy remains fragile, the national divide seemingly unbridgeable. Expect little to change at Fox. The show must go on.
    Network of Lies is published in the US by Simon & Schuster More

  • in

    Former Fox News reporter sues after he was allegedly fired for protesting January 6 coverage

    Fox News is being sued by a former Capitol Hill reporter who accuses the network of discriminating and retaliating against him because he refused to appease Donald Trump and the former president’s supporters by propagating lies about the “stolen” 2020 election.Jason Donner, who worked for Fox News for 12 years as a Capitol Hill reporter and producer, accuses the network of firing him because he spoke out against the coverage of Trump’s stolen election lie and the storming of the Capitol building on 6 January 2021. He was the victim of a wider purge of the newsroom, the lawsuit claims, designed to hold up the network’s ratings by playing along with election denial.The suit, which is being heard by a federal court in Washington DC, gives a vivid account of Donner’s experiences during the January 6 insurrection. Once rioters had entered the Capitol building, he sheltered along with other reporters in the news booths connected to the Senate.As they were hiding, and while reports were coming in of shots fired outside the House chamber, Fox news was broadcasting that the event was “peaceful”. Donner called the newsroom, the suit says, and exclaimed: “I don’t want to hear any of this fucking shit on our air ever again because you’re gonna get us all killed.”The suit claims that after Fox News became the first media outlet to call Arizona for Joe Biden shortly before midnight on election night in 2020, the network faced a furious backlash from Trump and his supporters. Ratings suffered.“To win back viewership and pledge its loyalty to President Trump, Fox’s corporate leadership purged the news division and those reporters who spoke out against claims of election fraud,” it states.Donner also objected to the conspiracy theories being touted by Fox’s star host at the time, Tucker Carlson, who has since been fired. Donner particularly objected to Carlson’s Fox Nation program, Patriot Purge, but was told by a manager, the suit says, that there was “nothing they could do because Tucker has gotten bigger than the network”.The former Fox News reporter claims that retaliation against him began in the spring of 2022. “It became evident to Donner he was now being targeted for speaking out against the false reporting on the election and the January 6 insurrection,” the lawsuit contends.Donner was fired on 28 September 2022 on what he claims were pretextual grounds related to the sick day he had taken two days previously having fallen ill after a Covid-19 vaccination.The new suit is one of a spate of litigation that Fox is fielding relating to its handling of the stolen election lie. In April, the company settled with the voting equipment company Dominion for $787.5m in a defamation suit over false allegations about the firm’s involvement in “rigging” the 2020 election.A similar $2.7bn suit from another voting machine company, Smartmatic, is ongoing. More

  • in

    White House denounces Fox News over host’s ‘foul’ remarks on CNN pair

    For the second time in two days, the White House denounced Fox News over remarks by a host relating to the Israel-Hamas war, following condemnation of Jesse Watters’ apparent incitement of violence against Arab Americans with condemnation of Mark Levin for calling two CNN anchors “self-hating Jews”.Andrew Bates, a spokesperson, said: “President Biden believes in an America where we come together against hate and don’t fan its flames. But not only is Fox News aligning with those who fan the flames of hate – Fox is paying their salaries.”Levin, who hosts Life, Liberty & Levin, a Fox News weekend show, attacked Wolf Blitzer and Jake Tapper of CNN on The Mark Levin Show, his daily radio show which is syndicated by Westwood One.Though Levin, who is Jewish, acknowledged Blitzer’s family history – all the CNN anchor’s grandparents were killed in the Holocaust – Levin said Blitzer’s parents “weren’t victims”. Regarding Blitzer’s coverage of the Israel-Hamas war, Levin called the host “a dumb bastard” with “a hearing problem and an IQ problem” who “wants Israel to die”.Blitzer was a “self-hating Jew”, Levin said, reaching for a label he previously applied to Tapper.CNN called Levin’s comments “wildly uninformed, inappropriate and shameful”, adding that his “antisemitic rhetoric is dangerous, offensive and should be universally denounced”.On Friday, the White House did so.“Lying to insult the pain that families suffered in the Holocaust has absolutely no place in America,” Bates said. “None. Sadly, this is not the first time in recent months that a Fox News host made sickening remarks about the Holocaust.“Despite condemnation from the Auschwitz Memorial, Fox has not even disagreed with Greg Gutfeld’s reprehensible claim that Nazi labour camps taught Jews to be ‘useful’.”In July, during a debate over the rightwing claim that some Black people benefited from being enslaved, Gutfeld said on air: “Did you ever [read] Man’s Search for Meaning? Vik[tor] Frankl talks about how you had to survive in a concentration camp by having skills. You had to be useful. Utility. Utility kept you alive.”On Friday, in his statement on Levin’s comments, Bates said: “It isn’t even the first time this week that a Fox host chose to abuse their platform and spread hate.”A day before, Bates condemned comments in which Watters, discussing instances of pictures of Israeli hostages held by Hamas being taken down from public display, seemed to advocate violence.Watters said: “If you’re an Arab American in this country, and you rip down posters of Jewish hostages, American hostages, no. No, no, no. Someone is going to get punched in the face.”Referring to a recent killing in Illinois, now the subject of murder and hate crime charges, Bates said: “Even after the heartbreaking killing of a six-year-old Palestinian American child and a surge in violence against Muslims and Arab Americans, two nights ago Jesse Watters made vile comments that attack the dignity of all Americans, saying he’s ‘done’ with Arab Americans and Muslims.“And Fox News continues to promote the cynical, dangerous lie that fighting against Islamophobia is somehow at odds with fighting antisemitism, even as they permit hosts to hurt their viewers with foul antisemitic comments.“President Biden will always stand up against antisemitism, Islamophobia, and all forms of hate. Fox News needs to stop standing up on behalf of hate.”Fox News did not immediately respond to a request for comment. More

  • in

    ‘Lachlan Murdoch is a Hamlet figure’: Michael Wolff unpicks the real-life succession drama

    Immediately before Michael Wolff published The Fall: The End of the Murdoch Empire, the emperor himself, driver of its expansion and its bitter divisions, stepped aside. Last week, Rupert Murdoch announced he was anointing his eldest son, Lachlan, as his successor, which per Wolff’s narrative will have been a bitter blow to everyone, including Lachlan.Wolff’s latest book joins an oeuvre that is remarkable for its access: in 2008, he wrote a biography of Murdoch, The Man Who Owns the News, for which the mogul gave him 50 hours of interviews. Never mind that it’s the longest Murdoch has ever spoken to a journalist, it’s probably the longest he’s ever spoken to a friend. “We really got along. He’s inexhaustible on the subject of the media, and I, too, am inexhaustible on that subject. We had a very good time,” says Wolff. So long as they were doing business or gossip, that is. “He’s very hard to talk to personally; he can’t reflect on his own past and his own experience. He can talk about his family; he was weirdly transparent about his children. But about himself, what he might be feeling, no.”Ten years later, Wolff, who is now 70, produced what will probably be his defining work, the trilogy about Donald Trump’s White House: Fire and Fury, Siege and Landslide. The books distilled qualities evident since Wolff’s first piece in the New York Times Magazine ran in 1974: an exquisite eye for detail and mischief, expert pacing and a peculiar ability to get people to talk to him, even if they know – as by now they must – that he’s going to stitch them up like kippers. “I’m always surprised,” he says. “I have no real explanation except that people like to talk about themselves. I think of myself as a writer, not a journalist, and what does that mean? It means I’m not there to challenge anybody, I’m there to see what the experience is, and to try to put that on paper. I try to fade into the background.”Anyway, back to Lachlan, who takes over the company “theoretically”, Wolff tells me, over video call from an austere-looking room in Manhattan. He’s “a Hamlet figure. Does he want this job? I think many people who have worked with him and his siblings would say, in an ideal world, probably not.”Could Murdoch have stepped aside because of Wolff’s warts-and-all exposé? Does that sound like the kind of thing he would do? “From my point of view, I would say it’s not a coincidence,” Wolff says, picking his words judiciously, like a seasoned, picky traveller at a hotel buffet. “Obviously I speak to people inside the empire on a constant basis, and the feeling is that the book was a bus headed right at them. It’s a fairly vivid description of the problems of a 92-year-old running a public company, and he runs two significant public companies.” These are, of course, the Fox Corporation and News Corp, which, in fact, represent the rump of Murdoch’s empire, after the $71bn (£58bn) sale of 21st Century Fox – the film and television arms of the corporation – to Disney in 2019. But nevertheless that rump continues to change the shape of politics in the US and elsewhere. “The book created the environment where he was going to have to do more explaining than he wanted to do.”Just how many warts are there in Wolff’s book, though? The story it describes is, at root, quite sad: Murdoch wanted a rolling news channel and created Fox News in 1996, putting it under the control of the late Roger Ailes, for a number of reasons of which managing, controlling, manipulating and tamping down Murdoch’s warring sons were not the least. Murdoch was never even that into TV news, apparently, preferring print, but what he’d made ultimately delivered a new politics, culminating in Trump, whom Murdoch loathed.But Disney bought all the important bits of the business, leaving Murdoch with the thing he hated: Fox News (give or take what’s still a considerable newspaper empire; Wolff is not that interested in print, at least for the purposes of this book). So now Murdoch can’t get rid of Fox, because it’s all he has, and he can’t even change it, because it’s just making too much money.You’d call it Mephistophelean, except Murdoch didn’t sell his soul, he sold something he actually cared about – his news credentials. My sympathy for him would be greater if the devil only had plans for the Murdochs, but these new politics affect us all. If I had one criticism of Wolff’s overarching analysis, it’s that if you consider the UK for five seconds, it falls apart: Murdoch was never riding the tiger of Fox News here, he was tending the Sun and, for many years, the News of the World, his babies, and he still managed the slow-motion transformation of our politics, to a toxic sink where immigrants are to blame for everything and a blond sociopath could sweep into power on buffoonery. But I guess we just have to get used to our new place in the world, where nobody considers us for five seconds. And if I’m complaining, imagine what Australians have to say about their media’s virtual omission from the Murdoch story – they’ve been dealing with this family for a century.“There’s another theory inside the company,” Wolff says, about the abdication: “This is a Murdoch ruse. He doesn’t want to testify in the Smartmatic case.” Fox Corporation is being sued for $2.7bn for spreading the conspiracy theory that voting machines were rigged in the 2020 election; a similar case brought by Dominion resulted in an astronomical payout by Fox. Wolff reveals in the book that Murdoch thought the suit would cost $50m. By the time the firm walked away this April, it had cost $787.5m.Obviously it’s hard to even consider the Murdochs now but through the lens of Succession. Which one’s meant to be Kendall again, and did he win? “The superstructure of Succession takes a lot from the Murdoch story,” Wolff says. “But the Murdochs really don’t figure into any of the characters in an exact way. In no way. They aren’t those people. Murdoch, in the flesh, is incredibly conflict averse. Never engages. Very courtly. Very polite. In person, not in the least bit bullying or demanding or even functionally a know-it-all.” (According to The Fall, James Murdoch is “a prick”. I liked the brevity.)Wolff doesn’t fawn in front of big money and even expresses sympathy for the Murdoch heirs, who each got $2bn from the Disney deal. “When you have $2bn, that money owns you. You have to go to work for it. It essentially creates a full-time job which you very well may not want but you would be stuck with.” But he does surrender to its logic. “Theoretically,” Wolff says, “Rupert Murdoch didn’t have to go along with this. He could have said, ‘No, I’m closing Fox down. Or I’m going to let James run it.’ But temperamentally, after 70 years in this business, I think that it was beyond expectations for him to give up this incredibly powerful profit machine. Fox News has made more money than any other news business ever. And I’m sure he goes to bed at night thinking, ‘That’s something I’ve accomplished.’”Between that and Wolff’s fascination with the players at Fox News, first Ailes – with whom he had an affectionate lunching friendship – then Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity, as well as sundry female anchors with fun-sounding drink and nymphomania problems, he emerges with an engaging but vexingly neutral narrative. “I’m not particularly interested in politics,” he says. “I think that the real issues are about people’s personal motivations. I think even if that’s in a political setting, which Fox is clearly, in fact what’s pushing these characters forward is not politics, it’s something else, it’s something a lot more basic.”So, ratings, yes? “What’s the overarching motivation of people on television? It’s to stay on television. People who have been on television can’t live with not being on television. Their lives diminish. They become incredibly bitter and angry.” Yes, but do I really care whether or not Carlson is patting his jowls every night and staring down screen mortality? Or is it more important that he actively created the environment for overturning Roe v Wade, because that’s the bit of his life that intersects others’?When you’re talking to Wolff, you have to turn down the bit of your brain that raises objections like that, just as he turns down that bit of his own brain.He was telling me about Ailes, the architect of Fox, always vehemently opposed by both James and Lachlan Murdoch (the only thing they could ever agree on), who was brought down by sexual harassment accusations in 2016 and died the next year. Ailes created the behemoth by recognising that some viewers didn’t want progress; they wanted to stay in 1965. “He made a business of the left-behinds. That’s interesting, from a business standpoint, because the left-behinds previously had no commercial use. He figured out how these people could be monetised, and that changed everything.” Once they’d been monetised, they were a calculable entity, looking for a political home.Ailes had another interesting mantra: it’s not enough to make conservatives happy; you have to make liberals angry. Which, again, feels like an important insight, but Wolff’s response to “alt-right” provocation feels … well, you decide: “I wouldn’t say that I enjoyed every moment I ever spent with Roger. You know, he had these political views that were reprehensible. He would get on these rants and you knew that if you let him go all the way down, at the end of the day the Jews would be killed. You would have to veer him off if you didn’t want to hear that. I remember, once, he was on a rant, and I interrupted him to ask about his son. His son was born when he was 60. I myself at that age was considering having another child. So we had this lovely conversation which precluded having to talk about some ugly politics.”Did more baby Wolffs result from this conversation? “No, my wife persuaded me to have a baby when I was 60, but he helped. Not only has it not been a disaster, then I had another after that.” (This family is with his second wife, the 43-year-old journalist Victoria Floethe. He has three children with his first wife, the lawyer Alison Anthoine.) And what is the consequence, the hangover, from checking your moral compass at the cloakroom while you dodge antisemitic necropolitics over linguine?Wolff’s adventures in Trumpland landed him in hot water from all quarters: the president tried and failed to block publication; numerous sources complained about Wolff’s reporting of off-the-record conversations, or the conversation simply not unfolding the way they remembered it; and then there were people lodging my kind of objection, which is essentially, “Come on, this isn’t a game.” But now the dust has settled, Trump is “no longer upset. I’ve been to Mar-a-Lago to have dinner with him and Melania. He calls me from time to time. And it’s as though we are – actually, I don’t know what we are. We’re friends? That can’t possibly be. But we have some relationship.”He quotes a lot of people as thinking Trump is a moron, but does he think Trump is a moron? “I certainly think he’s unlike anyone that I or, I would go so far as to say, any of us have had any experience with. Sometimes he can certainly sound like a moron. He can sound as if he knows literally nothing about anything. But on the other hand, obviously he does know something. He has keen instincts. Obviously on some level he’s a genius. So I guess you can be a moron and a genius.”How would Wolff write himself; what’s his motivation? “It’s partly that I’m a storyteller. But I would also say that I’ve spent my time trying to get rich. On quite a number of occasions I’ve set out to get rich beyond my wildest dreams and never succeeded. It makes me interested in people who have. Most journalists have accepted the fact that riches are not for them. But I never accepted that.”I then ask how he’d feel if Trump gained a second term in 2024, and he says he’d feel like he had to get back to work. Any anxieties about the future of democracy at all? “I feel that American democracy is pretty damn strong, that it can probably withstand Donald Trump. It can withstand Fox News. America survives, it grows, it prospers. Could that end? I guess it could. Would we know it ends when it ends, or would we only know that in hindsight?”“I’m a fundamentally optimistic person, who keeps having children,” he says. Maddening. A lot of fun. Still maddening.The Fall: The End of the Murdoch Empire by Michael Wolff is published by The Bridge Street Press (£25). To support the Guardian and Observer, buy a copy at guardianbookshop.com. Delivery charges may apply. More

  • in

    ‘Rupert Murdoch is a symptom’: Fox’s future politics look the same as past

    The abrupt uncoupling of the Republican kingmaker Rupert Murdoch from his Fox News empire may have represented a ground shift in the media landscape in the US, but politically at least, very little is likely to change, analysts say.That could be good news for those on the right of the Republican party, who can expect the network to head into the 2024 presidential election – even without its long-time figurehead – continuing to amplify the worst of the political bias and disinformation upon which it made its name.“They’re going to continue the same business formula, which is whipping up hysteria around manufactured crises. They’ll continue to foster outrage and division, and gin up support for conservative causes. I don’t see any of that changing dramatically anytime soon,” said Victor Pickard, professor of media policy and political economy at University of Pennsylvania’s Annenberg school for communication.“Looking at the big picture, with Rupert Murdoch stepping down, don’t expect change. I agree that he was a politico, a very influential political figure in his own right, and certainly he had personal relationships that might not continue with Lachlan [Murdoch’s son, the Fox Corp chief executive].“But the actions of Fox News are going to be primarily dictated by economic concerns and maximizing shareholder value, and they’re doing quite well at the moment. They’re still the most watched cable news network, they’re incredibly profitable. So I don’t think they’re going to mess with their formula.”Pickard’s view is shared by other analysts, who see a “business as usual” approach as the network continues to deal with the fallout from the $787.5m settlement with Dominion Voting Systems for peddling Donald Trump’s big lie that the 2020 election was stolen.That episode cost Fox its most-watched rightwing host, Tucker Carlson, who left in April after pushing the worst of the falsehoods, and complaining he was fired as part of the settlement. Fox and Dominion both say he wasn’t.Fox still faces another, potentially more costly defamation lawsuit from a second voting machine manufacturer, Smartmatic, which is seeking $2.7bn in damages for multiple fabrications broadcast about the company. The legal turbulence has profound implications for Fox’s future, experts say.“The huge Dominion settlement, and the underlying misconduct that the defamation litigation revealed, is inextricably intertwined with the network’s fortunes going forward,” said Carl Tobias, Williams chair in law at the University of Richmond school of law.“Because the Smartmatic litigation, which involves strikingly similar allegations of misconduct revealed in Dominion’s lawsuit, could impose similarly damaging reputational and economic harm on Fox, with concomitant loss of viewers, Lachlan Murdoch must seriously consider settling with Smartmatic.“The departure of Tucker Carlson may suggest that Fox has learned from the Dominion debacle and perhaps attempted to restrict peddling of misinformation that the Dominion litigation uncovered, but that remains unclear.”Others believe Rupert Murdoch will continue to wield significant power at News Corp, the parent company of his global media operations, and Fox itself, despite the Australian-born billionaire announcing in a six-paragraph farewell statement on Thursday that he was transitioning to “chairman emeritus” of the companies.Preston Padden, a veteran media industry executive who served Murdoch in several roles, including as the president for telecommunications at News Corp and as a senior vice-president at Fox Broadcasting Company, made such a claim on X, formerly Twitter, in a post referring to efforts by US ethics groups to have Fox’s US broadcast licenses revoked by the federal communications commission (FCC).“Given [Murdoch’s] statement that ‘I have been engaged daily with news and ideas, and that will not change,’ the fact that the trust he controls has a controlling stock interest in Fox, the fact that his son remains chair and CEO, and the fact that the same cadre of executives who knowingly and repeatedly presented false news remains, this announcement has zero impact on the FCC filings,” he wrote.Padden, who gave testimony in the Dominion case, is one of three former senior Fox executives who have become vocal critics of Murdoch and the network, writing in a blog post earlier this year that they regretted their defense of the channel. “We never envisioned, and would not knowingly have enabled, the disinformation machine that, in our opinion, Fox has become,” they wrote.Pickard, meanwhile, said the tried and tested political playbook that Fox has followed for so long will continue to encourage Republican politicians, and help the network fend off the rise of fledgling channels seeking a greater slice of conservative and rightwing viewership.“Fox News will continue to fear they’re being outmaneuvered by these upstarts, One American News Network, or Newsmax, but there’s just no comparison, no real competition,” he said.“They’ll continue to play this central role in rightwing political discourse whether we’re talking about Fox News and its audience, Fox News and the Republican party, Fox News and Trump. These relationships are all mutually beneficial, mutually reinforcing.“They’re going to make crass business decisions in terms of how they’re serving their audience. You’re still going to see this endless parade of Republican politicians on Fox News, and Fox News will continue to amplify their talking points, along with plenty of white grievance and disinformation and conspiracies, but very little journalism.”Ultimately, Pickard believes, it makes little difference which Murdoch name is on the chairperson’s office door.“We need to ask questions about the effect this has on democracy, and the corrosive, toxic effects that Fox is having on political discourse in civil society writ large,” he said.“It’s a very dramatic, personality-driven narrative of Rupert Murdoch stepping down. But at the end of the day, Rupert Murdoch is a symptom of these larger political-economic relationships, and I feel that’s what we really need to draw attention to.” More