More stories

  • in

    US news outlets refuse to sign new Pentagon rules to report only official information

    Several leading news organizations with access to Pentagon briefings have formally said they will not agree to a new defense department policy that requires them to pledge they will not obtain unauthorized material and restricts access to certain areas unless accompanied by an official.The policy, presented last month by the defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, has been widely criticized by media organizations asked to sign the pledge by Tuesday at 5pm or have 24 hours to turn in their press credentials.The move follows a shake-up in February in which long-credentialed media outlets were required to vacate assigned workspaces which was cast as an “annual media rotation program”. A similar plan was presented at the White House where some briefing room spots were given to podcasters and other representatives of non-traditional media.On Monday, the Washington Post joined the New York Times, CNN, the Atlantic, the Guardian and trade publication Breaking Defense in saying it would not sign on to the agreement.Matt Murray, the Post’s executive editor, said the policy runs counter to constitutional guarantees of freedom of the press.“The proposed restrictions undercut First Amendment protections by placing unnecessary constraints on gathering and publishing information,” Murray wrote in a statement published on X. “We will continue to vigorously and fairly report on the policies and positions of the Pentagon and officials across the government.”The Atlantic, which became embroiled in a dispute with Pentagon and White House officials earlier this year after editor Jeffrey Goldberg was accidentally added to a group chat on Signal, said it “fundamentally” opposes the new restrictions.The new policy “constrains how journalists can report on the U.S. military, which is funded by nearly $1 trillion in taxpayer dollars annually,” a New York Times statement said. “The public has a right to know how the government and military are operating,” wrote the Times Washington bureau chief, Richard Stevenson.Hegseth responded on social media to statements from the Atlantic, the Post and the Times by posting a single emoji of a hand waving goodbye.Righ-leaning outlets have also declined to sign the document. “Newsmax has no plans to sign the letter,” the network told the New York Times reporter Erik Wemple. “We are working in conjunction with other media outlets to resolve the situation. We believe the requirements are unnecessary and onerous and hope that the Pentagon will review the matter further.”Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell told the Washington Post that media outlets had “decided to move the goal post”, saying that the policy doesn’t require reporters to agree, but just acknowledge they understand it.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionParnell said that request had “caused reporters to have a full-blown meltdown, crying victim online.” He added: “We stand by our policy because it’s what’s best for our troops and the national security of this country.”The Pentagon Press Association, which represents the press corps covering the defense department, said last week that a revised policy that seeks to prohibit journalists from soliciting unauthorized information in addition to accessing it, appeared to be “designed to stifle a free press and potentially expose us to prosecution for simply doing our jobs”.The PPA noted that the revised policy “conveys an unprecedented message of intimidation to everyone within the DoD, warning against any unapproved interactions with the press and even suggesting it’s criminal to speak without express permission – which plainly, it is not”.The new rules were accepted by the far-right cable channel One America News, whose White House correspondent is frequently invited by the president to ask him questions. One of the channel’s hosts, former Florida congressman Matt Gaetz, said the pro-Trump outlet “is happy to follow these reasonable conditions”. More

  • in

    Why is this Fox News host speculating about AOC’s sex life? | Arwa Mahdawi

    Stephen Miller, the White House deputy chief of staff for policy and United States homeland security adviser, is one of the most influential people in the Trump administration. He is also such a hate-filled little man that members of his own family are publicly rebuking him.During Donald Trump’s first term, in 2018, Miller’s uncle, Dr David Glosser, wrote a piece for Politico calling Miller an “immigration hypocrite”. Glosser noted that if Miller’s hardline immigration policies “had been in force a century ago, our family [Jewish refugees who fled to the US from Europe to avoid persecution] would have been wiped out”.Then, in July, a woman called Alisa Kasmer, Miller’s cousin and former babysitter, wrote a viral Facebook post calling the Trump aide “the face of evil”. Miller’s cruelty, she said, left her feeling “ashamed and shattered”.While some of his extended family can’t seem to stand him, Miller does have a very enthusiastic cheerleader in the form of the Fox News host Jesse Watters. Last October, Watters claimed that his show’s audience believes that Miller is “some sort of sexual matador” and asked Miller to comment on this. The Maga-dor responded by telling young men to “be the alpha … show that you are not a beta … Be a proud and loud Trump supporter and your dating life will be fantastic.” This is terrible advice for many reasons, not least of which is the fact that gen Z women are the most liberal group in the US.I’m afraid it doesn’t end there; a couple of weeks ago, the Fox News host had Miller’s wife, Katie (a Maga bigwig in her own right), on his show to chat about how sexy Stephen is. “What is it like being married to such a sexual matador?” Watters joked. Very inspiring, apparently; he wakes up every morning excited about how he is going to “defeat the left”.It doesn’t even end there. This week, Watters once again sang his favourite man’s praises on TV, calling Miller a “policy savant”. He added: “Men who are high-value men, like Stephen Miller, take risks. They’re brave, they’re unafraid, they’re confident and they’re on a mission. And they have younger wives with beautiful children.”Watters went on to claim that the representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez “wants to sleep with Miller … it is so obvious”. The whole spiel was so weird that even Watters’s colleague, Greg Gutfeld, appeared disturbed. “That was pretty creepy,” Gutfeld said.While Watters doesn’t seem to need an excuse to praise Miller, this week’s episode wasn’t entirely unprompted. Rather, Watters was reacting to an Instagram video in which Ocasio-Cortez called Miller a clown and urged people to laugh at Maga.“Miller looks like he is so mad that he is 4’10” that he’s taking that anger out at any other population possible,” AOC said in the video. “Laugh at them! Laugh at them!”It’s not particularly clever to mock someone’s height. (AOC has since said she loves “short kings” and was talking about how “big or small someone is on the inside”.) Nevertheless, the lawmaker is absolutely correct that the way to get under the skin of people in Maga-land is to laugh at them. Ghouls like Trump and Miller don’t care if you call them evil or hypocritical. They don’t care if you use facts and logic against them. What they care about is being laughed at. What they really can’t stand is being mocked. “Humor has long been one of the most effective weapons of anti-authoritarian politics,” Ruth Ben-Ghiat, a scholar on fascism, noted last year after Democrats started calling Republicans “weird”.You can see how thin-skinned Maga is by the ridiculous amount of traction that AOC’s throwaway joke has had. Mediaite has reported that three primetime Fox News hosts factchecked Miller’s height: Watters, Laura Ingraham and Sean Hannity. Ingraham even had Miller on her show and played the clip to him while he squirmed in discomfort. “What a train wreck, what a train wreck … that lady is a walking nightmare,” Miller replied. He also clarified that he is 5’10”. A very big boy.Steven Cheung, who is White House director of communications, also responded to Ocasio-Cortez’s comments with a post on his official Twitter account saying: “Sounds like @AOC is often used to the shorter things in life.” He added a pinching hand emoji, which is sometimes used to suggest a small penis.The Trump administration should not be underestimated by any means. They are organized, they are ruthless, and they are proving extremely effective at implementing their agenda. But while we shouldn’t underestimate Trumpers, it’s helpful to remember that they’re not invincible. AOC is right: we should laugh at them. It’s either laugh or cry.French appeals court increases sentence of Gisèle Pelicot rapistHusamettin Dogan contested his first conviction, telling the court Pelicot’s husband had invited him over so it was OK. The court found otherwise this week, increasing Dogan’s prison sentence to 10 years. Pelicot’s lawyer had told the court: “[C]onsent is personal, not delegated. Consent is obtained directly and not by proxy from a husband.”Women may carry a higher genetic risk of depressionNew research published in Nature Communications has found 16 genetic variants linked to depression in women, compared with eight in men.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionLatvia may withdraw from international domestic violence treatyWomen’s rights activists protested outside the Latvian parliament this week following a decision by lawmakers last month to start a process that could lead to withdrawal from the Istanbul Convention, which aims to standardize support for women who are victims of violence and to promote gender equality.Almost 55,000 preschool children in Gaza are acutely malnourishedThat’s according to a new study published in the Lancet, which shows a clear link between Israel’s aid blockade and malnutrition. Even if a ceasefire holds and adequate food is allowed into the strip, these kids will probably have serious poor long-term outcomes from being starved in their critical years. It is hard to defend deliberately starving babies – which is why Israel is spending hundreds of millions on propaganda efforts including, according to Drop Site News, $45m on a Google advertising campaign promoting Israeli government talking points.UK universities offered to spy on students on behalf of weapons companiesAccording to emails obtained by the Guardian and Liberty Investigates, a number of UK universities reassured arms companies worried about campus protests that they would monitor students’ social media accounts. Per the Guardian, one university “appeared to agree to a request from Raytheon UK, the British wing of a major US defence contractor, to ‘monitor university chat groups’ before a campus visit”.The week in pawtriarchyFrancine is a calico cat who lives at a Lowe’s home improvement store in Virginia. Or she did until she decided to jump on a truck and go on an out-of-state adventure. CCTV was scrutinized and thermal drones brought in to find Francine. She is now back in Virginia, delighting customers with her a-mew-sing antics. Cat-astrophe averted.

    Arwa Mahdawi is a Guardian columnist More

  • in

    ‘We’re fighting for you!’ Podcaster Ben Meiselas on taking on the Maga media – and winning the ratings battle

    Ben Meiselas is a very busy man. So busy, he has to break off halfway through our interview to conduct an interview of his own, for his next broadcast. It’s 7am Los Angeles time when we meet via video call, and Meiselas is already well into another 18-hour day of podcasting, planning, interviewing, meetings and more besides. His “pro-democracy” channel MeidasTouch, which he runs with his younger brothers Jordan and Brett, puts out 15 or more videos a day, most of them presented by Meiselas himself. “I was doing another video before this,” he says, “and so by now I’ve already released one video I did last night, which was my 4am, and now I just worked on my 7am – it’ll get released any minute now. And then I’ll have an 8.30, a 10, an 11.30 …”The prolific output is part of the reason The MeidasTouch has become one of the most listened-to podcasts in the US, routinely beating the mighty Joe Rogan in both video and audio, and even overtaking Fox News in YouTube views. Rogan and others in the right-leaning podcast manosphere are thought to have swung the 2024 election in Donald Trump’s favour, prompting much soul-searching on the American left about its media game, and why they need a Joe Rogan of their own; MeidasTouch seems to have stepped in to fill the void.That void extends far beyond just podcasting, in Meiselas’s view. He is appalled at how the US media has reacted since Trump came to power. “It’s a total capitulation,” he says. “They’re either corporate news – like cable news, [which is] just completely both-sides-ing the issues and intentionally ignoring critical, existential things – or they’re just outright state regime media à la North Korea and Russia: Fox News, OAN [One America News], Newsmax … All of these corporations are run by rightwing oligarchs; they are tools to ingratiate themselves with the regime for other benefits and other business interests.”The spectacle of CEOs and podcast bros alike “kissing the ring” at Trump’s inauguration cemented this impression early on. As counter-programming, Meiselas broadcast four hours of cute puppies and kittens, raising funds for the Humane Society.View image in fullscreenIf the left is looking for its Joe Rogan, though, Meiselas doesn’t quite fit the bill. Where Rogan is casual, rambling and often credulous of his guests’ outlandish claims, Meiselas is focused, well-informed and disdainful. And as you’d expect of a former trial lawyer, he speaks with an off-the-cuff fluency (“no scripts, no notes – that’s part of the connection I build with the audience”), and he brings receipts. If he has a catchphrase, it’s “play this clip” – as he illustrates yet another incidence of Republican duplicity/hypocrisy/incompetence/deception/authoritarianism with video, audio, graphs or data.He can be a level-headed interviewer – this week he has spoken to Democrat leaders Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries and newly elected congresswoman Adelita Grijalva. (He breaks off from our interview to talk to a former commissioner for the Federal Communications Commission about free speech and media monopolies.) But over the course of a typical episode – which could be a 20-minute solo broadcast or a 90-minute talk with his brothers – he often becomes audibly outraged at what’s going on.Put that all together, and tonally MeidasTouch is somewhere between wartime resistance broadcast and wrestling commentary. Meiselas is not above throwing out insults: the Republican house leader is consistently referred to as “Maga Mike Johnson”, for example, and he is as merciless about Trump’s health as the rightwing media was about Joe Biden’s. He doesn’t hesitate to speak his mind: “What the hell are these people even talking about?” “Stop making up things and defrauding the American people.” “These people are sick.” And MeidasTouch’s episode titles conform to the hyperbolic YouTube vernacular: “Trump is COLLAPSING under SHUTDOWN PRESSURE!!!”, “​​Trump LOOKS AWFUL as PRESSER Goes OFF THE RAILS”. One journalist described MeidasTouch’s commentary as “seemingly calculated to appeal to those for whom [MSNBC host] Rachel Maddow is too subtle.”Meiselas makes no apologies for his house style. “I don’t curse,” he says. “I try to still keep it as much as possible appropriate for everyone. But on the other hand, I think where you have characters who are cartoonishly evil, like Maga Mike Johnson or JD Vance, framing them for the WWE cosplay characters they’ve become is actually an accurate way of describing who they are … I’m just trying to reflect the language of, truthfully, what it is that I’m seeing, and I think the growth of the network is the audience responding: ‘Yes, that’s exactly how I see it.’” He is speaking from the same home office in which his 5.5 million subscribers see him every day; it’s somewhat uncanny – as if I’m watching my own personal episode of his podcast.In his view, it’s other media outlets that are not meeting the moment. “We’re beyond a constitutional crisis. America’s living in a dictatorship right now. And the question is, how will an opposition respond to a dictatorship?” he says. “This is not a time to be playing games. People are waking up every day feeling, and rightfully so, that this is really life or death for them. We’re not talking about abstract concepts. People are saying, ‘I may not be able to afford healthcare and I’m going to die.’ So they don’t want to be lectured about, ‘Well, on the one hand; on the other hand.’ They want to be told directly, ‘What are you going to do to fight for my life? What are you going to do to fight for my healthcare? My community is under attack right now. There are masked agents who are disappearing human beings right here.’ Or, ‘I’m a member of a marginalised group’ – whether it’s a gay person, LGBTQ – ‘and I matter. I’m a human being, damn it.’ I think where we come in, very unapologetically, is we say, ‘We’re fighting for you, and we don’t waver on our values.’”This is what separates his operation from the forces they’re opposing, he says, despite their superficial resemblances. “You have to unite people with empathy and love and community and shared values as a force against the hate.” He’s all for building connections: communally, politically and internationally – given the global rise of far-right politics. “That, to me, is more important than, ‘Am I beating Joe Rogan this week or that week?’”View image in fullscreenMeiselas, 40, didn’t set out to build a media empire, nor did he really have to. Until about 2020 he was a partner in a successful law firm and his career was flying. The legal profession was in his blood, you could say. His mother practised law for a spell; his father, Kenny, is a leading entertainment lawyer whose clients include Lady Gaga, the Weeknd, Nicki Minaj and formerly Sean “Diddy” Combs, who was recently sentenced to more than four years in prison for prostitution-related charges. Meiselas actually interned for Combs’ Bad Boy Records for a few summers in his late teens. A Variety profile from 2019 claimed that Combs “took Meiselas under his wing, resulting in a precocious and priceless apprenticeship”, but he was not part of Diddy’s entourage or witness to any of wrongdoing, he stresses: “I was very low on the totem pole.” He was actually working on Diddy’s Citizen Change initiative, which was about voter registration for young people.He grew up on Long Island, New York, with his two brothers: Brett, who is five years younger, and Jordan, eight years younger. “We always did things together as brothers,” he says. “Like, we made videos, even in the early days of Adobe editing. We would do comedy skits together in the back yard for fun, and we would make movies together for our school projects.” Then, as now, Ben was the leader, it seems. A confident public speaker, he was president of his student government in middle school and high school, and of various undergraduate clubs. In his early 20s he interned on Capitol Hill, for New York Democrat Steve Israel, then for Hillary Clinton when she was a senator. “I would hand her the speeches before she spoke, answer constituent mail, give tours of the Capitol building – which was my favourite part about it.”He was one of the youngest students at law school, in Georgetown, Washington DC, but he only really became enthused when he began studying civil rights law. He was recruited out of college to a small law California firm and “thrown into the fire”, he says. Within three years, still in his mid-20s, he was in court handling significant cases of brutality and wrongful death at the hands of the police (he assisted the Guardian’s reporting on these issues in 2015), and invariably winning them. That led to representing Colin Kaepernick when the San Francisco 49ers quarterback sued the NFL for excluding him for taking a knee, in what seems like a different era (they reached a confidential settlement). He went on to become a business partner with Kaepernick and they remain good friends.View image in fullscreenIn retrospect, it could look as if Meiselas was destined for a career in politics, but it never really appealed. “When I became a civil rights lawyer, I actually started to not like politics, because politicians would start calling me up for money,” he says. “I still, and I say this all the time on the show, don’t like politics. To me, politics distorts from what the human issues really are.” He doesn’t quite rule it out for the future, though. “I can’t imagine it ever happening. I know it sounds like a political answer to say that, but I really have no desire at all.”skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionIt was during the Covid pandemic in 2020 that Meiselas felt the need to get more politically engaged. Again, he doesn’t mince words. “I thought that Trump was killing people,” he says. “He would do these Covid press conferences, and it would be spewing a bunch of nonsense and disinformation. And me and my brothers were like, ‘Are you watching this? What the hell is going on? We need to do something to call this out.’”At the time Brett was a digital editor for Ellen DeGeneres’ TV show, and Jordan worked in marketing. The brothers began producing anti-Trump videos that started to go viral. One of them, with a #CreepyTrump hashtag, superimposed GOP insider Kellyanne Conway’s comments about Joe Biden being “creepy” over clips of Trump’s inappropriate comments about young women, including his daughter Ivanka. They formed a political action committee, to raise funds for Joe Biden’s campaign, but found simply placing TV attack ads to be unsatisfactory – “You’re renting space on their network, and they’re undermining your message with their both-sides-ism.”Then the January 6 attacks happened, and the brothers decided to start their own podcast in earnest. “We just said, ‘Let’s just put out our own show together, from our living rooms,” Meiselas says. “The quality wasn’t great, but the first podcast we put out, there was a decent-size audience and the feedback was great. And so we’re like, ‘There’s something there.’”Meiselas began phasing out his legal work, and fully quit the day job in 2023. As well as him and his brothers, MeidasTouch now has a whole stable of hosts, including Michael Cohen, Trump’s former lawyer; it produces shows not just on politics but on legal and economic matters. And it is expanding internationally: in September it launched a Canada podcast. “For us, the strategy is just to try to be everywhere,” he says. And not just in the interests of expanding the brand: “It may be important in the future to have international hubs getting out the message, in the event that there’s additional kind of clampdowns here.”There is no shortage of material for anti-Maga podcasting at the moment, but will the world still need such granular focus on day-to-day politics once the Trump era comes to an end in 2028 (assuming it actually does)? Even the podcast bros who supported Trump, including Rogan and Theo Von, are now turning against him over issues such as the Jeffrey Epstein saga and his brutal immigration policies. “I don’t think anybody would have signed up for [this],” Rogan said in July.“I think there’s always going to be a Trump worldview,” says Meiselas, “whether that’s embodied in Trump, or a Maga perspective, or the next generation that’s going to push these ideas. And while we’re often framed as anti-Trump or liberal or left, I don’t see it like that at all. Because to me, it’s what Trump represents, and what he does, that I’m against. It’s that he’s laundering a set of ideas that permeate internationally, that impact you in the UK, in Europe, in South and Central America, in Russia. He is a vehicle and a vessel for these concepts that I think bring us back to the dark ages.”Either way, Meiselas’s 18-hour shifts aren’t going to end any time soon – but he is fine with that, he says. At least he gets to work from home. “When I was a lawyer and I would have trials across the country, I’d be travelling for weeks and months, and I’d be in Utah or New York or San Francisco or wherever,” he says.He married last year and has a baby daughter. “She just turned one, so I’m able to do some videos, I get to walk my little girl up the block, we walk back, I do another video, we have lunch together, I do another video. So for me, it’s actually a blessing.” But he laughs as he admits that he’s never really not working. “Even when I’m doing the walks, I’m always thinking a little bit about what’s next. I’m always trying to make the connections in my mind.”But it doesn’t really feel like work, he says. “I don’t wake up and I’m like, ‘Another day at work …’ I feel a broader sense of this historical moment and where the network fits into it. I feel every day is like, ‘This is what I was meant to do.’” More

  • in

    News organizations hold out on signing Pentagon media policies ‘designed to stifle a free press’

    With days left before journalists covering the Pentagon must sign on to a new set of guidelines to retain physical access to the department, major US news companies – and organizations representing their interests – remain concerned about specific policies they fear will stifle independent reporting on the Pentagon.The Trump administration has been accused of preparing to impose severe limitations on the ability of journalists to cover the Pentagon and publish information that had not been officially approved for release.An “in-brief for Media Members” that updated an earlier set of policies, released last month, drew strong condemnation from media companies and groups advocating for press freedom. On Monday, the Pentagon sent out a revised version.On Wednesday, the Pentagon Press Association, which said it has been “cautious” in communicating about the policy as it worked behind the scenes, said the changes made – including an acknowledgment that signees may not “agree” with the policies – are not sufficient.In particular, the revised policy still prohibits journalists from the “solicitation” of information from Pentagon employees, “such as public advertisements or calls for tips encouraging [Department of War] employees to share non-public [Department of War] information”. Journalists fear that policy could infringe on their ability to seek information about the agency from employees.Donald Trump recently signed an executive order to change the name of the defense department to the Department of War. This would require approval from Congress to become official.“We acknowledge and appreciate that the Pentagon is no longer requiring reporters to express agreement with the new policy as a condition for obtaining press credentials,” the Pentagon Press Association said in a statement. “But the Pentagon is still asking us to affirm in writing our ‘understanding’ of policies that appear designed to stifle a free press and potentially expose us to prosecution for simply doing our jobs.”The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (RCFP), which has worked behind the scenes to relax the policies, said the changes don’t go far enough.“The fact is we still have concerns with the updated language of the policy and expect that it will pose a significant impediment as journalists weigh with their employers whether or not to sign this revised version,” Gabe Rottman, the RCFP vice-president of policy said on Wednesday.PEN America, an organization that advocates for free expression, also said Thursday that the Pentagon should “revisit” its policies. “National security is strengthened, not threatened, when journalists can investigate and report without fear,” Tim Richardson, PEN America journalism and disinformation program director said.With the exception of CNN, which does not plan to sign the policy, most news organizations have been tight-lipped when asked whether they plan to sign by next week’s deadline or risk losing access to the Pentagon compound.The New York Times said in a statement that it “appreciates the Pentagon’s engagement, but problems remain with the policy and we and other news organizations believe further changes are needed”.A spokesperson for the Atlantic also said that it “[continues] to oppose the Pentagon’s proposed press policy”.Pentagon representatives have been steadfast in rebuffing the protests of media organizations.“Access to the Pentagon is a privilege, not a right and the Department is not only legally permitted, but morally obligated to impose reasonable regulations on the exercise of that privilege,” chief spokesperson Sean Parnell said in a post on X, denying that journalists will be forced to “clear stories” with the agency before publication.Kingsley Wilson, the Pentagon press secretary, said in her own post that “reporters would rather clutch their pearls on social media than stop trying to get warfighters and [Department of War] civilians to commit a crime by violating Department-wide policy.”In its statement on Wednesday, the Pentagon Press Association called on the agency to reconsider the policies in the remaining days before journalists are asked to sign them.“Limiting the media’s ability to report on the US military fails to honor the American families who have entrusted their sons and daughters to serve in it, or the taxpayers responsible for giving the department hundreds of billions of dollars a year,” the group said. “The American people deserve to know how their military is being run. They deserve more information from this administration, not less.” More

  • in

    A rightwing late-night show may have bombed – but the funding behind it is no laughing matter

    A group of conservative donors spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to develop a rightwing version of late-night talkshows like the Tonight Show and the Late Show, leaked documents reveal, in a further indication of the right’s ongoing efforts to overhaul American culture.News of the effort to pump conservative viewpoints into the mainstream comes as entertainment shows and the media at large are under severe threat in the US. In September, Jimmy Kimmel’s late-night show was taken off the air, under pressure from the Trump administration, after Kimmel’s comments after the killing of Charlie Kirk, while Donald Trump has launched multiple lawsuits against TV networks and news organizations.Four pilot episodes, each of which has been watched by the Guardian, were made of the rightwing chatshow. It was promoted by the Ziklag group, a secretive Christian nationalist organization, which aims to reshape culture to match its version of Christianity. In an email in 2022, Ziklag – which ProPublica reported spent $12m to elect Trump last year – urged its members to stump up money for the project, called the Talk Show With Eric Metaxas.“For too long, the late-night talkers on network tv have filled the airwaves with progressive rants and outright mockery of anyone who espouses traditional American values,” the Ziklag email read.The Talk Show With Eric Metaxas, Ziklag wrote, will “change that forever”. The email said the show needed $400,000 to $500,000 to film five pilot episodes, “which will be presented to digital distributors, networks and tv ownership groups”.The Guardian sat through nearly four hours of the Talk Show, and found it to be an almost exact copy of existing late-night shows, just worse: with hack jokes about tired issues and has-been, conservative guests. The show was never picked up, presumably to the chagrin of Ziklag and its investors, who had lofty expectations.Your browser doesn’t support HTML5 video. Here is a link to the video instead.“Spoiler alert! The secular elites who currently reign over late-night tv are about to find out the joke’s on them!” Ziklag’s pitch email read. It lauded Metaxas, a conservative radio host and author who was an eager proponent of the false claim that the 2020 election was stolen, claiming: “His comedic bent has gone largely unnoticed until now that is…”Unfortunately, across the four pilots, Metaxas’s comedic bent was noticeable only by its absence.“Big news in the world of show business,” Metaxas began the first episode. “Harrison Ford will be returning for a fifth Indiana Jones movie. Yeah. In this one Harrison will find an ancient artifact … by looking in the mirror.”There were a few titters from the audience, and scattered applause. Metaxas, appearing nervous, continued with the one-liners:“Barbie’s longtime companion, Ken, just turned 61 years old. Yeah. And he said the perfect gift for his birthday would be to finally get a prostate.”This time there were some audible groans. Metaxas stuck at it.“In India, doctors removed 526 teeth from a seven-year-old boy’s mouth,” he chortled. “The boy is recovering nicely. However, the Tooth Fairy declared bankruptcy.”Ziklag claimed the show would welcome “guests who are routinely shadow banned on other talk shows”, and quoted Metaxas as saying: “It’s kind of like Stalin has air-brushed these people out of the culture.”But the common theme among the guests was that they had been naturally phased out of existing talkshows due to their irrelevance.The first episode featured an exclusive interview with Carrot Top, the 60-year-old prop comedian. Carrot Top showed Metaxas some of his props, including a bottle of Bud Light that had a torch in the bottom of it and a dinner plate that had a hole in it. Carrot Top managed to say absolutely nothing of interest during the three-minute tête-à-tête, before Metaxas cut back to the studio.“Tonight’s show is loaded with talent,” Metaxas announced to the live audience. The guests included a TikToker – “for our generation, Tic Tac was a breath mint”, Metaxas quipped – Tammy Pescatelli, a comedian who has been absent from the limelight for at least a decade; and Danny Bonaduce, best known for his work on the 1970s sitcom the Partridge Family.Throughout the episodes – as Metaxas sang a song with a terrified-looking Victoria Jackson, a self-described conservative Christian who was a cast member on Saturday Night Live from 1986 to 1992 and has claimed Barack Obama is an “Islamic terrorist” – and as he continued with awful jokes about some scientists who had developed a robot that could build furniture but “cannot promise that the robot won’t swear”, it was hard to see what the point of this was.In its email, Ziklag said it was offering the opportunity to invest as part of the “Media Mountain”, a reference to the Seven Mountain Mandate, a theology popular among the Christian right. The theology proposes that Christians should seek to take over seven spheres of influence in public life: religion, the government, the media, education, culture, entertainment and business.Chris Himes, who produced the Talk Show, said the show was not intended to be a “rightwing late-night show”. The aim, Himes said, was “to create a broad, throwback late-night program for the entire country – not just one side”.“These are not partisan or ‘right-wing’ shows. Think Letterman or Dick Cavett in tone: humor first, with no space for snark or ‘clapter’,” he said in an email.“Sadly, much of late night over the past decade has shifted from being genuinely funny to becoming a vehicle for tribal signaling – even occasionally straying into messaging far beyond comedy. We believe the country deserves something better.”Himes added: “To be clear, a ‘right-wing’ late-night show would be a terrible idea. What we’re building is something more essential: a genuinely funny, unifying alternative.”In the pilot episodes, there were guests who were known for rightwing politics, but Metaxas largely didn’t ask them about those politics. In episode three, he seemed to decide he needed to at least say a bit of something to satisfy the rightwing donors funding this enterprise, but that came in the form of going over well-trodden ground about liberals.“Botanists have discovered a meat-eating plant in Canada,” Metaxas said in his intro. “Researchers determined that the plant started eating meat because it just got tired of explaining its vegan lifestyle.”He continued: “Detroit’s sanitation workers – I just read this – they’re threatening to go on strike. Detroit’s mayor said not to worry, because Detroit will continue to look and smell exactly the same.”Another quip ventured into current affairs: “Gas costs a fortune. It’s insane how much it costs. And who would have thought that the best deal at the Shell station would ever be the $3 microwave burrito?”Ziklag’s pitch to investors had promised big-name guests. It didn’t deliver apart from an interview – heavily touted by Metaxas – with film-maker Ron Howard. The interview turned out to be from a press junket, where directors or actors sit in a room for eight hours and basically anyone with a press pass can schedule time to question them.It’s unlikely Howard knew he was appearing on what Ziklag described as a “faith-friendly, late night alternative”, but that’s perhaps irrelevant, given networks clearly passed on what is a confused, drab copy of shows that are actually successful.But while Metaxas’s effort to shoehorn a conservative show into the mainstream may have been lamentable, the fact that wealthy rightwingers are attempting to do so should be cause for concern, given the threat television is under from Trump.Earlier this year, CBS scrapped the Late Show with Stephen Colbert – Colbert had repeatedly mocked Trump – weeks after CBS’s parent company settled a lawsuit with Trump. Trump has also called for late-night show hosts Jimmy Fallon and Seth Meyers, who have both criticized the president, to be fired, while the president has overseen NPR and PBS being stripped of funding, having decried “biased media”.The Talk Show was a terrible product, memorable only for dreadful humor and snooze-inducing interviews. In the current climate, however, it serves as a reminder that the right wing is waging a well-funded war on the media that is unlikely to end soon. More

  • in

    Bari Weiss is a weird and worrisome choice as top editor for CBS News | Margaret Sullivan

    If you’re old enough to have admired CBS in its heyday, watching its decline has been painful.Decades ago, it was dubbed the Tiffany Network – home of the great journalist Walter Cronkite (“the most trusted man in America”), and innovator of the top-flight magazine program, 60 Minutes.Even outside its news division, the network was a place where the variety-show host Ed Sullivan could break down racial exclusion by inviting outstanding Black entertainers to his Sunday night program; that was controversial in an era of intense racial turmoil. The CBS news department had some of the best journalists in the nation, and the corporation itself exuded a sense of public mission.But on Monday, when Bari Weiss was named editor-in-chief of CBS News, it was the latest turn in the network’s confounding departure from its roots.Given her lack of experience in news, “placing Weiss at or near the helm of a television news division makes no more sense than it would have, a generation ago, to have given such a role to William F Buckley of the National Review or Victor Navasky of The Nation,” wrote Richard Tofel, an astute media observer, formerly of the Wall Street Journal and ProPublica, mentioning conservative and liberal opinionators of their era.Weiss – a staunch Zionist and a fierce opponent of supposed wokeness and diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives – famously left the New York Times opinion section, claiming she had been bullied by her colleagues for her beliefs. She started a Substack newsletter and eventually founded the wildly successful website Free Press.Her rise has been meteoric. She “has ascended the mountain of journalism on a slingshot”, Jessica Testa of the New York Times put it this week.To her many critics, her appointment was just one more step on the shameful path that CBS has trod since Donald Trump was elected to a second term.The network caved to the US president when its parent company, Paramount, settled a lawsuit it could have won, sending millions of dollars for a future presidential library. Trump claimed that he was harmed during last year’s presidential campaign by the editing (actually, quite routine) of a 60 Minutes interview of his then rival Kamala Harris. Not only did the company settle the case, but now it has decided not to edit taped interviews with political figures on its Sunday morning Face the Nation – a dubious idea at best, and another piece of capitulation to Trump.The longtime executive producer of 60 Minutes quit a few months ago, saying he feared the loss of his prized editorial independence; and the network’s evening newscast ratings continue to lag their competitors. Recently, the company named an ombudsman for CBS News – someone with no news experience – to monitor claims of bias, but with no arrangement to communicate regularly to the public, as normal news ombudsmen or public editors have.Others were much harsher than Tofel in their criticism, noting that Paramount paid an astonishing $150m for Weiss’s site, Free Press. Paramount is led these days by David Ellison, the son of Larry Ellison, one of the world’s richest people, and Weiss is very much his pick to led CBS News; the corporate press release said she will, among other things, “reshape editorial priorities”. She will report directly to Ellison, rather than to the CBS News president, a more traditional arrangement.“Like Musk’s acquisition of Twitter, the deal can be understood as part of a broader elite project to smudge the lenses through which many people see the world,” wrote the Defector’s Patrick Redford. “By installing Weiss, the richest people in the world have taken another step toward ushering in the toothless, acquiescent future of mainstream media they’ve always wanted.”Certainly, that is something that Trump and his allies have worked relentlessly for.Redford called it “yet another victory of marketing over its natural enemy, journalism”.As she took the helm, Weiss sent around a friendly-sounding note to the news staff that had one particularly notable line. Among her “core journalistic values”, she wrote, is “journalism that holds both American political parties to equal scrutiny”.Sounds good, but the two parties are far from equal these days.“CBS should brace for a heavy dose of bothsiderism,” wrote Oliver Darcy in his Status newsletter, observing that the Free Press has, as its central thesis, “that Trump and his supporters are largely right about the cultural rot of the woke-elite” and liberal overreach (wokeness) is a bigger problem than Trump’s existential threats to American democracy.As independent media gains influence, it may not matter very much any more who leads a major TV network. Certainly, it matters far less now than in the years when CBS ruled the airwaves.But it is telling that Weiss – such a polarizing provocateur herself – has been chosen to reinvent the most mainstream of legacy networks at this fraught and dangerous time in the US.

    Margaret Sullivan is a Guardian US columnist writing on media, politics and culture More

  • in

    How Maga cheerleaders have infiltrated the White House press corps

    “I’ve often said: Trump could cure cancer and people would still criticise him,” observed Brian Glenn, a rightwing reporter standing in the Oval Office.“It’s true,” replied a gratified Donald Trump, sitting behind the Resolute desk.A few minutes later, as the US president discussed crime in Washington DC, he returned the compliment. “Brian, you got mugged here a long time ago, and the mugger must have felt some pain because you’re a tough cookie,” he said.The pair shared some banter and then, just as Trump was poised to call on a reporter from the Guardian, Glenn interjected and suggested they listen to cancer survivors present at Tuesday’s executive order signing. In a stroke the informal press conference – hours after a pair of incendiary speeches to military generals and before a government shutdown – was effectively over.It was not the first time that Glenn, who works for the Real America’s Voice platform and is the boyfriend of Marjorie Taylor Greene, a Republican congresswoman, has played the role of Trump sidekick, a useful foil guaranteed to lighten the atmosphere. It was also a small but telling example of how the White House press corps has changed between Trump’s first and second terms.Seasoned reporters from mainstream media outlets are still asking tough questions. But in the Oval Office, on Air Force One or in the press briefing room, there is no way to avoid the new contingent of Maga (Make America great again) reporters, influencers and podcasters lobbing toothless queries or fawning comments at their favourite president.“They’re hand-picked to protect him and once again it’s another emulation of authoritarian leaders around the world who suppress the free press in order to avoid accountability,” said Tara Setmayer, a former Republican communications director on Capitol Hill. “[Trump] surrounds himself with sycophants who ask softball questions that allow him to drone on about nonsense and propaganda and disinformation.”The White House press corps has been trying to hold presidents accountable without fear or favour since the late 19th century, sometimes with more success than others. It was accused of being too deferential to the George W Bush administration during the Iraq war. But it has also proved dogged, for example, in grilling Barack Obama’s White House over the disastrous rollout of healthcare.gov and a terrorist attack on a US diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya.Trump’s first term featured combative exchanges with journalists such as Jim Acosta of CNN, who was temporarily banned from the White House only for his access to be restored following a lawsuit. Some rightwing outlets did appear in the briefing room, but the presidential pool of reporters remained under control of the White House Correspondents’ Association (WHCA).The second Trump administration, however, has used a variety of tactics to change the tone, tenor and pace of media interactions. The president prefers to use the Oval Office rather than bigger venues like the East Room, “in part because the acoustics are better and he is not forced to stand for long periods”, the New York Times reported.View image in fullscreenIn this setting, he takes questions from a pool of reporters no longer selected by the WHCA, but decided by the White House itself. This has led to the exclusion of news wire agencies but the inclusion of fringe rightwing voices, many of whom are openly supportive of the president.Matt Gertz, a senior fellow at the watchdog Media Matters for America, said: “I don’t want to be too glowing about the performance of the White House press corps and the way that they interacted with administrations in years past. But I think there was an understanding of sorts that reporters were on one side and the government was on the other and the purpose of the reporters was to try to get information from the government and bring it back to their audience through tough questioning.“What you have now is effectively an infiltration of the press corps by people who are more interested in helping the administration than they are in trying to get information out of it.”Media Matters has been tracking examples of reporter sycophancy. In February, when the Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy visited Trump in the Oval Office, Glenn demanded: “Why don’t you wear a suit? You’re at the highest level in this country’s office, and you refuse to wear a suit. Do you own a suit?” (When Zelenskyy returned to the Oval Office last month in more formal attire, Glenn quipped, “You look fabulous in that suit,” and the pair made peace.)At the same infamous meeting, Daniel Baldwin, chief White House correspondent for the One America News Network, asked Trump about peace negotiations with Russia: “What gave you the moral courage and conviction to step forward and lead that?”Trump replied: “I love this guy … One America News does a great job. I like the question.”In April, Jordan Conradson, a reporter at The Gateway Pundit, said to Trump: “I want to get your response on the leftist media. They’re trying to hide the mugshots that are featured on the front lawn of rapists, murderers, paedophiles. What do you think of that? Aren’t they proving to be the enemy of the people?” For good measure, he said of Trump’s “Gulf of America” cap: “I like your hat, by the way.”There are similarly ostentatious displays in the briefing room. In January Glenn told Karoline Leavitt, the press secretary: “You look great. You’re doing a great job.”In April, Cara Castronuova, a former boxer who works for a media network run by the MyPillow chief executive and election conspiracy theorist Mike Lindell, paid tribute to the president’s physical fitness.She asked Leavitt: “Will you guys also consider releasing the president’s fitness plan? He actually looks healthier than ever before, healthier than he did eight years ago, and I’m sure everyone in this room could agree. Is he working out with Bobby Kennedy and is he eating less McDonald’s?”View image in fullscreenThe second Trump administration has added a seat in the briefing room for “new media”, referring to professional journalists, podcasters and influencers. The person in this seat is always called on first by Leavitt and is often a Maga cheerleader.Among the recent examples was social media personality Benny Johnson, who described his personal experience of crime in Washington and railed against “any reporter that says, and lies, that DC is a safe place to live and work”. He told Leavitt: “Thank you for making the city safe.”Johnson also asked if a so-called “department of government efficiency” (Doge) staffer known as “Big Balls”, who was recently assaulted in the District, would be awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom.A Media Matters review of the 16 press briefings held from 20 January to 22 April found that Leavitt called on rightwing outlets 41% of the time (110 out of 267) – still less than half but a significant increase from past administrations. Four of the five reporters called on most were from rightwing outlets: the Daily Caller’s Reagan Reese, Fox News’s Peter Doocy, the Daily Wire’s Mary Margaret Olohan and the New York Post’s Diana Glebova.The research also showed that the White House promoted smaller, far-right media over many established outlets, calling on the One America News Network (five times) and the Gateway Pundit (five) more than the Washington Post (four) and Associated Press (three) over that period.View image in fullscreenGertz added: “There’s no question that Donald Trump and other people who speak from the podium do not have a problem saying things that are not true in response to tough questions from reporters. But now they have an outlet. They can always turn to people they know are going to ask these sycophantic questions when they need a breather or want to change the subject.”This new calculus has enabled Trump and his spokespeople to change the rhythm of media interactions, blunting the momentum of difficult questions by turning to a known administration ally.Bill Galston, a former domestic policy adviser to the former president Bill Clinton, said: “It gives the press secretary a chance to change the entire dynamic of daily briefings because she is always free to interrupt the flow of negativity by calling on known cheerleaders in the room.”Galston suspects that the shift in the centre of gravity has some effect on the entire press corps. “They may feel a little bit more intimidated about asking questions in the toughest way if they think that, if they go too far, they’re going to get a tongue lashing from the press secretary rather than an answer and she’s going to seize the opportunity to do a Trump-like joust. I have to believe, at least at the margin, that has some effect.”Yet the stalwarts of the US media continue to do the work. TV correspondents such as Yamiche Alcindor and Peter Alexander of NBC News have riled the president – and prompted insults – with their sharp, persistent questions. Maggie Haberman of the New York Times skewered Leavitt over Trump’s birthday letter to sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.Jon Decker, senior national editor for Gray Television and member of the White House press corps for 30 years, said: “Regardless of whether it’s a Republican administration or a Democratic administration, I’m still going to ask tough but fair questions. I’ve personally worked with 17 White House press secretaries and every one of them calls on me because they recognise that I’m always going to be fair. That is something that any reporter should keep in mind if they want longevity on this beat.” More

  • in

    FCC chair claims he never threatened TV networks over Jimmy Kimmel

    Brendan Carr, the tough-talking, pro-Trump chair of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), claimed on Tuesday that Democrats and the media had “misrepresented” critical comments he made about Jimmy Kimmel’s late-night talkshow.Television conglomerates including Nexstar and Sinclair opted to pull the show for “business” reasons, Carr argued, not because of anything he said.“There was no threat made or suggested that if Jimmy Kimmel didn’t get fired, that someone was going to lose their license,” Carr said during a press conference that followed the FCC’s monthly meeting.On 17 September, ABC announced it would “indefinitely” pre-empt Jimmy Kimmel Live!, hours after Carr had appeared on a conservative podcast and appeared to pressure network affiliates to stop airing the show over comments by Kimmel on the death of the far-right pundit Charlie Kirk.“We can do this the easy way or the hard way,” Carr had said, explaining that he wanted broadcasters to “take action” on Kimmel.Nexstar and Sinclair, two major carriers of ABC programming, quickly announced plans to pull Kimmel’s show, seemingly forcing ABC’s hand.Ultimately, ABC decided to bring Kimmel back the following week, and both Nexstar and Sinclair followed suit. The network’s decision reportedly followed a wave of cancellations of Disney’s streaming service Disney+.Carr’s comments drew criticism from across the aisle. Ted Cruz, the Republican Texas senator, said some of Carr’s remarks were “dangerous as hell”.Asked at a press conference on Tuesday whether he regrets the phrasing he used when talking about Kimmel, Carr claimed “the full words that I said, the full context of the interview”, were very clear.“For a lot of Democrats, this has really been about distortion and projection,” he added. He then accused Senate Democrats of hypocrisy, referring to calls in 2018 for the FCC to review Sinclair’s “fitness to retain its existing broadcast licenses” over a controversial “must-run” video that its stations were forced to broadcast.“The very same Democrats that are saying that I said something that I didn’t are the same ones that engaged in that exact same type of conduct that they claim I did,” he said.With Kimmel now back on air, Carr suggested the entire episode was actually a win for local broadcasters – and a necessary check on the control of New York- and Hollywood-based broadcasters.“What we saw over the last two weeks was, probably for the first time in maybe 20 or 30 years, local TV stations – the actual licensed entities that are tied to specific communities – pushing back and saying that they did not want to run particular national programs,” he said. “They felt like they could stand up for themselves. I think it’s a good thing. And I hope that we can see potentially more of that going ahead.”Asked by the Guardian whether he was disappointed that Nexstar and Sinclair chose to bring back Kimmel’s show, Carr said he did not expect the pre-emption to last “for any sort of real sustained period of time” due to the economic pressures the companies were facing. “These were decisions ultimately were for them to make,” he said.During the meeting, Anna M Gomez, the lone Democrat on the commission, called out Carr’s comments – as he sat a few feet away. “This FCC threatened to go after [ABC], seizing on a late night comedian’s comments as a pretext to punish speech it disliked,” she said. “That led to a new low of corporate capitulation that put the foundation of the first amendment in danger.”While Gomez has been very critical of Carr’s leadership, she has largely refrained from attacking him personally, and has said that she maintains a good working relationship with him.While the FCC meets monthly, Tuesday’s gathering took on added significance and excitement. Outside the FCC building, a mobile billboard truck – organized by the Committee to Protect Journalists and Reporters Without Borders – carried the message: “Government can’t control media content.”Inside, the meeting room was unusually packed. Several protesters, organized by the progressive political action organization Our Revolution, wore T-shirts that said: “Federal Censorship Commission”. A few stood up during the meeting and yelled: “Fire Carr, the censorship czar,” and were quickly removed. One sign played on Carr’s tough talk to television networks, telling the FCC commissioner: “Brendan, We Can Do This the Easy Way (You Quit) or the Hard Way (You’re Fired).”When told by the Guardian that the “lengthy” (in Carr’s words) agenda for the monthly FCC meeting included seven wonky action items, one protester expressed frustration that they hadn’t eaten breakfast before arriving early. The man left before the meeting concluded. More