Media
Subterms
More stories
- in US Politics
Trump repeats lies and attacks Kamala Harris’s racial identity at panel of Black journalists
During a contentious and chaotic panel hosted by the National Association of Black Journalists (NABJ) on Wednesday, Donald Trump parroted disinformation about immigration and abortion, questioned Kamala Harris’s race and accused a panel moderator, Rachel Scott – the senior congressional correspondent for ABC News – of being “rude” and presenting a “nasty question” when she asked him: “Why should Black voters trust you?”The appearance – which received backlash earlier this week from Black journalists citing the former president’s anti-Black, anti-journalist and anti-democracy history – received a mix of jeers, laughter and interruptions from attendees as Trump evaded several questions asked by moderators.On multiple occasions, audience members at the annual convention in Chicago attempted to fact-check Trump in real time, including when he falsely claimed that Harris did not pass her bar exam to be a lawyer, and when he defended pardoning people who were convicted for their actions on January 6.Trump arrived more than an hour late to the panel, which was moderated by Scott; Harris Faulkner, the Fox News television host; and Kadia Goba, the Semafor politics reporter. According to HuffPost, Trump demanded that NABJ organizers not go through with live fact-checking during the discussion, and was in a “standoff” with organizers before the event took place. A live fact-check of Trump’s comments was still featured as planned.The conversation opened with Scott asking why Black voters should trust Trump given his repeated, inflammatory comments about Black people.“Well, first of all, I don’t think I’ve ever been asked a question in such a horrible manner,” Trump said, before asking whether Scott was with “fake news network” ABC News. (When he levied a later attack on Scott, one audience member shouted back in her defense.)Trump added: “I think it’s disgraceful that I came here in good spirit. I love the Black population of this country. I’ve done so much for the Black population of this country … I think it’s a very rude introduction.“He continued: “I have been the best president for the Black population since Abraham Lincoln,” which received a mix of boos and applause.Despite promoting his attendance at NABJ on Wednesday morning, by the afternoon panel Trump was claiming to have been invited under false pretenses. The former president said he had been told that Harris would be present at the convention and was instructed to attend in-person. (A source close to the Harris campaign said on Tuesday that she was unable to attend due to the ongoing search for her running mate and the funeral of the representative Sheila Lee Jackson. )Throughout the panel conversation, Trump relied on many of his previous talking points with Black voters.He repeated the unsubstantiated claim that undocumented immigrants were planning on taking “Black jobs”, an assertion that many have condemned as racist.When asked by Scott to clarify what Black jobs were, Trump replied: “Anybody that has a job – that’s what it is. They’re taking the employment away from Black people.”Scott then asked Trump about Republicans claiming that Harris is a diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) replacement for Joe Biden.In response, Trump claimed that Harris suddenly “became a Black woman” and had previously only been identifying with her Indian heritage. “Is she Indian or is she Black?” Trump said, as the audience audibly gasped. “I respect either one but she obviously doesn’t because she was Indian all the way and then all of sudden she became a Black woman.”Scott replied that Trump’s assertion was untrue, that Harris has always identified as Black, and that she attended Howard University, a historically Black college in Washington DC.Reaction to the panel was mixed among journalists in the room.At least two Black attendees sporting Trump hats frequently cheered for the former president, especially as he reiterated that he faced “political persecution” after being convicted of 34 felonies.Others were critical. “Ultimately, the conversation was a non-starter,” said Michael Liptrot, South Side weekly reporter. “The moderators did their best to lead a productive conversation and dive deeper and, ultimately, attempts to flip the question led to a stalemate in many ways.”Laura Washington, a political analyst at ABC 7 in Chicago, said Trump “came out very hostile” from the very beginning of the panel: “That was a very difficult thing for the [moderators] to manage because he didn’t answer the questions and was sort of trying to turn their questions back on them and make them the bad women in the room.”Still, Liptrot and Washington agreed that the panel should have taken place, noting the NABJ tradition of inviting Democratic and Republican presidential candidates and the need to hold Trump accountable.Jasmine Harris, the Black media director for Kamala Harris’s campaign, hit back at Trump’s NABJ remarks in a statement, emphasizing the former president’s lies and attacks on members of the press.“Not only does Donald Trump have a history of demeaning NABJ members and honorees who remain pillars of the Black press, he also has a history of attacking the media and working against the vital role the press play in our democracy,” Harris said.“We know that Donald Trump is going to lie about his record and the real harm he’s caused Black communities at NABJ – and he must be called out,” she added.Members of the Biden administration were also critical of Trump’s attack on Harris’s racial identity. Karine Jean-Pierre, the White House press secretary, called Trump’s remarks “repulsive” and “insulting” during a Wednesday White House briefing.“I think it’s insulting for anybody. It doesn’t matter if it’s a former leader, a former president, it is insulting,” she said. “She is the vice-president of the United States. Kamala Harris. We have to put some respect on her name. Period.” More
- in Elections
The Stranger in Seattle Gets a New Owner, With Plans for Expansion
Noisy Creek, a new media company, has bought The Stranger and The Portland Mercury, two of the country’s best known alternative weeklies.For decades, many American cities had at least one thriving alternative-weekly newspaper chronicling the local art and music scene and reporting on the community.Many of those publications withered in recent years, but two of the country’s best known alt-weeklies, The Stranger in Seattle and The Portland Mercury, now have plans for expansion.Noisy Creek, a new company put together by Brady Walkinshaw, a former chief executive of the nonprofit climate news website Grist and a former Democratic legislator in Washington State, said on Tuesday that it had purchased The Stranger and The Portland Mercury, as well as the events site EverOut and the ticketing business Bold Type Tickets, from Index Newspapers.Mr. Walkinshaw declined to disclose the financial details of the purchase, but he said that he was the majority shareholder. Index will keep a 20 percent stake in the company. A group of about 20 individual investors helped finance the deal, Mr. Walkinshaw said.Mr. Walkinshaw said he planned to hire more people and grow the editorial budgets at the publications. He also said that all of the current employees had been offered jobs at the new company. Hannah Murphy Winter, a former Rolling Stone editor, will become the editor in chief of The Stranger.“Alternative weeklies at their best can really, in an edgy, provocative way, be the gateway to what people do culturally in a community, whether it’s music, art, performance,” Mr. Walkinshaw said.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More
- in US Politics
Do you ever get the feeling that we’re living in a postmodern fiction? You’re not alone | Dan Brooks
Writing about the assassination of President John F Kennedy for Rolling Stone in 1983, 20 years after the shooting, the novelist Don DeLillo remarked: “Europeans and Middle Easterners are notoriously prone to believe in conspiracies … Americans, for their own good reasons, tend to believe in lone gunmen.” How times change. Since Donald Trump was wounded in an assassination attempt on 13 July, social media have boiled over with talk of conspiracies, false flags and complex manipulations of state and psyche for unclear ends. After Joe Biden withdrew his candidacy for president, various online conservatives argued that he was actually dead. Meanwhile, otherwise sensible observers blamed the media for creating the narrative that Biden had lost mental acuity and keeping Trump in the public eye – a kind of Rothschild conspiracy for people who took undergraduate sociology.It’s fun to scoff at such people, who believe that powerful forces secretly organise the world even as we confront evidence that human intelligence is no longer sufficient to run a branch of Chipotle. In fairness to the paranoid mindset, though, a lot of events from earlier decades’ fiction have been coming true lately. Consider Lisa’s prophetic line from the Bart to the Future episode of The Simpsons, original airdate 19 March 2000: “As you know, we’ve inherited quite a budget crunch from President Trump.” It was funny at the time. I believe it was either Karl Marx or Nelson Muntz who said that history repeats itself: first as farce, then as whatever all this is now.The other week, Twitter user @ZeroSuitCamus posted a passage from an essay JG Ballard wrote for Vogue in the 1970s (incorrectly attributed to his 1975 novel High-Rise) about a future in which our daily activities are all recorded on video, and every evening “we sit back to scan the rushes, selected by a computer trained to pick out only our best profiles, our wittiest dialogue, our most affecting expressions filmed through the kindest filters …” Here is the Instagram experience and its strange effects, complete with filter, algorithm and night-time scrolling, delivered to us decades before it became reality. David Foster Wallace predicted the filter, too, around page 111 of Infinite Jest, in which internet-enabled video calling makes everyone so insecure about their faces that they briefly adopt electronic face-improving technology, before it develops such a stigma that they all go back to voice-only telephony. Wallace’s 1996 novel about a form of entertainment so fascinating that it amuses its viewers to death raises some uncomfortable questions for any reader who gets screen time updates on their phones.All these texts – DeLillo, Ballard and Wallace for sure, and The Simpsons, too, in my opinion – fall under the category of “postmodernism”. The contours of the genre are still debated many decades after it emerged, but two key themes on which critics agree are (1) characters who find themselves at the mercy of impossibly complex systems; and (2) a sincere effort to acknowledge the importance of texts in modern life, which has since curdled into mere referentiality. I submit that these themes are no longer limited to literature and have become defining aspects of the way we live now.I also submit that it’s kind of weird that we have identified our own time as “postmodern” for three generations running. In the same way that the term “modernism” tells you something about how people thought of themselves in the years after the first world war, the fact that we regard ourselves as “post-” suggests a certain mindset. In many ways, our culture thinks of itself as existing after the important part of history – increasingly, after the good part. Latter-days thinking prevails, particularly on social media and in the arts, which seems resigned to rearranging the material already provided to us.I don’t think many of us are delighted to see previous generations’ satires coming true. Stories about technology-driven anomie and lives that had become unmoored from meaningful values were thrilling to readers in the 1980s and 1990s, but to be a character in such stories is a different thing. At the same time, we aren’t kicking against it – at least not much. There is that postmodern sense that the systems governing our world are too big and complex to do anything about them. We are all in a self-driving car that is taking us somewhere we don’t want to go.The bad news is that the conspiracy theories are false, and the car keeps veering toward pedestrians not because California billionaires are secretly priming the public for mandatory bicycles, but rather because someone saved money by skimping on quality control. Incompetence is more common than malice, even though it makes for a less compelling plot. The good news is that the sense that our world has become a work of postmodern fiction is also false. If it sometimes feels unpleasant to believe that what is happening in the news is real, it is also vital to remember that we are not characters in a story. What happens next is not written, even in outline form.The impossibly big systems are real and in many cases evil, as anyone who has travelled by air in recent years will attest. But they are nonetheless our systems, made and not given, and they can be remade. The end of the postmodern era will come not when the last Simpsons joke comes true, but when we realise the world imagined by the previous century is not enough for us – entertaining and fun to talk about, sure, but fundamentally less interesting than what we can come up with. Sooner or later, we must become authors again.
Dan Brooks writes essays, fiction and commentary from Missoula, Montana More
- in US Politics
The media is already failing in its duty to fairly cover Kamala Harris | Margaret Sullivan
It’s going to be ugly, that much is already clear.In the few days since Kamala Harris began her 2024 campaign for president, the media has shown us where some of their coverage is headed: no place good.Both the rightwing and traditional media are making some predictable blunders. Add in the swill that circulates endlessly on the social media platforms, and you’ve got a mess.Take, for example, the recent coverage of a Republican congressman’s smear of Harris.“One hundred percent she is a DEI hire,” Tim Burchett of Tennessee said on CNN, using the acronym for “diversity, equity and inclusion” to claim that she was ascending because of her race, not on merit. “Her record is abysmal at best.”An NBC headline was one of many to hand a giant megaphone to this racist trope: “GOP Rep Tim Burchett calls Kamala Harris a ‘DEI vice-president’.” Plenty of others did the same – parroting and thus amplifying the slur.Some news organizations added a fig leaf to their coverage, like the Tampa TV station whose headline read: “GOP representative called Harris a ‘DEI hire’: what does this mean?”There was a more responsible way to go. USA Today, for one, brought helpful context in a piece headlined: “DEI candidate: what’s behind the GOP attacks on Kamala Harris.” It did a good job of explaining that this phrase is all part of the right’s anti-“woke” culture wars. “DEI has become GOP shorthand to impugn the qualifications of people of color who ascend to positions of power and influence.” The reporter quoted the author Mita Mallick noting that the DEI label is an attempt to “discredit, demoralize and disrespect leaders of color by labeling them ‘diversity hires’ – or otherwise misappropriating the language of diversity, equity, and inclusion as thinly veiled racist insults.” You come away with greater understanding.Some insults are even more transparently racist, as when the perpetual liar and propagandist Kellyanne Conway went on Fox News in order to trash Harris: “She does not speak well. She does not work hard. She should not be the standard bearer for the party.”These stereotypes, painting a woman of color as unintelligent and lazy, echo well-established white-grievance themes, causing the author Ruth Ben-Ghiat, who studies authoritarian movements, to warn: “Propagandists know that you should build on existing prejudices when introducing a new hate object or theme.”Some commentary wasn’t racist but just pointless – as when Katy Tur asked, on MSNBC, if Harris was the kind of person voters would want to have a beer with. The “likeability” question certainly seems to come up for women candidates more than men.It’s a familiar election-cycle cliche, but the former Chicago Tribune editor Mark Jacob didn’t find it harmless. He posted his disgust: “I want a president who won’t turn our country into a fascist hellscape. I’m not auditioning barstool partners.”Then there was the head-spinning opportunism of two columns in the Wall Street Journal by the same writer, Jason Riley, separated by only two weeks but managing to wildly contradict each other. The first headline, on 9 July: “Kamala Harris would be the best Democratic choice.” The second, on 23 July: “Kamala Harris isn’t the change Democrats need.”Parker Molloy, in her newsletter The Present Age, called it “a textbook example of the intellectual dishonesty that plagues much of our political commentary”.This hollow punditry is all about being provocative; consistency be damned.So far, Harris and her allies seem to be capable of flipping some stereotypes on their head. When JD Vance’s description of Harris and other urban career women – “childless cat ladies” who are “miserable at their lives” – resurfaced after he was named Donald Trump’s running mate, his sexist diss went viral.So did the backlash. Jennifer Aniston shot back at Vance, cat-lady apparel was sold at high volume, and Ella Emhoff posted on Instagram about her stepmother, also name-checking her brother: “How can you be ‘childless’ when you have cutie pie kids like Cole and I?”Still, sexist and racist tropes take their toll. To be sure, Harris deserves fair scrutiny from the press. But she doesn’t deserve to be the target of smears and stereotypes amplified by journalists and pundits addicted to conflict-driven clicks.As the election draws nearer, the media should consider the words of someone who has ridden in this rodeo.Writing in the New York Times this week, Hillary Clinton predicted that Harris’s record and character “will be distorted and disparaged by a flood of disinformation and the kind of ugly prejudice we’re already hearing from Maga mouthpieces”.Everybody has a role to play to prevent the spread. The campaign must find a way to cut through the noise, and voters must be careful about what they believe and share, as she urged.And I would add that the media must avoid spreading hateful stereotypes. November’s election is far too consequential for that.
Margaret Sullivan is a Guardian US columnist writing on media, politics and culture More
- in US Politics
Bitter tensions as reporters feel misled by White House over Biden health
It was the moment when long-simmering media resentment at a seemingly opaque White House broke through the surface with startling intensity.With Joe Biden’s candidacy teetering in the wake of last month’s alarming debate showing, journalists who had covered his presidency full-time for years suddenly asserted that it lacked that most basic political element: credibility.The trigger was the revelation – disclosed in several news outlets – that a specialist in Parkinson’s disease had visited the White House eight times in as many months. The press secretary, Karine Jean-Pierre, was forced in a live televised briefing on to the defensive over a supposed lack of transparency.“My first [question] to you is on the credibility of this White House when it comes to talking about the president’s health,” the Associated Press correspondent, Zeke Miller, asked Jean-Pierre, who, taken aback, responded by calling for “a little respect”.The exchange quickly devolved into an angry back-and-forth over whether Jean-Pierre had given an accurate picture about the president’s health and her continuing refusal to confirm the name of the visiting specialist, despite it already being in the public domain. The White House ultimately clarified matters in a subsequent news release that confirmed the specialist as Kevin Cannard and explained that he had visited the White House in January to carry out the neurological part of Biden’s annual medical check-up.Yet the flare-up went beyond one narrow episode.Many journalists increasingly feel they have been bamboozled by a White House culture of denial and non-disclosure. People who pride themselves in holding power to account in the world’s leading democracy have been asking how they could have been so blinded to Biden’s diminishing state before it burst into the open so vividly on the debate stage in Atlanta.At least some have reached the conclusion they have been misled by a campaign of obfuscation by White House staff – some of whom themselves privately complain of feeling deprived of access to the president that their seniority would normally have assured.Wider staff access, the argument runs, could have given more people a clearer picture of whether Biden was in decline – which, in turn, would have created a higher chance of the true state of his functioning coming to light.But Biden’s age-related decline was a media issue long before his disintegration at the debate, which the Biden campaign asked for partly in an effort to discredit such speculation. Little more than a week beforehand, widely circulating videos purporting to depict the president in varying states of confusion were reported in several respected outlets as tendentiously-edited “cheap fakes”.“The evidence was there for people to see, and it’s somewhat disingenuous in the press corps to say, well, you know, we were kept in the dark,” said W Joseph Campbell, professor emeritus of communication of American University in Washington.“Trump was ranting about Biden’s troubles and his gaffes in the 2020 campaign, so I think it depends on what outlets you were following. And to use a phrase the administration seems to be employing these days, this is a big-boy town and you find your news where you can – it doesn’t necessarily have to be ladled out to you by the White House press office.”Yet those who did report the matter quickly found themselves rounded on by an outraged White House. When the Wall Street Journal published a 3,000-word front-page article in early June carrying detailed anecdotes that questioned Biden’s cognitive faculties, an administration spokesman, Andrew Bates, dismissed the stories as “false claims” made by Republicans.The article – which has since been vindicated by reports in other US news sources, including the New York Times – was also attacked by the MSNBC host Joe Scarborough, a Biden supporter who later called on him to stand aside after the debate.In a social media post showing that disquiet over Biden’s cognitive faculties was neither secret nor new, James Rosen, White House correspondent of the hard-right Newsmax outlet, recalled being ostracised after asking Biden in a press conference two and a half years ago about polling showing public concern about his perceived decline.“When I asked Potus on January 19 2022, ‘with utmost respect for your life accomplishments and the high office you hold’, why the electorate harboured such profound concerns about his cognitive fitness, it was considered rude, and I was blackballed in briefings for eight months,” he wrote on X the day after the debate, accompanying his post with a transcript of the exchange.Just as the whisperings over the president’s age and health have escalated into a roar, so too have the long-running tensions between the administration and the New York Times, which this week published its second editorial in 10 days urging Biden to end his campaign.The calls have been in line with similar pleas from rival outlets but animus may have been sharpened by a lack of access to the president, keenly felt by an organisation that styles itself as America’s newspaper of record.“The newspaper carries its own singular obsession with the president, aggrieved over his refusal to give the paper a sit-down interview that Publisher AG Sulzberger and other top editors believe to be its birthright,” Politico reported earlier this year.Biden has given fewer press conferences and media interviews than any US president since Ronald Reagan, in what now looks like a deliberate strategy to conceal his deterioration. Trump – who has frequently denounced the media as “enemies of the people” – gave nearly three times more news conferences and interviews in office than Biden.With a rash of hastily organised interviews and a high-profile news conference at Thursday’s close of the Nato summit, the administration is now trying to rectify that – a panicked tactical change which, if it results in more verbal flubs, may only serve to justify the previous approach.It is an unintended irony that the White House has been shielding Biden from media accountability – a key component of the democratic process – and rubbishing questions over his age in an effort to maintain his credibility as a self-proclaimed defender of democracy and a bulwark against Trump’s authoritarian visions, which the administration insists is inimical to press freedom.That circle, says Campbell, cannot easily be squared.“It does seem to be in conflict with this greater goal as a protector or defender of democracy if you’re protecting the chief executive for an extended period of time, and then really criticising any attempts to pierce the veil.” More
- in US Politics
Meta lifts restrictions on Trump’s Facebook and Instagram accounts
Meta has removed previous restrictions on the Facebook and Instagram accounts of Donald Trump as the 2024 election nears, the company announced on Friday.Trump was allowed to return to the social networks in 2023 with “guardrails” in place, after being banned over his online behavior during the 6 January insurrection. Those guardrails have now been removed.“In assessing our responsibility to allow political expression, we believe that the American people should be able to hear from the nominees for president on the same basis,” Meta said in a blogpost, citing the Republican national convention, slated for next week, which will formalize Trump as the party’s candidate.As a result, Meta said, Trump’s accounts will no longer be subject to heightened suspension penalties, which Meta said were created in response to “extreme and extraordinary circumstances” and “have not had to be deployed”.“All US presidential candidates remain subject to the same community standards as all Facebook and Instagram users, including those policies designed to prevent hate speech and incitement to violence,” the company’s blogpost reads.Since his return to Meta’s social networks, Trump has primarily shared campaign information, attacks on Democratic candidate Biden, and memes on his accounts.Critics of Trump and online safety advocates have expressed concern that Trump’s return could lead to a rise of misinformation and incitement of violence, as was seen during the Capitol riot that prompted his initial ban.The Biden campaign condemned Meta’s decision in a statement on Friday, saying it is a “greedy, reckless decision” that constitutes “ a direct attack on our safety and our democracy”.“Restoring his access is like handing your car keys to someone you know will drive your car into a crowd and off a cliff,” said campaign spokesperson Charles Kretchmer Lutvak. “It is holding a megaphone for a bonafide racist who will shout his hate and white supremacy from the rooftops and try to take it mainstream.”In addition to Meta platforms, other major social media firms banned Trump due to his online activity surrounding the 6 January attack, including Twitter (now X), Snapchat and YouTube.The former president was allowed back on X last year by the decision of Elon Musk, who bought the company in 2022, though the former president has not yet tweeted.Trump returned to YouTube in March 2023. He remains banned from Snapchat.Trump founded his own social network, Truth Social, in early 2022. More
- in Elections
Jack Schlossberg Is Named a Political Correspondent for Vogue
Mr. Schlossberg, 31, the only grandson of President John F. Kennedy, has courted attention with outlandish TikTok videos, many of them political.There is no shortage of pundits in the media class eager to help Americans understand the current political moment. Not many of them had over 100,000 followers on TikTok before starting their gig.Jack Schlossberg did.In his playful way, Mr. Schlossberg, 31, has captured the attention of his social-media-native audience. Whether that is because of his remarkable resemblance to his uncle, John F. Kennedy Jr., or because of his ability to distill complex Supreme Court rulings into bite-size videos, it’s hard to say.As one of the most prominent members of the Kennedy family, America’s most enduring political dynasty, Mr. Schlossberg has always borne some expectation of being involved in public life.“I am inspired by my family’s legacy of public service,” Mr. Schlossberg, who is the only grandson of President John F. Kennedy, recently told Vogue. “I take that very seriously, and I want to contribute in my own way. I have big dreams, but I also know that I’m trying to make a positive impact today.”This week, the magazine announced that Mr. Schlossberg would be a Vogue.com political correspondent. Through a publicist, Mr. Schlossberg declined to be interviewed for this article, as he was “currently focused on producing his content for Vogue,” suggesting that, despite describing himself as a “silly goose,” he is taking the role seriously.Chloe Malle, the editor of Vogue.com, said she saw his appointment as an opportunity to influence the magazine’s readers to vote.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More
