Media

Subterms

    More stories

    • 100 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      Daniel Ellsberg, Pentagon Papers whistleblower, dies aged 92

      by

      Daniel Ellsberg, a US government analyst who became one of the most famous whistleblowers in world politics when he leaked the Pentagon Papers, exposing US government knowledge of the futility of the Vietnam war, has died. He was 92. His death was confirmed by his family on Friday.In March, Ellsberg announced that he had inoperable pancreatic cancer. Saying he had been given three to six months to live, he said he had chosen not to undergo chemotherapy and had been assured of hospice care.“I am not in any physical pain,” he wrote, adding: “My cardiologist has given me license to abandon my salt-free diet of the last six years. This has improved my life dramatically: the pleasure of eating my favourite foods!”On Friday, the family said Ellsberg “was not in pain” when he died. He spent his final months eating “hot chocolate, croissants, cake, poppyseed bagels and lox” and enjoying “several viewings of his all-time favourite [movie], Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid”, the family statement added.“In his final days, surrounded by so much love from so many people, Daniel joked, ‘If I had known dying would be like this, I would have done it sooner …’“Thank you, everyone, for your outpouring of love, appreciation and well-wishes. It all warmed his heart at the end of his life.”Tributes were swift and many.Alan Rusbridger, the former editor-in-chief of the Guardian, said Ellsberg “was widely, and rightly, acclaimed as a great and significant figure. But not by Richard Nixon, who wanted him locked up. He’s why the national interest should never be confused with the interest of whoever’s in power.”The Pulitzer-winning journalist Wesley Lowery wrote: “It was an honor knowing Daniel … I’ll remain inspired by his commitment to a mission bigger than himself.”The writer and political commentator Molly Jong-Fast said: “One of the few really brave people on this earth has left it.”The MSNBC host Mehdi Hasan said: “Huge loss for this country. An inspiring, brave, and patriotic American. Rest in power, Dan, rest in power.”The Pentagon Papers covered US policy in Vietnam between 1945 and 1967 and showed that successive administrations were aware the US could not win.By the end of the war in 1975, more than 58,000 Americans were dead and 304,000 were wounded. Nearly 250,000 South Vietnamese soldiers were killed, as were about 1 million North Vietnamese soldiers and Viet Cong guerillas and more than 2 million civilians in North and South Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia.The Pentagon Papers caused a sensation in 1971, when they were published – first by the New York Times and then by the Washington Post and other papers – after the supreme court overruled the Nixon administration on whether publication threatened national security.In 2017, the story was retold in The Post, an Oscar-nominated film directed by Steven Spielberg in which Ellsberg was played by the British actor Matthew Rhys.Ellsberg served in the US Marine Corps in the 1950s but went to Vietnam in the mid-60s as a civilian analyst for the defense department, conducting a study of counter-insurgency tactics. When he leaked the Pentagon Papers, he was working for the Rand Corporation.In 2021, a half-century after he blew the whistle, he told the Guardian: “By two years in Vietnam, I was reporting very strongly that there was no prospect of progress of any kind so the war should not be continued. And that came to be the majority view of the American people before the Pentagon Papers came out.“By ’68 with the Tet offensive, by ’69, most Americans already thought it was immoral to continue but that had no effect on Nixon. He thought he was going to try to win it and they would be happy once he’d won it, however long it took.”In 1973, Ellsberg was put on trial. Charges of espionage, conspiracy and stealing government property adding up to a possible 115-year sentence were dismissed due to gross governmental misconduct, including a break-in at the office of Ellsberg’s psychiatrist, part of the gathering scandal which led to Nixon’s resignation in 1974.Born in Chicago on 7 April 1931, Ellsberg was educated at Harvard and Cambridge, completing his PhD after serving as a marine. He was married twice and had two sons and a daughter.After the end of the Vietnam war he became by his own description “a lecturer, scholar, writer and activist on the dangers of the nuclear era, wrongful US interventions and the urgent need for patriotic whistleblowing”.Ellsberg contributed to publications including the Guardian and published four books, among them an autobiography, Secrets: A Memoir of Vietnam and the Pentagon Papers, and most recently The Doomsday Machine: Confessions of a Nuclear War Planner.In recent years, he publicly supported Chelsea Manning, the US soldier who leaked records of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to WikiLeaks, Julian Assange, who published Manning’s leaks, and Edward Snowden, who leaked records concerning surveillance by the National Security Agency.On Friday, the journalist Glenn Greenwald, one of the Guardian team which published the Snowden leaks in 2013, winning a Pulitzer prize, called Ellsberg “a true American hero” and “the most vocal defender” of Assange, Snowden, Manning and “others who followed in his brave footsteps”.Steven Donziger, an attorney who represented Indigenous people in the Amazon rainforest against the oil giant Chevron, a case that led to his own house arrest, said: “Today the world lost a singularly brave voice who spoke truth about the US military machine in Vietnam and risked his life in the process. I drew deep inspiration from the courage of Daniel Ellsberg and was deeply honored to have his support.”In 2018, in a joint Guardian interview with Snowden, Ellsberg paid tribute to those who refused to be drafted to fight in Vietnam.“I would not have thought of doing what I did,” he said, “which I knew would risk prison for life, without the public example of young Americans going to prison to make a strong statement that the Vietnam war was wrong and they would not participate, even at the cost of their own freedom.“Without them, there would have been no Pentagon Papers. Courage is contagious.”Three years later, in an interview to mark 50 years since the publication of the Pentagon Papers, he said he “never regretted for a moment” his decision to leak.His one regret, he said, was “that I didn’t release those documents much earlier when I think they would have been much more effective.“I’ve often said to whistleblowers, ‘Don’t do what I did, don’t wait years till the bombs are falling and people have been dying.’” More

    • 175 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      Failure to launch: Twitter glitches deal double blow to Elon Musk and Ron DeSantis

      by

      The screen kept saying “Preparing to launch”. But this wasn’t one of Elon Musk’s space rockets that soars through the stratosphere and settles into a comfortable orbit. This was one that blew up on the pad in a dazzling ball of flame.The eccentric billionaire had invited Ron DeSantis, the governor of Florida, to the somewhat niche Twitter Spaces – a dedicated audio streaming feature on the social media platform – to announce his run for the Republican nomination for president in 2024.For Musk it looked like an easy win in his effort to make Twitter the public square, especially one that attracts rightwing blowhards, and steal a march on Fox News. For DeSantis it seemed like a chance to make a bit of political history, show off his tech savvy and poke his rival Donald Trump, once the undisputed world tweeting champion.Even better, DeSantis could hold court in an audio-only format without having to meet and greet real people, famously not his strength. But what liberals may have feared as the ultimate alliance of two anti-woke supervillains proved to carry all the menace of a damp dishcloth.Once people had got beyond the “What is Twitter Spaces?” stage, they were greeted with blank windows, broken snatches of conversation and other technical glitches.The site creaked and buckled under the demand of more than half a million users.Moderator David Sacks, a Republican donor and friend of Musk, tried to find a silver lining: “We’ve got so many people here we are kind of melting the servers, which is a good sign.”The debacle was a fresh blow to the credibility of Musk, whose Tesla brand has lost its shine of late and who, having laid off dozens of Twitter staff, seemed to be on the end of divine retribution from the tech gods.It was an even bigger political disaster for DeSantis, who has built the entire theory of his candidacy around the idea that he is an efficient chief executive of Florida who pays attention to detail. Even Trump used to be able to put out 280 characters on Twitter, admittedly often in a seemingly random order.Comedian Trevor Noah once likened DeSantis to Terminator 2, an upgrade on the Trump model that was more efficient and more lethal. But here was the robot in meltdown with smoke pouring out of its ears.Soon, with delicious irony, the phrase “Failure to Launch” was trending on Twitter itself, while one headline observed: “Ron’s Desaster.” Both Trump and Joe Biden seized on the flop to score points and raise funds. A Trump campaign spokesperson said: “Glitchy. Tech issues. Uncomfortable silences. A complete failure to launch. And that’s just the candidate!”skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionAfter nearly half an hour of malfunctions, DeSantis finally got going. He declared: “I am running for president of the United States to lead our great American comeback.” But by then thousands of people had given up and tuned out.The governor went to have a dig at Trump. “Government is not entertainment,” he said. “It’s not about building a brand or virtue signaling.”Predictably he griped about coronavirus pandemic measures and the media. An unhealthy chunk of the conversation was devoted to promoting Twitter. The governor said: “I think what was done with Twitter was really significant for the future of our country.”And improbably at the end he said of crash-prone Twitter Spaces: “This is a great platform.”The sorry experience did little to suggest that Musk knows how to run a social media platform or that DeSantis is capable of governing a global superpower armed with nuclear weapons.Perhaps their sole consolation is that they had both been upstaged in the evening news bulletins by the death of rock’n’roller Tina Turner at the age of 83. They could have done worse than fill their long silences with her posthumous plea: We Don’t Need Another Hero. More

    • 188 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      Fox News’s ‘vitriolic lies’ present clear threat to US democracy, says woman suing rightwing network

      by

      The woman suing Rupert Murdoch’s Fox News for defamation in the wake of the $787m settlement with the voting machine company Dominion has accused the media giant of waging a campaign of “vitriolic lies” against her that amounts to a threat to democracy.Nina Jankowicz sued Fox News and its parent company Fox Corporation for allegedly damaging her reputation as a specialist in conspiracy theories and disinformation campaigns. The lawsuit was lodged in a Delaware state court exactly a year after she resigned as executive director of a new Department of Homeland Security unit combatting online disinformation.The Disinformation Governance Board was abruptly shut down in the wake of a storm of virulent rightwing criticism, allegedly fueled by Fox News. Jankowicz and the new DHS division she led were attacked as being part of a conspiracy to censor rightwing comment spearheaded by Joe Biden.Jankowicz resigned from the federal post on 18 May 2022, barely three weeks into the job.In an interview with the Guardian, she said her motive in suing Fox was to ensure accountability for what she alleged was a campaign of lies against her that undermined American democracy. “There needs to be consequences,” she said.“It was lies, very personal and very vitriolic lies. And I don’t think that is democratic.”She added that what she claimed was Fox’s reckless disregard for the truth had implications for the future of the country. “If we can’t agree on statements of fact, how can you live in a democracy?”Jankowicz was announced as the head of the new disinformation board on 27 April last year and was instantly engulfed in a tempest of rightwing anger. In the lawsuit, Jankowicz’s lawyers allege that the attacks skyrocketed the following day, after Fox News hosts began fuelling the hatred with unfounded claims about her desire to censor rightwing voices.One of the most vociferous critics, the complaint says, was Tucker Carlson, the news channel’s then primetime star who was fired by Fox last month in the wake of the Dominion settlement. In his opening monologue on 28 April, Carlson called Jankowicz a “moron”, said that what she was doing amounted to a “full-scale attack on free speech” and dubbed the disinformation board “the new Soviet America”.Other Fox hosts, including Laura Ingraham and Sean Hannity, followed suit, labelling her a “useful idiot”, “janko-half-witz” and “insane”. Hannity went so far as to depict her as “one of the biggest perpetrators and purveyors of disinformation in the entire country”.The Fox & Friends host Brian Kilmeade wondered why President Biden would give a pregnant woman such an “important job” – Jankowicz was eight months pregnant at the time.“I was weeks away from giving birth to my first kid when this was all happening,” Jankowicz told the Guardian. “That’s a time I will never get back.”The attacks continued long after she had resigned her federal position. As recently as last month, Ingraham returned to the fray; the Fox News host played a clip of Jankowicz describing the harassment she had endured and commented: “She’s just upset that she didn’t get to censor everybody”.As an authority on disinformation campaigns, Jankowicz said she could predict the cycle of events that unfolded. Whenever Fox hosts attacked her on air, a swarm of online hate would be directed at her culminating in multiple death threats.“Every time they talked about me on Fox, a new wave of harassment would start. I would get a spike especially when Carlson and Hannity mentioned me.”Many of the Fox attacks made a point of her gender, she said. “They were focused on belittling me, cutting me down to size – disregarding my serious work and the fact that I had been called as a Republican witness in Senate hearings – just to make me look like a silly little girl.”The new lawsuit adds to several legal actions piling up on Fox’s plate.In addition to Dominion’s $1.6bn suit, which alleged Fox had spread the lie that its voting machines helped steal the 2020 presidential election from Donald Trump, the media company is facing a separate action brought by another voting machine firm, Smartmatic.Carlson’s former booker, Abby Grossberg, is also suing Fox alleging its one-time star fostered an abusive workplace culture.Jankowicz faces a daunting mountain to climb in taking on the Murdoch empire. As a public figure holding an important federal role at the time of the alleged defamation, she must clear a very high legal standard.She must show that the broadcaster acted with “actual malice” in disseminating false statements about her that it knew were untrue, or that it showed “reckless disregard” in airing those statements without checking their veracity.The complaint claims that the channel mentioned more than 150 times that Jankowicz intended to monitor and censor free speech. In fact, the disinformation board had no powers to censor or surveil anyone, it was merely designed to co-ordinate the efforts of other government entities.“They depicted me as a fascist who didn’t stand up for free speech, when precisely standing up for free speech had been the purpose of my entire career,” she said.The lawsuit also points to Fox hosts saying she was fired from the board when she in fact resigned.The Guardian invited Fox to respond to the claim that it knowingly or recklessly broadcast untruths about Jankowicz. A Fox spokesperson said the company has moved to have the case relocated from the Delaware state court to a federal court, but did not respond to any of the specific allegations.Jankowicz is bringing the action with the help of a gofundme page which has so far raised almost $60,000 towards her legal fees. She said she was heartened by that support, but stressed that money was not her motive.“I’ve been cautioned time and time again that this might not be ‘worth it’ financially,” she said. “That’s not why I’m pursuing this.”Her aim she said was partly to show that individuals could also confront the powerful, not just businesses like Dominion and Smartmatic. “These companies have venture capital firms behind them, they can afford fancy lawyers and years-long trials to hold Fox to account. For individuals like me, it’s much harder – and I don’t believe that is something that our system can sustain.”By bringing the lawsuit, she runs the risk of potentially opening herself up to a renewed wave of criticism that she is attempting to limit free speech protected under the first amendment. The Guardian asked her whether suing for defamation was the best way to counter Fox’s alleged disinformation.Jankowicz stressed that she didn’t pursue the lawsuit lightly. “I don’t think anybody should pursue a lawsuit just because someone said something mean about them – I have a thick skin. But I believe Fox’s continued lies about individuals are a greater threat to free speech and democracy than a carefully considered, narrow lawsuit like mine.”She said her main aim was to force Fox to answer for what she called its false statements of facts. “That sort of coverage is not protected speech,” she said. “If Fox isn’t brought to account, they will not stop.” More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Christiane Amanpour criticises CNN decision to hold Trump town hall – video

      by

      The CNN anchor Christiane Amanpour said she strongly disagreed with her network’s decision to host a town hall event with Donald Trump last week and had had ‘a very robust exchange of views’ with Chris Licht, the chief executive under fire for approving and then defending the decision to stage it. ‘I would have dropped the mic at ‘nasty person’, but then that’s me, she said at Columbia Journalism School in New York. Trump called the CNN moderator, Kaitlan Collins, a ‘nasty person’, one of number of raucous moments during the event More

    • 75 Shares119 Views

      in US Politics

      Philadelphia Inquirer severely disrupted by cyber-attack

      by

      The Philadelphia Inquirer is scrambling to restore its systems and resume normal operations after it became the latest major media organization to be targeted in a cyber-attack.With no regular Sunday newspaper and online stories also facing some delays, the cyber-attack has triggered the worst disruption to the Inquirer in decades.The attack aimed at Philadelphia’s paper of record has been reported to the FBI.Disruption to the Inquirer, the most read daily in Pennsylvania and the third-longest continuously serving newspaper in the US, comes as the city prepares for a mayoral primary election on Tuesday. The Inquirer’s offices are closed through at least Tuesday, and the company is looking for co-working space to serve as a makeshift newsroom for election night.It is unclear when normal editorial services will be restored.News organisations are increasingly being targeted by sophisticated cyber-attacks – as have government agencies, hospitals, universities and the business sector.In December, the Guardian was hit by a ransomware attack in which the personal data of staff in the UK and US was accessed. The print edition continued uninterrupted but the incident, which was probably triggered by a “phishing” attempt in which the victim is tricked – often through email – into downloading malware, forced the Guardian to close its offices for several months.The Los Angeles Times in 2018 was affected by a major ransomware attack in which a kind of malicious software that essentially paralyses a system – holding it to ransom – and demands payment to free the system.Few details about the attack on the Inquirer have been released to staff members or readers. It is unclear whether any personal data has been exposed, exactly which systems had been breached, or who was behind the attack and what motivations they had.In an email, the Inquirer’s publisher, Lisa Hughes. said “we are currently unable to provide an exact timeline” on when operations will be fully restored. “We appreciate everyone’s patience and understanding as we work to fully restore systems and complete this investigation as soon as possible.”Monday’s newspapers were printed albeit without any classified ads.The incident is the greatest publication disruption to the state’s largest news organisation since a blizzard shut operations down for two days in January 1996, the company said. More

    • 150 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      CNN’s Trump debacle suggests TV media set to repeat mistakes of 2016

      by

      Donald Trump and CNN were in rare agreement: the former president’s hour of free prime-time television on Wednesday evening, dressed up as a “town hall” with Republican voters, was a triumph.“America was served very well by what we did last night,” CNN’s chief executive, Chris Licht, told skeptical members of his own staff at the network’s daily news conference the following morning.“You do not have to like the former president’s answers, but you can’t say that we didn’t get them.”As it happens, quite a lot of people said that not only did CNN fail to get answers but it was repeating the terrible mistake of 2016 when it treated Trump as an entertainer not a hostile politician by giving him hours of airtime to spout freely because he was good for ratings, and therefore profits.One of CNN’s own reporters, Oliver Darcy, was less enthused than his boss.“It’s hard to see how America was served by the spectacle of lies that aired on CNN Wednesday evening,” he said in his daily newsletter, Reliable Sources.Darcy then listed all that was wrong. The same old “professional lie machine” that is Trump ignoring the question, talking over the moderator, unleashing “a firehose of disinformation upon the country”.“And CNN aired it all. On and on it went. It felt like 2016 all over again,” he wrote.More than a few Republicans shared that view. Matthew Dowd, former chief strategist for the George W Bush’s 2004 presidential campaign, condemned the news network.“CNN was completely unprepared to hold Trump accountable. CNN has done a complete disservice to our democracy,” he wrote. “CNN, you failed journalism and our country.”The New York Times said Trump’s advisers were delighted: “They can’t believe he is getting an hour on CNN with an audience that cheers his every line and laughs at his every joke.”Which raises the question of how television, in particular, should cover Trump as the next election comes into focus. It’s a question even Fox News, which has fallen out with the former president, is now grappling with.Ted Koppel, former anchor of ABC News’s Nightline, asked what the alternative is to television time for a leading contender for a return to the White House.“So no more live political events, because politicians can be nasty? Because politicians can tell lies?” he told the New York Times. “I’m not sure that news organisations should necessarily be in the business of making ideological judgments. Is he a legitimate object of news attention? You bet.”Bob Schieffer, the former CBS news anchor who moderated presidential debates, took much the same position.“We’re in the business of telling people who’s running for what and what they stand for,” he said.But many Americans wondered if it had to be in front of a supportive, jeering audience that evidently included a fair number of his “Make America great again” supporters with little to restrain his torrent of lies, distractions and evasions.Mark Lukasiewicz, former vice-president at NBC News, said of the programme that the mistake was to do it live: “Proving again: Live lying works. A friendly Maga crowd consistently laughs, claps at Trump’s punch lines – including re sex assault and January 6 – and the moderator cannot begin to keep up with the AR-15 pace of lies.”Even Fox News recorded its most recent interviews with Trump.Writing in the Washington Post, Perry Bacon said CNN’s mistake was to say, in the words of its political director, David Chalian, that is it going to “treat Trump like any other presidential candidate”.“CNN should, of course, treat Trump differently from other candidates. His record of anti-democratic behavior makes him a much more dangerous potential president than other candidates,” wrote Bacon.“In 2016, the media not only played down Trump’s chances of winning, but also suggested Trump would not pursue the outlandish and far-right ideas that he was running on if he won. This attitude was summed up by an Atlantic article titled ‘Taking Trump Seriously, Not Literally’. This perspective was entirely wrongheaded.”Part of the problem is that few journalists in the US, striving for ill-defined objectivity and almost invariably deferential to present and former presidents, are a match for a man who views the established norms of interviewing and discussion as a provocation. As Kaitlan Collins proved, as she tried, and failed, to contain Trump, even as he called her a “nasty woman” on her own air.Bacon is not alone in worrying that Trump will continue to exploit CNN’s desperation to win back at least some of the Maga voters it lost when the former president led chants of “CNN sucks” at his rallies.That’s certainly how Trump saw it, writing on his Truth Social site shortly before the programme that CNN was “rightfully desperate to get those fantastic (TRUMP!) ratings once again.“Could be the beginning of a New & Vibrant CNN, with no more Fake News, or it could turn into a disaster for all, including me. Let’s see what happens?” he added.As it turned out, what was good for CNN and Trump was viewed by a large part of the rest of America as another disaster in the making. More

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      How should the media cover sexual predator Trump? – podcast

      by

      On Tuesday, a jury in New York found that the former president Donald Trump sexually abused magazine writer E Jean Carroll in the 1990s and then defamed her by branding her a liar.
      On Wednesday, Trump made the same baseless claims about Carroll that led to him losing the case – this time, live on CNN to millions of viewers.
      This week, Jonathan Freedland talks to Guardian US columnist Margaret Sullivan about the fallout from the E Jean Carroll case. The pair discuss how the media should cover a 2024 presidential candidate who has been impeached twice, indicted by a federal court, and who is now legally defined as a sexual predator

      How to listen to podcasts: everything you need to know More

    • 113 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      Fox News sued for defamation by ex-government disinformation chief

      by

      The former head of a disinformation group created by the US Department of Homeland Security has sued Fox News for defamation, saying its attacks threatened her safety.In the lawsuit filed on Wednesday, Nina Jankowicz alleged that multiple Fox News hosts spread lies about her work, fueling an internet campaign against her that ultimately led to her resignation and the disbandment of the group.Jankowicz was executive director of the Disinformation Governance Board, created to coordinate efforts to combat disinformation posing a threat to US security.The group was created in April 2022 but paused just three weeks later, after a barrage of conservative attacks. Jankowicz resigned and in August the group was shut down.Jankowicz’s lawsuit focuses on three claims she says Fox levied against her: that she intended to censor speech, that she was fired, and that she wanted to give verified Twitter users, including herself, the power to edit others’ tweets, a claim taken from a video clip used out of context.“Several of these falsehoods stand out as especially destructive – and directly contrary to available, verifiable evidence,” the lawsuit says.The lawsuit also says Fox hosts continuously attacked Jankowicz, calling her a “wicked witch”, a “disinformation czaress” and a “lunatic”, among other things.The suit adds: “Fox’s defamatory coverage has caused Jankowicz and her family immense suffering. Jankowicz has been doxxed, threatened, harassed and even cyber-stalked.“Threatening and harassing messages and social media posts are usually linked to Fox’s coverage of Jankowicz and nearly always premised on Fox’s false statement that Jankowicz intends to police online speech.”Speaking to the New York Times, Jankowicz, 34, said Fox News used her as a “punching bag” even after her resignation and the closure of the Disinformation Governance Board.“It shouldn’t be something we just accept,” she said, “that the most powerful cable network in the world can attack individuals willy-nilly and not face any consequences after they ruin their lives.”Fox did not comment to the Times or immediately respond to Guardian inquiries.Jankowicz’s lawsuit references the recently settled $1.6bn defamation suit between Fox News and Dominion Voting Systems, saying the network’s “commitment to stay the course even as readily available information contracted statements of fact made on Fox’s platform” can be seen in both cases.Before the Dominion case was settled, internal communications in court filings revealed that Fox hosts and executives knew Donald Trump’s claims about a stolen election were false but did not stop their broadcast.Last month, Fox and Dominion reached a $787.5m settlement. Fox did not air an apology, though it did acknowledge “court rulings finding certain claims about Dominion to be false”.Fox faces other lawsuits, including a $2.7bn claim from another voting machine company, Smartmatic, and a suit filed by a former producer for the now fired host Tucker Carlson, who accuses the network of sexism and trying to use her as a scapegoat in the Dominion case.Fox has said the former producer’s claims are “riddled with false allegations”. It has called the Smartmatic suit “outrageous, unsupported and not rooted in sound financial analysis”. More