Media

Subterms

    More stories

    • 138 Shares119 Views

      in US Politics

      Top US conservatives pushing Russia’s spin on Ukraine war, experts say

      by

      Top US conservatives pushing Russia’s spin on Ukraine war, experts saySome of the Kremlin’s most blatant falsehoods aimed at undercutting US aid are promoted by major figures on the right Ever since Russia launched its brutal war in Ukraine the Kremlin has banked on American conservative political and media allies to weaken US support for Ukraine and deployed disinformation operations to falsify the horrors of the war for both US and Russian audiences, say disinformation experts.Some of the Kremlin’s most blatant falsehoods about the war aimed at undercutting US aid for Ukraine have been promoted by major figures on the American right, from Holocaust denier and white supremacist Nick Fuentes to ex-Trump adviser Steve Bannon and Fox News star Tucker Carlson, whose audience of millions is deemed especially helpful to Russian objectives.On a more political track, House Republican Freedom Caucus members such as Paul Gosar, Marjorie Taylor Greene and Scott Perry – who in May voted with 54 other Republican members against a $40bn aid package for Ukraine, and have raised other concerns about the war – have proved useful, though perhaps unwitting, Kremlin allies at times.Pro-Moscow video materials from the network RT (formerly Russia Today), which early this year shuttered its US operations, have been featured on Rumble, a video sharing platform popular with conservatives that last year received major financing from a venture capital firm co-founded by recently elected Republican Ohio senator JD Vance and backed by billionaire Peter Thiel.As Republicans will control the House in 2023, the influence of these Ukraine aid critics in Congress and Moscow-friendly media on the right led by Carlson is expected to increase. But analysts say they’re unlikely to block a Biden administration request to Congress in mid-November for over $37bn in emergency aid for Ukraine, although they may try to pare it back.Republican House minority leader Kevin McCarthy, who looks poised to become speaker in January, threatened pre-election that if the GOP won the majority, it wouldn’t back a “blank check” for Ukraine.There are signs that the conservative wing of the Republican party and its media allies are already ratcheting up their criticism of US backing for Ukraine. For instance, Perry, the chair of the rightwing Freedom Caucus, in October floated the idea of Republicans using their anticipated control of the House to investigate the Biden administration’s efforts and policies involving Ukraine-Russia peace talks.Moscow’s political friends on the far right have also become more vocal in pushing falsehoods and have hosted some Freedom Caucus members to showcase their influence.Fuentes infamously dined with Trump at Mar-a-Lago last month despite his long record of cozying up to Putin and his antisemitic and white supremacist remarks. Back in March, Fuentes said on his podcast: “We continue to support czar Putin in the war effort.” Fuentes also falsely claimed the Russian war in Ukraine was “not aggression” and its goals were “not unreasonable”, repeating the Kremlin line that Moscow is trying to denazify Ukraine.In a similar, albeit somewhat less inflammatory vein, Carlson’s pro-Moscow spin and distortions about the war have been palpable since the start and seem to have increased in recent months. Russian media often rebroadcasts the Fox News host’s comments and praises Carlson. “We’ve entered a new phase, one in which the United States is directly at war with the largest nuclear power in the world,” Carlson with considerable hyperbolic license warned his audience in late September.Disinformation experts note that in the run-up to the US midterm elections, conservative media stars such as Carlson, as well as Greene and other far-right members of Congress, became more vocal about blocking Ukraine assistance, and calling for audits of American assistance.“Marjorie Taylor Green’s introduction of a resolution to audit aid to Ukraine is entirely unsurprising given the pervasively negative messaging about Ukraine coming from the right flank of the GOP over the past three months,” Bret Schafer, a senior fellow with the Alliance for Securing Democracy, said.Prior to the 8 November elections, he noted that “of the 100 most retweeted tweets about Ukraine posted by GOP candidates for the House since August, roughly 90% opposed continued support for Ukraine. Though much of that messaging plays to simple pocketbook concerns – essentially saying, ‘Why are we supporting Ukraine when Americans are struggling to pay their bills?’ – there is also a strain of anti-Ukrainian disinformation that colors some of their commentary.”Schafer added that “although most members of Congress support Ukraine, the loudest members do not, and their voices are dominating online spaces”.John Sipher, who served in the CIA’s national clandestine services for 28 years with a stint leading its Russia operations, said that Putin is using a playbook that he honed during his long career with the KGB to influence policy and Russian opinion.“I think Putin’s weakness is that he is not a strategic thinker but reverts to what he knows – using covert means to influence and undermine others,” Sipher said. “He cannot win on the battlefield so he uses threats and intimidations to influence and scare western leaders into backing down or pushing Ukraine to the negotiating table.”Sipher noted that historically Putin “has weaponized energy, information, refugees, food and nuclear threats to get his way. I think his nuclear threats are just a means to sow unease and dissension among supporters of Ukraine, and suspect that the discussion of a ‘dirty bomb’ is meant to signal to his domestic audience that Ukraine is a real threat, and the population should support Putin’s tough measures.”In the US the audiences receiving pro-Putin messages have been boosted by Rumble, the video sharing platform, which has featured RT content including an interview with two Americans captured in Ukraine who were badly beaten by Russians and later released, as the New York Times last month reported.One of the two American men in the video clip told his interviewer while he was in custody that he had been deceived to fight in Ukraine by “propaganda from the west” that reported that Russians soldiers were “indiscriminately killing civilians”.Megan Squire, a deputy director for data analytics with the Southern Poverty Law Center, noted that Rumble has also been busy recycling pro-Putin and anti-Ukraine material from multiple figures on the right.“Alt-tech platforms such as Rumble are actively peddling the anti-Ukraine talking points of their heavy users, many of whom have been deplatformed elsewhere,” Squire said. “A simple search for ‘Ukraine’ in Rumble today shows that the top search results are for a Steve Bannon video where he promotes Marjorie Taylor Greene’s demands for an audit of Ukrainian relief funds, and junk news site Post Millennial, which is using Rumble to promote clips from a similar story from Tucker Carlson.”But for overall influence with American audiences, veteran Russia experts say Carlson’s big Fox megaphone still dwarfs other propaganda tools favorable to Moscow.“The audience for Fox News commentators like Tucker Carlson, who frequently spreads pro-Russian narratives, is obviously orders of magnitude bigger than that of new niche players like Rumble that often carry Russian disinformation,” said Andrew Weiss, a vice-president for studies at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “Such platforms are far more impactful than the more sneaky techniques that the Russian propaganda apparatus employs these days.”TopicsThe far rightRepublicansFox NewsUS politicsRussiaUkrainenewsReuse this content More

    • 213 Shares149 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘Don’t let him use the press’: Guardian readers on how the media should cover Trump’s 2024 run

      by

      ‘Don’t let him use the press’: Guardian readers on how the media should cover Trump’s 2024 runMore than 3,000 readers responded to our callout, and urged a ‘less is more’ approach when reporting on the former president Donald Trump’s announcement of a third run for the presidency has renewed a discussion in newsrooms on how best to cover the former president. That conversation is happening inside the Guardian, too.Beginning with his 2016 campaign, much of the US media took to Trump like a moth to a flame, covering him like a celebrity – one whose propensity to espouse lies and conspiracy theories riveted audiences. But Trump proved an expert at manipulating that coverage, which often unwittingly amplified those same lies.Trump’s 2024 campaign is undoubtedly news – he is, after all, a former president with a large following, who has left an indelible mark on American politics and is arguably the frontrunner for the Republican nomination in 2024. But that doesn’t mean we need to cover every utterance.We asked Guardian readers for their views on how the press can strike a better balance between delivering newsworthy information while refraining from platforming Trump’s more damaging rhetoric.We received more than 3,000 responses. Many readers argue, essentially, for a “less is more” approach to reporting on the former president. Not every tweet (should he resume tweeting), no matter how outlandish, is news, they say. Others called for caution when reporting his lies about election fraud in 2020. Many asked us to go easy on printing his photograph and to give equal time to other candidates.Nine responses from readers are below.‘Fewer stories with more substance, please’“The media should cover Trump’s candidacy without photographs and tweets and the like – and without catchphrases. All of those things cause kneejerk reactions. I know we have shorter attention spans, but honestly, I am hungry for quietness, nuance, content, a little thoughtfulness in my day. If you feel like imagery is required, then be creative and let the graphic artists illustrate an idea.“I think that should be the case for all candidates at this stage: fewer, more substantive stories about them all.” Nancy Aten, 63, progressive and Democratic, from Sturgeon Bay, Wisconsin‘Focus on fresh candidates that deserve more oxygen’“Trump should be treated as a person running in an election, not a foregone conclusion nor a fascinating spectacle and certainly not a celebrity. The American media has so breathlessly covered each of Trump’s successive small and large leaps further into the absurd that it culminated in thousands of people genuinely believing they had a right to violently overthrow our most important seat of government with him as their king.“I’m concerned about the air of this election being completely sucked up by Biden and Trump again when voters across the spectrum are ready for a new generation. Ron DeSantis is an interesting candidate, and I’m also interested in hearing about who the potential successors to Biden could be on the left. Who are the new compelling candidates that deserve platforming?” Shawn Martin, 31, architect, independent/Democratic, will always consider a split ticket, from San Diego, California‘Don’t platform election 2020 fraud claims’“The press should cover Trump minimally. Only if he is in a debate. No rallies, no social media posts or rambling/ranting spiels. Do not report anything he says about 2020 or fraudulent elections. No matter how ‘out there’ he goes, rein in the impulse to bleat about his latest nonsense.“Cover actual policy statements, debates and so on. Stick with strictly bare minimum reporting. There is no need to feed him.” Pam M, in her late 50s, nurse, moderate Republican, from Las Vegas, Nevada‘Complete coverage of the Trump campaign’“I’d like to see accurate, complete coverage of the Trump campaign with the same volume as competitors receive. More investigative journalism using every tool in the toolbox. When Trump or his campaign make assertions which are false this should be covered, but the truth must also be reported.“The coverage should highlight the ongoing criminal and civil investigations and legal cases against Trump and his business. Simply put, maximize resources uncovering Trump’s past and present misbehaviors while eliminating uncritical reporting of Trump’s false assertions or hateful rhetoric. Democracy works best as a true competition of ideas and policies.” Joel Block, 74, retired, Democratic, from Orange county, California‘A politicized press has polarized the public even more’“The right balance would be equal balance on all relevant candidates. Don’t get into the perpetual habit of always displaying Mr Trump’s negatives. Those are already glaringly obvious. And it allows Trump to counter-attack the media as being biased and prejudiced against him. To his diehard minority base it merely enforces their belief that the media is the enemy of the people.“In today’s world of course all media either leans towards one political spectrum or another, which has polarized the public even more. Try to return to a more balanced and fair reporting, less politicized viewpoints. Try to negate the sensational. Try to regain the public’s trust.” Ronald Wallis, retired postal carrier, leans Democratic, from Oregon City, Oregon‘Less speculation, less sensationalism, better dialogue’“Everyone I know is sick of the media giving voice to bullshit – on both sides. Think about it. Has sensationalizing and [constantly] putting Trump on the front page for the past six years, helped or harmed civil society and its issues? I believe press coverage during these years has helped normalize hate, lying, divisiveness and authoritarianism, delayed accountability and eroded morality. Doing more of this type of Trump coverage will be devastating. Don’t speculate ad nauseam. Unless you provide hard facts, and put pressure on both sides to find truth, you are playing into Trump’s hand. He loves all the attention, it enables him to manipulate the conversation.“Personally, if I had to hear more about him, I’d like to know: what destruction has Trump caused in all his failed business dealings around the world? What destruction and sabotage have Trump policies caused, for instance, in South American partnerships, in immigration policies, human rights, our military, the national parks, postal service, infrastructure, and so on?“The people that support Trump in our community – the majority – need to understand what they are supposedly fighting for. These are fundamentally good people who need to know that ‘liberals’ are not their enemy.” April, retired retail sector worker and environmental educator, Democratic, from Prescott, Arizona‘The right balance on Trump is no balance at all’“What is the right balance in covering Trump? Trump and Trumpism are a grave threat to democracy. The right balance is no balance whatsoever. His candidacy, let alone a re-election, will do further damage to our society, it can accomplish no good.“The media have been bullied and manipulated by the political class into maintaining some sense of ‘balance’ in exchange for access, but the very notion of ‘balance’ is a loophole for power-obsessed demagogues to turn the media into their stenographers and personal publishers.” Aaron Barclay, 42, accountant, democratic socialist, from Chicago, Illinois‘No soundbites, no pithy opinions, less drama’“The media should cover Trump matter-of-factly. Pertinent information only that’s actually substantive. No soundbites. No pithy opinions. Just bare-bones. No dramatic reactions. Just keep it parked in neutral.“If it isn’t newsworthy, leave it. If it is, just keep it simple. We don’t need commentary from a panel of journalists on their interpretation of every detail. Think Cronkite. My concern is that the media likes the titular drama of Trump.” Susan Goldsmith, 54, legal specialist, Republican, from Charleston, South Carolina‘Don’t let Trump use the press’“The press is in a hard spot with people like Trump who only seem concerned with manipulation the media to their advantage. Not every tweet or complaint is a headline. The war in Ukraine is a headline.“Don’t let Trump or his allies use the press to hurt our country. Don’t give him free press for sensationalism. Cover where he’s campaigning and his policy platform – if he had one. Don’t give oxygen to lies or incitement that could trigger any dangerous responses. Cover him like you cover Marco Rubio, not like you cover [fill in Hollywood A-lister]. If he gets in trouble write it like he’s a no-name hack. If he has something positive to say, give him credit.” Brent Heckerman, 54, business innovator, Democratic, from Cincinnati, Ohio‘Draw a clearer line between fact and opinion, return to civil debate’“I like to think I am moderate in my views. The former president has not earned the right to broadcast his opinions in the media unless the information has been fact checked first. Lies and misinformation are terribly misleading and destructive. The enormous attention Trump has received, whether negative or positive, has helped him build momentum.“Report factually, avoid sensational news when it has no merit. Stick to the job of reporting and clearly call out when what is stated is mere opinion and nothing more. Too many news stations are biased and very demeaning of the political party they dislike. Sarcasm, using slurs, lack of civility and disrespect have run rampant. Time to change course and set an example of what civil disagreement looks like.” Linda Pittman, 72, retired, Democratic, previously independent, from Incline Village, NevadaTopicsUS newsDonald TrumpUS politicsThe GuardianfeaturesReuse this content More

    • 175 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Lachlan Murdoch alleges Crikey hired marketing firm to turn legal threat into subscription drive

      by

      Lachlan Murdoch alleges Crikey hired marketing firm to turn legal threat into subscription driveNews Corp co-chair’s lawyer tells federal court she intends to show Crikey did not republish article for public interest reasons

      Follow our Australia news live blog for the latest updates
      Get our morning and afternoon news emails, free app or daily news podcast
      Crikey hired a marketing company to capitalise on a legal threat from Lachlan Murdoch in order to drive subscriptions, the co-chair of News Corporation has alleged in the federal court.Murdoch launched defamation proceedings in August against the independent news site over an article published in June that named the Murdoch family as an “unindicted co-conspirator” in the US Capitol attack. The trial has been set down for March 2023 but the parties are in dispute over pretrial matters.One of the matters heard by justice Michael Wigney in a brief hearing was an allegation by the Murdoch team that a marketing campaign, run by brand strategists Populares, undermines the public interest defence on which Crikey publisher Private Media was relying.Lachlan Murdoch’s legal team loses bid to have parts of Crikey’s defamation defence dismissedRead moreIn response to a concerns letter from Murdoch in June, Crikey initially agreed to take down the article but after failing to reach agreement it was reinstated on 15 August.Sue Chrysanthou SC, for Murdoch, said she intends to show that republication of the article was not for public interest reasons but for a marketing campaign.She said Populares produced a “significant report” titled “Lachlan Murdoch Campaign” about how “a dispute with my client could be marketed for the purposes of attracting new readers and gaining subscriptions”.“The purpose of the re-posting was not for the public interest, it was for the media campaign,” she said.
      Sign up for Guardian Australia’s free morning and afternoon email newsletters for your daily news roundup
      In his statement of claim in August Murdoch alleged that the placement of a New York Times advertisement inviting him to sue Crikey over the alleged defamation was “seeking to humiliate” the executive chair and chief executive of Fox Corporation.Chrysanthou said social media was “the modern-day grapevine” and alleged Crikey had paid for some posts about her client “to be promoted and advertised”.She sought orders for Crikey to provide further information in response to questions because the submitted outlines of information did not address anything after the 29 June publication of the article by Crikey’s politics editor, Bernard Keane. Wigney said the request for written answers to about 180 questions, including sub-questions, could delay proceedings and he repeatedly asked Chrysanthou: “Do you want this to go to trial in March?”“I would withdraw those interrogatories you can cross-examine them,” he said.‘Lachlan gets fired the day Rupert dies’: Murdoch biography stokes succession rumorsRead morePrivate Media’s lawyer, Clarissa Amato, said Chrysanthou’s request would result in a “a catastrophic waste of time and money”.“Some of those may be things simply left out of the discovery list by accident … there are other requests that are effectively new categories of documents,” Amato said.Chrysanthou said the social media posts about her client had spread “like a virus”, and she would call a social media expert to give evidence explaining the reach.“We want the expert to address that issue, and the effect of promoting particular posts and how that then causes those posts to appear in different people’s feeds,” Chrysanthou said.She said the expert would be asked to explain a few essential posts, relevant to claims of serious harm from the publication.Murdoch is seeking damages because through the publication and republication of the article he alleges he “has been gravely injured in his character, his personal reputation and his professional reputation as a business person and company director, and has suffered and will continue to suffer substantial hurt, distress and embarrassment”.The parties will return to court on Thursday.TopicsLachlan MurdochAustralian mediaLaw (Australia)Defamation lawMedia businessNews CorporationMedia lawnewsReuse this content More

    • 200 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Here are some crucial issues we’re covering in 2023 – with your help | Betsy Reed

      by

      Here are some crucial issues we’re covering in 2023 – with your helpBetsy ReedThe new Guardian US editor sets out some of our key priorities for 2023, including abortion rights, the climate crisis and investigations into the powers shaping American life

      This Giving Tuesday, please consider a year-end gift to the Guardian to support our journalism in the coming year
      On election night this November, the Guardian’s reporters fanned out across the country, keeping close watch on key races targeted by the election-denial movement instigated by Donald Trump. Candidates who embraced Trump’s “big lie” about the 2020 election sought control over pivotal offices that would allow them to tip the balance toward Trump when he tries to reclaim the presidency in 2024.To the relief of our readers, as well as millions of Americans, their efforts failed spectacularly.Across the country, many Americans rejected campaigns based on lies and racist demagoguery. Voters flocked to the polls to protest the supreme court’s attack on abortion rights in its reversal of Roe v Wade earlier this year. Reproductive freedom and democracy proved more resilient than many dour pundits had predicted.But if we pause to celebrate this outcome, we should also reflect on how we arrived at such a dangerous moment – and how much danger remains. Authoritarian forces, emboldened by Trump but long predating him, still possess cultural influence and institutional power. As the legendary activist and scholar Frances Fox Piven recently told the Guardian’s Ed Pilkington, the fight over elemental democracy is far from over. “The fascist mob doesn’t have to be the majority to set in motion the kinds of policies that crush democracy,” she said.As the new editor of Guardian US, I’m determined to dedicate our journalistic resources to the scrutiny of those dangerous forces in 2023 – with your help. This Giving Tuesday, please consider a year-end gift to the Guardian to support our journalism in the coming year.Here are three of my priorities for the Guardian US newsroom in 2023:
      Abortion rights. There are few areas where Trump’s damaging legacy is more evident than reproductive rights. His appointments to the supreme court, made with the intention of ending the constitutional right to abortion, will profoundly affect the health and freedom of people in this country for years to come. We’ll be reporting on the human impact of abortion bans – and the inspiring movement that is fighting back.
      The climate crisis. Despite the Biden administration’s landmark law to decarbonize the US economy, fossil fuel emissions continue to rise, and Republican control of the House of Representatives will bring with it aggressive attempts to roll back progress. We’ll be closely tracking the implementation of the Inflation Reduction Act, including efforts by the fossil fuel industry and the right wing to stymie change. We will also double down on our groundbreaking environmental justice coverage, exposing how communities that lack racial and economic privilege bear the brunt of government and corporate negligence.
      Investigations. In 2023, we’ll be digging deeper into the powers secretly shaping the contours of American life. We know a lot, for example, about the toxins tainting our food and water – but it takes a different kind of reporting to pin down the corporate actors responsible for spreading them, and the government regulators who have failed to protect the public. From police unions to gun manufacturers to crypto titans to rightwing pressure groups, we will reveal the influential networks whose machinations lie at the root of the crises we report on every day, whether it’s racism in the criminal justice system or soaring economic inequality.
      I’m thrilled to work at the Guardian because I know it’s a special place with a unique role in the global media ecosystem. At this moment of jeopardy for democratic values, we don’t settle for milquetoast, down-the-middle journalism that engages in false equivalence in the name of neutrality. We know there is a right and a wrong side in the fight against racism and climate destruction and for democracy and reproductive justice. Our newsroom is passionately dedicated to delivering timely, fair, accurate reporting to readers who care about the issues we cover as much as we do.Our business model reflects our values, too. Rather than relying on billionaire owners or pursuing profits to appease shareholders, we depend on support from readers. Your donations are the reason we are able to carry on with our work. If you can, please consider a gift to fund our reporting in 2023. We are very grateful.TopicsUS newsAbortionClimate crisisInvestigative journalismUS politicsThe GuardiancommentReuse this content More

    • 175 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Layoffs, low ratings and a lurch closer to the right: is CNN in crisis?

      by

      Layoffs, low ratings and a lurch closer to the right: is CNN in crisis?New management outlines a course to cut costs and return to political middle ground, but there may be no easy fix in sight At some time in the next couple weeks CNN will begin to lay off staff, part of a slimming down strategy that is affecting the whole media sector but also a move that has shocked many at one of the household names in US news which now seems to be in crisis as it adjusts to new owners keen to slash costs.The original cable news network – and still a well-known name across the globe – has been shedding viewers, coming in last in ratings of US cable news networks during the recent midterm elections.The changes at CNN look politically motivated. That should concern us all | Robert ReichRead moreAt the same time, the cost-cutting new corporate management under the umbrella of Warner Bros Discovery has also indicated it wants to reel in a perceived left-leaning political bias in CNN’s coverage. Welcome to the painful cable news reset of late 2022, a TV drama freighted with questions about democracy, bias and the role of commercial journalism in what is supposed to a post-Donald Trump realignment of values – a premise that may itself be premature given the former US president is running for the White House again.Over the past year, incoming management at CNN outlined a course to return to a political middle ground and to the spirit of founder Ted Turner, who sought to “make news the star”. The course would be steered by CNN’s chairman and CEO, Chris Licht, and supported by Warner’s chief executive, David Zaslav, and libertarian cable king and shareholder John Malone.“I would like to see CNN evolve back to the kind of journalism that it started with, and actually have journalists, which would be unique and refreshing,” Malone said last year. That seemed to conform to what public polls indicate many viewers claim to want – unbiased news. But few can agree on what that looks like or if it exists. Nor is it clear they would tune in if it did.Add to that a splintering of audiences that shows no signs of abating, staffing dramas that saw some of CNN’s best known talking heads – Chris Cuomo, Brian Stelter, Jake Tapper – fired, dropped or shuffled, reduced cable carrier income and advertising revenue, $47.5bn in Time Warner-Discovery merger debt to help service, and a stock price that’s halved since April. CNN and Licht are now in an unenviable position.“I hate to say it but when I look ahead, I see problems without end,” one CNN executive told the FT last week.Licht, a former late night showrunner for Stephen Colbert’s Late Show, looked to shore up confidence in his vision at an all-hands meeting with staff last week.“I own the vision for this place,” he said, according to Insider. Under questioning from employees, Licht rejected the view that he is under guidance of CNN’s corporate parent. “I did not take this job to take dictation from anybody,” he said.But in an interview with the FT, Licht appeared to push back on that previously enunciated vision of seeking a middle ground. “One of the biggest misconceptions about my vision is that I want to be vanilla, that I want to be centrist. That is bullshit,” he said. “You have to be compelling. You have to have edge. In many cases you take a side.”New ‘objective’ CNN appears to be making itself objectively rightwingRead moreIt’s a debate that courses through newsrooms in search of audiences that may no longer exist in the way they once did. In this absence are arguments about where they would stand if indeed they did. “There is a mighty fine line between avoiding partisan hype, and journalism as difference-splitting, centrist triangulation,” noted Jon Allsop in the Columbia Journalism Review over the summer.Jay Rosen, a professor of journalism at New York University, believes Licht’s vision of serving a hypothetical news-consuming family – “everyone’s network” – is not easy to achieve.“Chris Licht believes that CNN devoted too much time to Trump coverage and politics, and in looking for short-term ratings CNN became over-dependent, like a sugar-high, on Trump, politics generally and punditry. A lot of people would agree with that.”But the reality may be that it’s hard for any media organization to turn away from an era of political discord because it has been so good for ratings and profits. Also, in the short-term at least, the discord does not appear to be going anywhere.Projections by S&P Global Market Intelligence in August forecast that CNN’s profitability is on a pace to decline to $956m this year. That is still a hefty sum but it marks the first time it has fallen below a billion since Trump was elected.An easy fix might be to ramp up opinionated content again but that is not the vision that Licht has enunciated. “He thinks of CNN as a powerful news brand and wants to protect it,” Rosen believes.Sexy khakis and giant graphics: how US TV pundits spent election nightRead moreBut what could be broken is an old view of news and particularly political coverage. Standing between two parties, similar in structure but standing for different ideologies, was only possible when both had similar aims – acquiring power on agreed terms of play. With the rise of Trump and the embrace by large swathes of the Republican party of election denialism, that model no longer works.“The picture doesn’t fit the world if you have a candidate running against the system and trying to blow up what the other party is doing as a normal party. The press can try to say we’re in the middle between a war of extremes, but it isn’t that and it’s produced a crisis for consensus practice,” Rosen said.And that’s what Licht, CNN and others in the media may now be facing. “The press has to decide how to do journalism in the presence of a threat to the democracy that permits the journalism we do,” Rosen said. TopicsCNNTV newsUS politicsfeaturesReuse this content More

    • 138 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      Crime coverage on Fox News halved once US midterms were over

      by

      Crime coverage on Fox News halved once US midterms were overJust a week after elections, number of weekly segments focused on crime slashed in half on Rupert Murdoch’s flagship network In the weeks leading up to the US midterm elections, the message from Fox News was clear: violent crime is surging, cities are dangerous hellscapes and Democrats are responsible.With the vote over, however, the rightwing news channel appeared to decide things weren’t that bad after all, and decreased its coverage of violent crime by 50% compared with the pre-election average.Murdoch v Trump: Rupert’s papers kick Donald, but Fox won’t play ballRead moreMedia Matters for America, a media watchdog, found that each week from Labor Day until the Friday before the Tuesday 8 November vote, the network averaged 141 segments on crime across weekdays. The blanket crime coverage matched the Republican party’s efforts to depict violent crime as out of control, and portray Democrats as responsible.In the week of the midterms, however, once voting was over, Fox News aired just 71 segments on violent crime, Media Matters reported.“I think this shows pretty clearly that the amount of Fox coverage of violent crime doesn’t really have anything to do with the level of violent crime in America – it has to do with the political benefits,” said Matt Gertz, a senior fellow at Media Matters.“It crescendoed right before election day, and then once the election was over, so was America’s crime crisis no longer the subject of maximum concern that it had been in the previous weeks.”Media Matters noted that Fox News crime coverage had increased somewhat in recent days after the shooting at the University of Virginia and the student killings in Idaho, but said “the coverage was notably less focused on painting Democratic cities as crime-infested”.Fox News declined to comment.Gertz said Tucker Carlson, Fox News’ most-watched host, had a big part to play in the coverage – and in how Republicans across the country used crime as an issue. In a monologue in August, Carlson advised Republican politicians to focus their campaigns on “law and order”, which he said would result in a “red wave” in the midterms.Republicans did just that, spending millions on ads which highlighted instances of violent crime and portrayed Democrats, like John Fetterman, running for US Senate in Pennsylvania, as responsible. The Washington Post reported that Republicans spent nearly $50m on ads focused on crime between 5 September and 25 October, far outspending Democrats on the issue.The network’s focus on a singular issue in the lead-up to an election is nothing new, Gertz said. He said ahead of the 2014 midterm elections the Ebola outbreak became a repeated issue on Fox News, with the network blaming Barack Obama for the spread of the virus.In 2016 Hillary Clinton’s emails became the hot topic, while in 2018 Fox News picked up on a so-called “migrant caravan”, using it to bolster Donald Trump’s midterm election sell that the country needed to elect more Republicans to enact tougher immigration laws.“It’s a play that they’ve run over and over again in elections over the past decade,” Gertz said.“Fox does this every time they come up with some sort of message that they want to push, and they try to get Republicans to adopt it, and they try to get the mainstream press to adopt it as well,” he added.“And so the question becomes: to what extent is the mainstream press going to take the bait and turn it into a multiplier effect – where they are repeating Fox’s message and the debate in the final days of the elections is turning on whatever Fox wanted to talk about?”It seems this time neither the mainstream media nor voters took the bait.Carlson’s “red wave” failed to materialize in the midterm vote, as Republican candidates largely underperformed expectations.Fetterman, the target of repeated attacks by Fox News and numerous crime ads from his opponent, Mehmet Oz, won his race by almost 5%, and while having been predicted to make significant gains in Congress, Republicans only narrowly took control of the House, and Democrats retained the Senate.TopicsFox NewsUS crimeUS midterm elections 2022US politicsnewsReuse this content More

    • 150 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      Murdoch v Trump: Rupert’s papers kick Donald, but Fox won’t play ball

      by

      Murdoch v Trump: Rupert’s papers kick Donald, but Fox won’t play ballSome think the media mogul has made a clean break with ‘Trumpty Dumpty’, but his TV channel may find it hard to let go Rupert Murdoch’s newspapers don’t do subtlety when it comes to political attacks.Over the last week, readers of his US titles have been informed that Donald Trump is “Trumpty Dumpty”, the “biggest loser” in Republican politics, and the man who meant the “red wave” never crested in the US midterm elections.The New York Post marked Trump’s latest bid for election with something more damning: outright mockery.Under the headline: “Florida Man makes announcement,” the formerly pro-Trump newspaper directed readers to a story deep inside the newspaper on page 28.“With just 720 days to go before the next election, a Florida retiree made the surprise announcement Tuesday night that he was running for president,” said the deadpan news report.The tabloid’s print edition has a dwindling readership but the former US president is still said to be a regular reader – which means it probably hurt when they mocked his Mar-a-Lago home – raided by the FBI in August – as a “classified documents library”.Yet while the newspaper editorials have led to suggestions that Murdoch has completed a clean break with the former US president, this misses the more positive reaction on Murdoch’s Fox News television channel.“Murdoch has very little control over his most important outlet, which is Fox,” said Michael Wolff, the media commentator who has written three books on Trump.“Let’s assume Murdoch was giving a message to the Post … he can’t do that at Fox. And Fox is the all-important thing.”Although there has been criticism of Trump on Fox News in recent weeks, several presenters such as Sean Hannity and Tucker Carlson have their own loyal audiences who have been fed pro-Trump material for years. A rapid U-turn may be too much for them to take, especially if the network is accused of betrayal.As Wolff puts it: “Each of the voices at Fox is going to be motivated by their own ratings – and if their own ratings are dependent on Trump then they’re not going to deviate. Hannity does not seem to have deviated one increment off his absolute fealty to Trump. Tucker likewise.”In the background is Murdoch’s attempt to reunite two parts of his business empire and ultimately hand over control to his 51-year-old son, Lachlan. The family’s main media interests are separated into two businesses as a result of the News of the World phone-hacking scandal, which saw the legally troubled outlets separated.The core business is the US-focused television business Fox, while the newspaper assets – including its UK titles – are controlled by News Corp.Combining the two makes little business sense but would tidy up family succession planning, according to the media analyst Alice Enders: “It’s not about Rupert being back in charge, it’s about Lachlan taking over and pursuing the same traditional classic conservative agenda.”She said that it would be hard for Fox News to find a way to let go of Trump without risking some of the hundreds of millions of dollars of advertising that flows to the network.“Fox is the jewel in the crown. The influence that the Murdochs want to exercise is through Fox News. What’s super interesting is they want to maintain their currency as the go-to news channel for conservative voters – and they have to do that in a way that balances the Trumpistas against everyone.”The focus on US politics also reflects a physical change in Rupert Murdoch’s location.He has spent a substantial time in the UK in recent years alongside his now ex-wife Jerry Hall and his daughter Elisabeth.During the Covid pandemic they were based at an Oxfordshire mansion, where he took the decision to sign up Piers Morgan for the launch of TalkTV and went to get his Covid vaccine – at the same time that his US media outlets were casting doubts on its effectiveness.Now the recently divorced nonagenarian is increasingly based at a newly acquired ranch in rural Montana, a remote state favoured by billionaires. Official documents show that last month he paid £13,000 to fly the former prime minister Boris Johnson there for a meeting, while corporate filings suggest he is running his business empire from the ranch and has permission to hold board meetings there.This raises the question of which Murdoch is now calling the shots: 91-year-old Rupert or Lachlan, who is managing part of the business from his family home in Australia – working late into the night on video calls due to the time difference.Could Trump’s 2024 campaign keep his legal troubles at bay?Read moreThe Trump years weighed heavily on Murdoch, with Fox News facing a $1.6bn lawsuit over claims it amplified Trump’s false allegations about fraud at a voting machine company after his election defeat. Murdoch’s son James has left the family business and had made barely coded criticisms of Fox News, which hit hard according to Wolff.“In terms of Rupert himself, he has always detested Trump. Trump has been the cross to bear in his life, and the Trump effect at Fox has essentially broken up his family.”Trump, banned from Twitter and struggling to get airtime, has not taken his ostracism lightly, whining that they were favouring Florida governor Ron DeSantis.“NewsCorp – which is Fox, the Wall Street Journal and the no longer great New York Post – is all in for Governor Ron DeSanctimonious,” Trump said.But as Enders puts it: “Murdoch doesn’t back losers. Trump is a loser.”TopicsRupert MurdochDonald TrumpNews CorporationFox NewsUS politicsFoxMedia businessfeaturesReuse this content More

    • 150 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      The Successor review: life of Lachlan Murdoch pulls punches all too often

      by

      The Successor review: life of Lachlan Murdoch pulls punches all too oftenReaders of Paddy Manning’s book should keep in mind the words of Media Matters: Fox News is ‘an unchained pro-Trump propaganda outlet that promotes white nationalism’ The Murdochs are in many ways the most important media story of the last 50 years. On three continents their shoddy journalism, blind political ambition, outright racism and unlimited greed have done more damage to democracy than the actions of all their rivals put together.From George Floyd to Hunter Biden: Lachlan Murdoch, Fox News and the year that tested AmericaRead moreThe family’s internal competitions and political alliances are the subjects of dozens of books and documentaries, as well as the inspiration for Succession, the HBO hit now filming its fourth season.The Australian journalist Paddy Manning’s new book focuses on Lachlan Murdoch, the family’s current leader who will be fully in charge if his 91-year old father, Rupert, ever completely retires.This 359-page volume is a gigantic clip shop, giving us the greatest hits of everyone from Roger Ailes’s biographer, Gabe Sherman, to the Vanity Fair media writer Sarah Ellison and the investigative reporter Nick Davies, who broke so many of the details of the Murdoch newspapers’ illegal hacking of voicemails in the pages of this paper.The author’s main problem is that he has no judgment about what’s important to include and what ought to be left out. As a result he gives us equally dense accounts of Lachlan Murdoch’s early, disastrous media investments, the family’s efforts to create a new rugby competition in Australia and the sexual harassment scandal that finally ended the career of Ailes at Fox News.Manning also has no idea about which parts of this story are most important. An early section describes Rupert Murdoch’s brush with insolvency after he over-extended himself in the 1980s. But Manning never mentions the main reason: Murdoch’s vast overpayment of $3bn for Walter Annenberg’s TV Guide and his other Triangle properties in 1988, a purchase which turned out to be about as sensible as Elon Musk’s $44bn purchase of Twitter. Annenberg said he called Warren Buffet for advice about whether to take Murdoch’s bid, and Buffet replied: “Run to the bank!”None of the details of the TV Guide deal appear in these pages. Serious students of the Murdoch saga won’t learn anything new. But there are plenty of eye-popping numbers to remind most of us that the rich are not at all like you and me.The Successor opens with Lachlan relaxing with his wife on a new $30m yacht – a present for Sarah’s 50th birthday – which turns out to be a placeholder for a $175m yacht under construction in a Dutch shipyard. The couple paid “a stunning $37m for a boatshed and jetty at Point Piper, a few minutes’ drive form their $100m Bellevue Hill Mansion”.In 2007, the Murdoch family trust filed notice that each of Rupert Murdoch’s six children was getting $100m of News Corp stock, plus $50m in cash. Which sounds like a lot until you find out that after Disney paid $71bn for various Fox assets, each Murdoch child received “roughly $2bn” in Disney stock.Manning’s inability to make sensible judgments about any of this is suggested by his decision to quote the Massachusetts senator Elizabeth Warren’s spot-on description of Fox News as a “hate-for-profit racket” – and then offer, in his very next sentence, his judgment that Lachlan was “a laid-back Australian and all-round smooth operator: spectacularly rich, impeccably mannered, handsome, open minded, adventurous, savvy, fun”.Similarly, after describing a Sydney mansion bought for $23m in 2009 and renovated for $11.7m, with room for two custom-built Porsche Panamera sedans at $300,000 each, just a few pages later Manning credulously quotes the Murdoch lackey Col Allan on Lachlan’s “deep appreciation of that part of America that’s ignored by the coastal liberal elites. I think it is true that Australia and its egalitarianism has had a profound and very positive effect on Lachlan’s nature and his cultural views”.Egalitarianism?The cost of Rupert Murdoch’s naked nepotism included a $139m settlement News Corp paid in 2013 after the Massachusetts Laborers’ Pension & Annuity Funds alleged that his children on the News Corp board “should be liable for its refusal to investigate and to stop known misconduct at the company”. It was “the largest derivative settlement in the history of Delaware’s court of chancery”.The book veers beyond implausibility when it describes the relationship between Lachlan and Tucker Carlson, who has become one of the Murdochs’ biggest cash cows by pushing racism, xenophobia and wild conspiracy theories. According to Manning the two men, “close in age”, share “a kind of philosophical bent”.After far-right protesters in Charlottesville, Virginia, in 2017 shouted “Jews will not replace us”, Kathryn Hufschmid, married to Lachlan’s brother James, insisted they issue a statement declaring “standing up to Nazis is essential; there are no good Nazis”. According to the New York Times, Kathryn said to her husband: “If we’re not going to say something about fucking Nazis marching Virginia, when are we going to say something?” Lachlan never followed his brother’s lead.The pervasive power of Rupert Murdoch: an extract from Hack Attack by Nick DaviesRead moreCarlson refused to condemn the neo-Nazi protesters and did “a bizarre segment on slavery in which he listed good people who had owned slaves, including Plato, the Aztecs and Thomas Jefferson”.To his credit, Manning quotes the judgment of the activist group Media Matters, that Fox News had become “an unchained pro-Trump propaganda outlet that promotes white nationalism” just “as Lachlan Murdoch’s control over the network steadily increased … he is happy to profit from the forces he continues to unleash”.But then, incredibly, the author describes Lachlan as devoted to “a vibrant marketplace of ideas, serving to raise the standard of public debate”, which “must offer a diversity of news and opinion … His closest advisers say a belief in free speech, in all its diversity, is Lachlan’s ‘north star’”.Why would anyone trust an author who can’t distinguish between racism for profit and celebration of free speech?
      The Successor: The High-Stakes Life of Lachlan Murdoch is published in the US by Sutherland House Books
      TopicsBooksLachlan MurdochRupert MurdochJames MurdochNews CorporationMedia businessFox NewsreviewsReuse this content More