Media

Subterms

    More stories

    • 225 Shares149 Views

      in US Politics

      Gavin Newsom’s podcast has featured Steve Bannon and Charlie Kirk. Is this the way to the White House?

      by

      On the latest episode of This Is Gavin Newsom, the California governor interviewed his Minnesota counterpart, the 2024 Democratic vice-presidential nominee Tim Walz. “Thanks for having me,” Walz said, flashing a cheeky smile. “I’m kinda wondering where I fall on this list of guests.”Walz was not only the first Democrat to make an appearance on Newsom’s splashy new podcast, but also the first participant who had not cast doubt on the 2020 presidential election results or expressed sympathy for the mob that stormed the capitol on January 6.Newsom has billed his podcast, launched at the beginning of March, as a platform for “honest discussions” with those who “agree AND disagree with us”. Many Democrats share his desire to expand their reach and influence across platforms – but his critics recoil at the approach. Newsom doesn’t seem to conduct the interviews as a blue-state leader raring to defend progressive values – or even as a governor whose response to one of the costliest and most destructive natural disasters in recent memory was undermined by a relentless rightwing campaign of rumors and lies. Instead, he seems to take on the role of an anthropologist conducting fieldwork on the forces fueling Maga fervor – and Democrats’ descent into the political wilderness.It’s a potentially high-stakes gambit for the term-limited governor widely believed to have national ambitions.“You’re taking a risk, doing a podcast, doing something to try to fill a void that’s out there and hopefully using it as a platform to try and articulate our values to a broader audience,” Walz told Newsom. “But we’ve not figured this out yet.”Since launching the podcast earlier this month, Newsom has taped a trio of friendly chats with rightwing figures reviled by the left: Steve Bannon, an architect of Donald Trump’s political rise; Charlie Kirk, the founder of the conservative youth group Turning Point USA and a Maga-world darling; and Michael Savage, a longtime conservative talk-radio host whose Trumpian rhetoric preceded the president’s rise. (According to the Wall Street Journal, Newsom sought help from his ex-wife and Trumpworld insider Kimberly Guilfoyle to connect with Kirk and Bannon.)Then came Walz. But the parade of conservatives on the Newsom podcast isn’t likely to stop. At one point during the second episode, Savage suggested another guest: Tucker Carlson. “I agree,” Newsom concurred. “I’m fascinated by him.”Media watchdogs have criticized the lineup, arguing Newsom is elevating and legitimizing rightwing extremists like Kirk, who once suggested Joe Biden should face the death penalty for unspecified “crimes against America”. They were baffled by his praise of Bannon, whom he commended for his “advocacy” and calling “balls and strikes” on the Trump administration.Many Democrats meanwhile have been infuriated by Newsom’s lack of pushback against his guests’ false or misleading claims, and his agreement with them on issues they had long thought he opposed. Newsom didn’t challenge the baseless assertion by Bannon that Trump won the 2020 election. And in his conversation with Kirk, he shocked longtime allies when he agreed that allowing transgender women and girls to compete in female sports was “deeply unfair”.Newsom and his representatives did not answer questions from the Guardian about his podcast. But he has said previously that the idea for it was born from a private conversation with a conservative figure he wished had been recorded. A cross-partisan conversation, he had said, could show that “we don’t hate each other”, despite holding deeply opposing political views.“The world’s changed. We need to change with it in terms of how we communicate,” Newsom told reporters at a press conference in Los Angeles last month. “We’d be as dumb as we want to be if we continue down the old status quo and try to pave over the old cow path. We’ve got to do things differently.”After the 2024 election, Democrats offered many theories about why they lost. There was widespread agreement that to win again, Democrats needed to do a better job of breaking out of their ideological bubbles and reaching voters the party had alienated in recent years. What they needed, some strategists argued, was a “Joe Rogan of the left”.Who is Newsom’s intended audience?For many Democrats and critics of the Maga movement, Newsom’s overtures have gone too far. His chats are doing little to diagnose the problem, and even less to position himself as a solution, they argue.“If you’re running to be a Republican nominee, this is a great strategy,” the California state assembly member Alex Lee, a member of the LGBTQ+ caucus, said earlier this month in response to the governor’s comments on trans athletes. “But if you want to run as a Democrat and someone who is pro-human rights, this is a terrible look.”“Cuddling up to the Charlie Kirks and Steve Bannons of the world and truckling to the Michael Savages … is a strange way to try to build national support among fellow Democrats,” the Los Angeles’s Times longtime political columnist, Mark Barabak, wrote.Andy Beshear, the governor of Kentucky who is also seen as a presidential hopeful, told reporters that the left should be willing to debate “just about anyone” – but that turning over the mic to Bannon was a bridge too far. “Bannon espouses hatred and anger and even at some points violence, and I don’t think we should give him oxygen on any platform, ever, anywhere,” Beshear said.And Adam Kinzinger, a Republican former representative from Illinois turned anti-Trump campaigner who sat on the January 6 committee, said it was “stupid” to talk to Bannon.“Bannon is the author of this chaos we’re seeing right now,” he said in a video posted on X.“Many of us on the right sacrificed our careers taking these people on and Newsom’s trying to make a career with them,” Kinzinger continued. “This is insane.”But perhaps progressive Democrats, and never-Trump Republicans, aren’t Newsom’s intended audience – at least for the moment.“He wants to be in the national conversation for the possibility of running for president,” said David McCuan, a political science professor at Sonoma State University.If he does seek the White House, Newsom will need to prove to his skeptics that he is more nuanced than the rightwing caricature of him as a “knee-jerk liberal”, McCuan argued, the same attack conservatives leveled against Newsom’s “political cousin”, Kamala Harris, in last year’s election.View image in fullscreenThe podcast is the latest iteration in a much broader effort by the governor’s team to show that Newsom has matured politically, McCuan said, and make the case that he is capable of taking on Trump and the heir to Maga.It has certainly catapulted Newsom into the national political conversation, at a moment when his party appears rudderless, divided and desperate for new leadership.Each episode has generated headlines and the endeavor has sparked a wider debate about whether the governor is being savvy, cynical – or both.Howard Polskin, who documents rightwing media on his website TheRighting, said Newsom’s podcast is more about marketing and public relations for Newsom himself than a platform for making content or clearly articulating his political views.“Its value is that he’s getting people talking about himself,” he said. “This is like a page out of the Trump playbook. Doesn’t matter what they’re saying, they are talking about Gavin Newsom.”His conservative guests don’t gain converts from their appearances on Newsom’s show – they already have far larger audiences than the governor anyway, Polskin said, while the governor’s supporters are likely turned off by the rightwing figures he has invited on.But his guests gain something else: access. “Who wouldn’t want a relationship with the governor of California?” Polskin said. “It’s power. It’s proximity to power, someone who could arguably become the next president of the United States.”Polskin said it’s a smart move for Newsom as a branding play, and it’s “gutsy” for him to engage directly with top Magaworld influencers and try to have civil discussions. Whatever Democrats have been doing before clearly wasn’t working, he argued, so why not try something new?It’s a play he expects more Democrats to attempt in the run-up to the next presidential election. “He’s taken a controversial stand here. He’s getting a lot of attention for it. I think that’s smart,” he said.From antagonistic to calculatedWhen asked by a reporter whether the podcast was a “distraction” from his day job as a governor, Newsom said it was not. Opening new lines of communication with constituents – and providing a forum for civil dialogue between political opponents – was “essential” and “important” in an era defined by deep polarization and media fragmentation, he argued.It reflects a slight shift in tactics for the California governor.During Trump’s first term, Newsom, the leader of the largest blue state, embraced the role of liberal antagonist, holding up California as a bulwark against the administration’s attacks on immigrants and the environment.After soundly defeating a Republican recall effort in 2021, and handily winning re-election in 2022, an emboldened Newsom grew his national profile, acting as a prominent surrogate for Joe Biden and frequently taking the fight directly to the right.Before the 2022 congressional midterms, he implored Democrats to launch a “counteroffensive” to defend abortion rights and LGBTQ+ protections. He debated the Florida governor, Ron DeSantis, on Fox News. His political action committee ran ads in Republican states – including ones a Democratic nominee would never hope to win, such as Alabama.But he’s also hedged his bets, barring state legislation that might have wound up in ads fueling California’s ultra-liberal image: Newsom has used his veto pen to reject bills that would have required a warning label on gas stoves and provided free condoms in schools. California’s prison system has long cooperated with federal immigration authorities, and this year the governor vetoed a bill that would have limited state prison officials’ cooperation with Ice.Newsom is taking a far more cautious approach with Trump, too, in the president’s second term. As Trump threatened to withhold federal disaster aid for the state following the devastating wildfires in Los Angeles, Newsom greeted Trump warmly on the tarmac when Trump came to survey the damage. Shortly after, Newsom traveled to Washington for a lengthy Oval Office meeting. “We’re getting along, Trump and I,” he said in one of his podcast episodes.Mike Madrid, a California-based Republican consultant and podcast host, has argued that Newsom not only grasps the depth of Democrats’ engagement deficit but also the the urgency of creating a liberal “media infrastructure” to counter the right’s influence.“He knows he needs to get into that cultural space to be relevant,” Madrid said, noting that the governor is a longtime observer of rightwing media. “It doesn’t necessarily need to be the rightwing media ecosystem, but he’s keenly aware that you can’t just have a large Twitter account like he does and be a dominant national force.” He pointed out that it’s not Newsom’s first foray into podcasting. He also hosts Politickin’ with the former NFL star Marshawn Lynch and his agent, Doug Hendrickson.In an opinion piece for Fox News, Kirk wrote that his invitation to appear on Newsom’s podcast had been part of a “calculated play” by the governor to “present as a centrist” and shed his image in conservative media as the well-coifed leader of liberal America.“It might work,” Kirk warned. “One thing I learned in my podcast experience: the governor isn’t a joke. He has a shark’s instincts and is hoping that voters will have a goldfish’s memory.”Barabak, the LA Times columnist, couldn’t disagree more: “If Newsom really hopes to be president someday, the best thing he could do is a bang-up job in his final 22 months as governor, not waste time on glib and self-flattering diversions.” More

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Farage reportedly met Cummings for ‘friendly chat about the general scene’

      by

      Nigel Farage has reportedly met Dominic Cummings, Boris Johnson’s adviser turned nemesis, after the Vote Leave founder suggested voters should back Reform UK at the local elections.Cummings, who was once a sworn enemy of Farage during the EU referendum as he battled to keep control of the leave campaign, is reported to have met the Reform leader to discuss Whitehall changes, which allies said was the strongest sign yet that Farage was taking seriously the idea of becoming prime minister.Cummings and Farage were at odds for years in the run-up to the referendum and during Cummings’s time at No 10, with Farage calling him a “horrible, nasty little man”. Cummings’s Vote Leave won the official campaign designation during the referendum.According to the Sunday Times, the pair met recently for a “friendly chat about the general scene” including subjects such as US politics, Donald Trump and Elon Musk, as well as “how No 10 and the Cabinet Office really work, about the catastrophe of the Tory party and about what Reform has to do to replace the Tories”. A Reform spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment.Cummings was said to be in advanced talks to launch his own new party – the Start-Up party – but in February he posted on X that he believed voters should now back Reform UK.Asked by one X user on Sunday who he would vote for at the next general election, Cummings wrote: “Dunno yet but obviously everyone should vote Reform this spring … No downsides, just upsides.”In a post on his Substack, Cummings claimed Britain needed a significant political realignment including a merger of the Conservatives with Reform. He wrote: “Shove out Kemi [Badenoch] ASAP, take over Tories, get Trump/Elon to facilitate a merger with Reform, tip in a third force of elite talent and mass energy so voters see an essentially new political force whose essence is a decisive break with 1992-2024 … break the coalition supporting [Keir] Starmer, take over No 10, do regime change.”Farage’s party is on course for a number of gains at the local elections in May, including potentially winning control of eight local councils, according to Electoral Calculus.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionNevertheless, Reform has been in turmoil for the past fortnight due to a significant rift between Farage and Rupert Lowe, one of his former MPs who has been thrown out of the party in a battle over bullying allegations and referred to the police. Lowe had criticised Farage in a Daily Mail interview and since claimed he had been censored by the party on immigration issues. More

    • 150 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      The ‘Iron Mountain’ hoax: how anti-Vietnam war satire sparked today’s conspiracy theories

      by

      We live in a ­blizzard of fake news, ­disinformation and ­conspiracy theories. It’s tempting to blame this on social media – which does indeed ­exacerbate the problem. And AI deepfakes promise to make the situation even worse. But at root this is not about technology: it’s about how humans think, as an astonishing case that long predates the internet reveals. This is an amazing story – about the perils of amazing stories.In November 1967, at the height of the war in Vietnam, a strange ­document was published in New York. Report from Iron Mountain was the work of a top-secret “­special study group” recruited by the Kennedy administration to scope out what would happen to the US if permanent global peace broke out. It warned the end of war, and of the fear of war, would wreck America’s economy, even its whole society. To replace the effects, extreme measures would be required – eugenics, fake alien scares, pollution, blood games. Even slavery. The report was so incendiary it had been suppressed, but one of the study group leaked it, determined that the public learn the truth. It caused a furore. The worried memos, demanding someone check if this document was real, went all the way up to President Johnson.View image in fullscreenIn reality, as the White House eventually realised, Report from Iron Mountain was a hoax. It was the brainchild of leftwing satirists: Victor Navasky, editor of a magazine called Monocle, his colleagues, and a fellow satirist, Leonard Lewin, who wrote it with the help of luminaries like the famous economist and former US ambassador to India, JK Galbraith. Their goal was to expose what they saw as the insanity driving the intervention in Vietnam, and the whole of the cold war. By presenting their fake report as a real leak, they aimed to make people ask if this insane document might be real – and what that said about the people running the US government.And it worked. To young Americans living under the shadow of conscription, Report seemed all too plausible. Officials whispered to journalists that some of their ­colleagues really did think like this. Once the hoax had its satirical impact, Lewin came clean. But his work was so convincing it began to take on a life of its own.In the late 1980s, Report from Iron Mountain was discovered by the extreme right, which was convinced it was real. It was republished by a company called the Noontide Press, part of a network of fringe organisations that were among America’s primary promoters of Holocaust denial. These ­people were convinced they had found the smoking gun, confirming their darkest suspicions about the government’s secret plots to start wars and control the ­public. A ­horrified Lewin embarked on a long legal battle to take back control of his work and its true, meaning.But meanwhile, the militia movement spreading across the US seized on Report from Iron Mountain, as fuel for its paranoid visions of imminent oppression at the hands of the ­one-world government and its black helicopters. And Lewin’s creation found its way to Hollywood. In JFK, Oliver Stone’s 1991 movie about the Kennedy assassination, the great revelation about why the president was assassinated hinges on a character repeating the hoax’s claims in the belief that they were disturbing truths.View image in fullscreenReport even spawned a secondary hoax: Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars. This ­purported to be the operations ­manual that helped the elite control its ­sheeple-civilians. This strange text was first popularised by the pioneering conspiracist Milton William Cooper, who ­published it in Behold a Pale Horse, his influential compendium of ­conspiracy theories. Cooper also included extracts from Report from Iron Mountain itself (and, horrifyingly, another hoax: that notorious antisemitic forgery The Protocols of the Elders of Zion). Silent Weapons has often been cited by arch ­conspiracist Alex Jones and has been invoked by “Q”, the ostensible government insider revered by the QAnon movement.Lewin and his colleagues had contrived their hoax so expertly that they inadvertently created “evidence” for a host of conspiracy theories. It could be used to explain everything from why wars end to the real reasons behind lockdown, from environmental regulations and terrorist attacks to the fiery end of a cult in Waco, Texas.The reasoning at work here is revealing. If something in Report chimes with what is really happening in the world, the conspiracist’s logic runs, that cannot be a coincidence. Rather, it exposes the secret motives that caused that reality. The ­principle here – a ­consistent fallacy of ­conspiracy theory – is that “nothing is accidental”. One online ­analysis of Report from Iron Mountain in 2014 even decided the fact Lewin later wrote a novel was an attempt to ­retrospectively create a cover ­identity so he could pretend Report was fiction too.And yet the fate of this all-too-successful hoax also suggests what we might need to do to ­counter this kind of thinking. In a political ­climate roiled by conspiracy ­theories and disinformation, the tale of Report from Iron Mountain is a warning about the ­consequences of taking your eye off the line between compelling stories and what we know to be true.Phil Tinline is the author of Ghosts of Iron Mountain: The Hoax That Duped America and Its Sinister Legacy, which will be published by Head of Zeus on 27 March. More

    • 75 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Confirm or Deny: Graydon Carter Edition

      by

      A king of the glossy-magazine era sits for a lightning-round interview.Maureen Dowd: Annie Leibovitz took your passport photo.Graydon Carter: She took my passport photo.You were told to sod off by James Bond.Confirm! One year I invited all the men who played James Bond to the Oscar party. For one reason or another, all but one were either working or unavailable. We got George Lazenby, who had appeared in the pre-Sean Connery era in “On Her Majesty’s Secret Service.” I spotted him at the bar by himself. I went over and introduced myself. He just looked straight ahead and then turned and in the sort of fragrant language not generally permitted in a high class newspaper, told me to buzz off.When you were at Time — and single — you wrote fun tidbits for the “People” page, and you had a romantic encounter with the young woman who wrote Newsweek’s version of the people page, called “Newsmakers.”No comment.The two funniest non-comedians you’ve ever met are George Clooney and Anderson Cooper.In both cases, they were so funny that I had to tell them to stop because I thought my trachea would break.When a New York Times push alert announced the news of your departure from Vanity Fair, multiple friends later told you that seeing your name pop up on their phone, they assumed it was because you died.Yes, and for some of them, it put a spring in their step.Anna Wintour should retire.Absolutely not. I think she can go on for decades.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

    • 163 Shares109 Views

      in Elections

      Newsmax agrees to pay $40m to settle defamation suit over false election claims

      by

      The conservative news outlet Newsmax agreed to pay the voting equipment company Smartmatic $40m last year as part of a settlement in a defamation suit over Newsmax’s decision to broadcast false claims about the 2020 election, a new filing revealed.The parties did not reveal details of the settlement when it was reached in September, but Newsmax disclosed the settlement amount in a public 7 March financial filing. The news outlet said it had also offered Smartmatic the option to buy stock in the company and that it had paid $20m of the settlement amount so far.A Newsmax spokesperson declined to comment beyond the statement the company issued after the settlement last year.Smartmatic voting equipment was only used in one jurisdiction in the United States during the 2020 election. Nonetheless, allies of Donald Trump and other conservative outlets repeated false claims that the company hacked votes and sent them overseas.Smartmatic sued Newsmax, the far-right network One America News and Fox for defamation, claiming they broadcast false claims about the company after the 2020 election. It previously settled with One America News and the case against Fox is ongoing. In January, A New York appellate judge said the company’s $2.7bn suit against Fox could proceed.Fox agreed to pay Dominion voting systems, another voting equipment company, $787.5m to settle a defamation suit over election claims in 2023.All of the cases are being closely watched by first amendment scholars as tests of whether libel law could be an effective tool for curbing misinformation. In the case between Dominion and Fox, for example, the legal process made public internal Fox messages showing prominent hosts and key personnel were aware the information about the company was false. More

    • 125 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump official defending Doge filmed fashion influencer videos from office

      by

      The chief spokesperson for the agency overseeing mass firings as Donald Trump and Elon Musk slash the federal workforce used her office to record fashion influencer videos even as thousands of workers were losing their jobs.McLaurine Pinover, communications director at the US office of personnel management (OPM), posted several Instagram videos during business hours in which she posed in different outfits, CNN reported.One video was posted on 13 February, the day OPM reportedly directed several agencies to lay off thousands of employees with probationary status, including about 20 people on Pinover’s own team.Pinover has issued numerous statements backing moves to fire federal workers, including describing a controversial directive for all workers to list five things they achieve each week as “a commitment to an efficient and accountable federal workforce”.CNN said Pinover did not respond to questions but said she deleted her Instagram account minutes after being approached for comment. Pinover’s LinkedIn page appeared to have been taken down, too.Videos published by CNN showed Pinover in her office, showing herself wearing various clothing outfits with hashtags including “#dcstyle” and “#dcinfluencer” and the song Busy Woman by Sabrina Carpenter.One post was made on Tuesday, the day the Department of Education announced it was cutting half its workforce, CNN said.Pinover may have benefited from affiliate links to buy clothes in her videos, CNN said, though it noted that she only had approximately 800 followers to her account.Former OPM staffers told CNN the videos were filmed in the office of the communications director, across the hall from an annex used by workers for the so-called “department of government efficiency” (Doge), Musk’s vehicle for imposing cuts.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionOne unnamed former staffer said: “I saw it, and I was like, ‘Are you kidding me, that’s my office.’ She’s the spokesperson for the agency that is advocating for the firing based on performance and efficiency of the rest of the government workforce, and she’s using government property as a backdrop for her videos.”Jack Miller, Pinover’s predecessor as OPM communications director under Joe Biden, said: “Your number one job as a leader is to protect and support your people. So instead of fighting tooth and nail to keep your team, we’re posting fashion videos. It’s absurd.”Donald K Sherman, chief counsel for the watchdog Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, told CNN: “It is highly problematic that while dedicated civil servants who want to work for the government are being fired for all manner of dubious reasons, or are being forced out by this administration, that someone at the agency leading that attack on the civil service is using their government job for private gain.” More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      US added to international watchlist for rapid decline in civic freedoms

      by

      The United States has been added to the Civicus Monitor Watchlist, which identifies countries that the global civil rights watchdog believes are currently experiencing a rapid decline in civic freedoms.Civicus, an international non-profit organization dedicated to “strengthening citizen action and civil society around the world”, announced the inclusion of the US on the non-profit’s first watchlist of 2025 on Monday, alongside the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Italy, Pakistan and Serbia.The watchlist is part of the Civicus Monitor, which tracks developments in civic freedoms across 198 countries. Other countries that have previously been featured on the watchlist in recent years include Zimbabwe, Argentina, El Salvador and the United Arab Emirates.Mandeep Tiwana, co-secretary general of Civicus, said that the watchlist “looks at countries where we remain concerned about deteriorating civic space conditions, in relation to freedoms of peaceful assembly, association and expression”.The selection process, the website states, incorporates insights and data from Civicus’s global network of research partners and data.The decision to add the US to the first 2025 watchlist was made in response to what the group described as the “Trump administration’s assault on democratic norms and global cooperation”.In the news release announcing the US’s addition, the organization cited recent actions taken by the Trump administration that they argue will likely “severely impact constitutional freedoms of peaceful assembly, expression, and association”.The group cited several of the administration’s actions such as the mass termination of federal employees, the appointment of Trump loyalists in key government positions, the withdrawal from international efforts such as the World Health Organization and the UN Human Rights Council, the freezing of federal and foreign aid and the attempted dismantling of USAid.The organization warned that these decisions “will likely impact civic freedoms and reverse hard-won human rights gains around the world”.The group also pointed to the administration’s crackdown on pro-Palestinian protesters, and the Trump administration’s unprecedented decision to control media access to presidential briefings, among others.Civicus described Trump’s actions since taking office as an “unparalleled attack on the rule of law” not seen “since the days of McCarthyism in the twentieth century”, stating that these moves erode the checks and balances essential to democracy.“Restrictive executive orders, unjustifiable institutional cutbacks, and intimidation tactics through threatening pronouncements by senior officials in the administration are creating an atmosphere to chill democratic dissent, a cherished American ideal,” Tiwana said.In addition to the watchlist, the Civicus Monitor classifies the state of civic space in countries using five ratings: open, narrowed, obstructed, repressed and closed.Currently, the US has a “narrowed” rating, which it also had during the Biden administration, meaning that while citizens can exercise their civic freedom, such as rights to association, peaceful assembly and expression, occasional violations occur.For part of Trump’s first term, Tiwana said, the US had been categorized as “obstructed”, due to the administration’s response to the Black Lives Matter protests and restrictive state laws that were enacted limiting the rights of environmental justice protesters, and other actions.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionUnder Joe Biden, the classification went back to “narrowed”, Tiwana, said, but as of Monday, the US has been placed on the watchlist as the group says it sees “significant deterioration” in civic freedoms occurring.Tiwana noted that the US is again seemingly headed toward the “obstructed” category.While the Trump administration often say they support fundamental freedoms and individual rights, like free speech, Tiwana believes that the administration seem “to be wanting to support these only for people who they see as agreeing with them”.Historically, Tiwana said, the US has been “considered the beacon of democracy and defense of fundamental freedoms”.“It was an important pillar of US foreign policy, even though it was imperfect, both domestically and how the US promoted it abroad,” he added.But Tiwana believes that the recent actions and statements made by this US administration could empower authoritarian regimes around the world, undermine constitutional principles, and embolden those who “want to accumulate power and increase their wealth and their ability to stay in power for as long as possible”.Tiwana says that he and the organization want to draw attention to the fact that those in power in the US are, in his view, engaging in a “zero-sum politics game” that is eroding “constitutional principles and frankly, engaging in, anti American behavior”.“We urge the United States to uphold the rule of law and respect constitutional and international human rights norms,” said Tiwana. More

    • 175 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Democrats are reeling. Is Stephen A Smith the way back to the White House?

      by

      The View, one of the US’s most popular daytime television programmes, was a vital campaign stop last year for Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. This week, it played host to a cable sports channel personality who might be nurturing political ambitions of his own.Stephen A Smith was asked by co-host Alyssa Farah Griffin what he makes of hypothetical polls that show him among the leading contenders for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2028.“I make of it that citizens, particularly on the left, are desperate,” Smith said in characteristically forthright style. “And I mean it when I say it: I think I can beat them all.”Despite – or because of – his lack of political experience, Smith is emerging as an unlikely force in a Democratic party badly in need of critical friends, fresh ideas and blunt truth-telling. The idea of him running for the White House remains wildly speculative – but speaks volumes about a shift in the US media ecosystem and a blurring of the lines between culture, entertainment and politics.The 57-year-old, born Stephen Anthony Smith in the Bronx in New York, began his career in print journalism, writing for newspapers such as the Philadelphia Inquirer, then made his name as a broadcaster, especially on ESPN. Smith is now the co-host of First Take, where he shares provocative opinions on basketball and other topics.His fans include Kurt Bardella, a media relations consultant and Democratic strategist who watches First Take “religiously”. Bardella said: “He is out there with passion and charisma and he provokes emotion and conversation and debate. He has become the singular most influential person in all of sports.“We live in a time where our politics is shaped and informed by culture more than at any time in our history. There’s that old adage that politics is just culture downstream, and Stephen A is a good embodiment of that.”Smith’s star continues to rise. It emerged this week that he had agreed to a new ESPN contract worth at least $100m for five years. He will continue on First Take but reduce other sports-related obligations, increasing his opportunities for political commentary: in recent months he has appeared on Fox News, NewsNation and HBO’s Real Time with Bill Maher.The Stephen A Smith Show, which streams on YouTube and iHeart, has featured interviews with Hakeem Jeffries, the House of Representatives Democratic minority leader; rightwing personality Candace Owens; and Andrew Cuomo, in his first interview since announcing his candidacy for New York mayorThe political chatter around Smith is also a symptom of the demoralisation in the leaderless Democratic party following last November’s defeat in elections for the White House, House and Senate. This week, for example, Democrats struggled to find a coherent response to Trump’s address to a joint session of Congress.After nominating Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris in past elections, some in the party hunger for a fighter in the mould of Trump, an outsider not beholden to the traditional political establishment. And witnessing the rise of podcasters such as Joe Rogan and an entire “Maga” media ecosystem, they crave a liberal alternative.In Smith, they see a bracing energy. He voted for Harris but has been outspoken in criticising Democrats for failing to connect with voters and for prioritising niche issues – which in his view includes the transgender community – and failing to address the concerns of a broader electorate.In January, appearing alongside the Democratic representative Ro Khanna on Real Time with Bill Maher, he offered a blistering diagnosis of why Democrats lost to Trump: “The man was impeached twice, he was convicted on 34 felony counts and the American people still said: ‘He’s closer to normal than what we see on the left.’”Smith added: “What voter can look at the Democrat party and say: ‘There’s a voice for us, somebody who speaks for us, that goes up on Capitol Hill and fights the fights that we want them fighting on our behalf’?”His gift for storytelling and communicating impresses Bardella, a former spokesperson and senior adviser for Republicans on the House oversight committee. Bardella said: “His style of speaking, the directness, the boldness, the bombastic at times kind of PT Barnum-esque quality that he brings to the conversation is exactly what Democrats are lacking and exactly what made Donald Trump the showman such an appealing character to begin with when he arrived on the stage.“Rather than just dismiss it or make fun of it or ignore it, Democrats would be wise to study what makes him so successful because there is nobody in the Democratic party that is as relevant a voice on a day-to-day basis as Stephen A Smith.”It was striking that a January poll by McLaughlin & Associates for the 2028 Democratic nomination decided to include him in a survey that put Kamala Harris at 33%, Pete Buttigieg at 9%, Gavin Newsom at 7%, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez at 6%, Josh Shapiro at 3%, Tim Walz at 3% and Smith at 2%.Still, many Democrats would think twice before gambling on an outsider such as Smith or the billionaire businessman Mark Cuban. Lack of experience could be a liability in the eyes of some voters. Smith’s controversial statements and “yelling” style could alienate certain segments of the electorate. The perception of Smith as a celebrity candidate could undermine his credibility.Bill Whalen, a former media consultant for politicians including the former California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, said Smith’s eloquence and in-your-face style could be appealing to voters in this political moment: “But the question is, what does Stephen A Smith believe in at the end of the day? He’s been very vocal criticising the Democratic party. What positions does he hold? What does he believe in?“The fact is, if you’re going to run for a party’s nomination in America, there are about a half a dozen or so issues in which you need to be on the right side. Otherwise, you’re not going to go very far. Where is Stephen A Smith on abortion? Where is he on DEI? Where is he on quotas and affirmative action? Where is he on crime? Where is he on spending?“The list goes on. You just don’t know, so my advice to any Democrat looking at this is: before you become a Stephen A Smith supporter, give him a questionnaire and have him fill it out and see what the answers are.”Whether Smith, who has a recurring guest-acting role on the ABC soap opera General Hospital, would want to take on a gruelling election campaign is far from certain.He has expressed ambivalence on the topic but told the Daily Mail last month that “if the American people came to me and looked at me and said ‘Yo, man, we want you to run for office’, and I had a legitimate shot to win the presidency of the United States, I’m not gonna lie. I’ll think about that.”But on Friday, Smith’s agent, Mark Shapiro, sought to quell the rumours, insisting at a conference in Boston: “He will not run for president. He’s going to continue to entertain those conversations, but he will not run for president.”Still, the buzz reveals a bigger picture about Democratic soul-searching in the aftermath of election defeat. Trump proved effective at exploiting the new media ecology of podcasts, TikTok and other platforms in portraying the party as elitist, out of touch and obsessed with “woke” issues. Some Democrats are now recalibrating – for example, by removing gender pronouns from their social media accounts.David Litt, an author and former speechwriter for Barack Obama, said: “Democrats, for most of my lifetime, which is 38 years at this point, sort of assumed we are dominant in the culture, whether or not we’re dominant politically. One of the things we learned from this most recent election is, that may not be the case and either things are more even than we thought or, I would even argue, the right, at least during the election season, took an advantage in the culture.“It’s important that Democrats are saying our ‘political voices’ may not come from the world of politics, particularly at a moment when people are deeply sceptical of politicians. Who are some people who have ways of thinking and communicating that don’t sound like every politician out there? That search and that openness is going to end up being pretty useful and pretty important one way or the other.” More