Newsmax Media

Subterms

    Latest story

    88 Shares149 Views

    Are the Elite Anti-Trumpers the ‘Bad Guys’?

    by

    Readers react to David Brooks’s suggestion that the elite are partly to blame for Trumpism.To the Editor:Re “What if We’re the Bad Guys Here?,” by David Brooks (column, Aug. 4):I am sick and tired of people like Mr. Brooks telling me that I am the problem or the “bad guy” because I am educated (and no, I was not educated at an Ivy League school, and neither of my parents finished high school) to justify the fact that 35 percent of the population are fervent supporters of Donald Trump, no matter what he says or does.Moreover, Mr. Trump is also part of the elite, but his supporters simply ignore this. This is not because he identifies with them in any way (as a golden-haired billionaire living in a mansion), but because Fox, Newsmax, and other right-wing TV and radio media outlets, right-wing militias and Trump puppet politicians in Congress essentially brainwashed them with their daily dose of propaganda about how the “left wing socialists and communists,” “elites,” the “woke,” etc., are all conspiring to take their country and only Donald Trump can stop them.In my opinion, this is the biggest problem, Mr. Brooks, not educated Americans who as you correctly state are “are earnest, kind and public spirited.”So, let’s not beat ourselves up because the other side has been completely brainwashed, does not accept facts, scientific and otherwise, is obsessed with conspiracies and lives in a right-wing echo chamber.Michael HadjiargyrouCenterport, N.Y.To the Editor:While I grew up in a small Midwestern town in a middle-class family, education has offered me a satisfying life with a secure retirement. Many of my classmates who chose a more blue-collar life path have endured more struggles, starting with military service in Vietnam. I am quite confident that many of them today support Donald Trump, at least partly for the reasons that David Brooks suggests.Mr. Brooks’s column was a brilliant, moving description of the unspoken arrogance of many of us who are left-leaning. I believe that some sincere humility and understanding with regard to the concerns of many who feel left behind would go a long way to healing some of our divisions. Thanks to Mr. Brooks for his insight.David MahanSebring, Fla.To the Editor:Fine: I’ll accept David Brooks’s plea that we not blame the logic-defying viability of Donald Trump on the wrongheadedness of tens of millions of Americans. I get the class resentment. I share the rage against excessive political correctness and the feeling that immigration is unchecked and overwhelming. I see his point that the elite stoke these resentments by voicing our support for the nonelite while spending most of our energy and resources protecting our own class privilege.But let’s not gloss over the main factor here: Mr. Trump is the latest version of a leader who is little more than a self-obsessed expert at exploiting and inflaming the fear and resentments of the masses to benefit his own power and ego. Such a leader cares nothing about those who harbor these resentments, and certainly does not share the same fears.On a more practical note, those who resent wokeism are shooting themselves in the foot by supporting someone who so many Americans, elite and otherwise, would vote for over their proverbial dead bodies.Brian SmithDayton, OhioTo the Editor:The irony behind the case that David Brooks makes for Donald Trump’s support is that this support is based entirely on words (primarily offensive) and not actions. What did Mr. Trump do as president to help his supporters and make their lives better?His major accomplishment was the tax reform enacted in 2017, which heavily favored the rich and elites (including himself). His supporters love the way he attacks his “enemies” and anyone who disagrees with him and feel he speaks for them. The lack of actual benefits they have enjoyed seems not to matter.Ellen S. HirschNew YorkTo the Editor:Donald Trump, as loathsome as he is, has done one significant service for this country. He has made clear the great social divide that David Brooks describes in his excellent column. Now, how to fix it?As a former naval officer and Vietnam veteran, I would suggest universal national service, with almost no exemptions. Being forced to live with, eat with, work with people from all over the country would teach all of us to be more tolerant. This would not just be military service; it would include working in national parks, teaching in underserved schools, and many other forms of service to the nation.The only thing standing in the way is a timid Congress. Is there anyone in Congress brave enough to take this on?Jeffrey CallahanClevelandTo the Editor:David Brooks makes a familiar and not unreasonable argument about how the fear, resentment and sense of alienation that fuel the cult of Trumpism proceed from economic and cultural realities for which liberal elites are, in large part, responsible.When Mr. Brooks asks, however, whether anti-Trumpers should consider whether they are the “bad guys,” he embarks on an analysis that completely excludes millions of people like me who find Donald Trump and Trumpism appalling, without being “elite” at all.I was raised in a row home in northeast Philly by a single mom who was a cop. My dad was a union construction worker. I’ve been a musician and a bartender for most of my adult life. In short, I’m hardly part of the elite class that Mr. Brooks seems to equate with the anti-Trump movement, and yet I’m passionately anti-Trump!Maybe this particular piece simply wasn’t aimed at people like me, and that’s fine. But all too often I see this oversimplified, false duality that leaves out all the decent working-class people who have themselves been hurt by neoliberal policies and narratives, and yet would never channel their frustration into an odious movement like Trumpism. When we condemn Mr. Trump and his followers, we do so with a clean conscience.James A. LeponeTelford, Pa.To the Editor:David Brooks identifies the privileges enjoyed by the highly educated class and the resentment of the less educated class that might cause them to be ardent supporters of Donald Trump. Mr. Brooks concludes with a warning that history is the graveyard of classes with preferred caste privileges.What he fails to consider is that in the United States his identified “upper” class encourages, both by words and action, members of the “lower” class to join it. Nothing would make those with college or graduate degrees happier than if every capable child joined their class. This differs very much from any true caste system.Jack SternSetauket, N.Y.To the Editor:David Brooks’s column gave me a new perspective regarding why people support this obvious con man named Donald Trump. Although Mr. Brooks makes excellent points regarding the anger that people feel, is it not the Democrats who advocate and pass legislation regarding the minimum wage, infrastructure, child care, education, the environment, middle-class tax relief, financial assistance with community colleges and technical schools, etc., all for the benefit of working- and middle-class Americans?Mr. Trump and the current crop of Republicans have done nothing to help these people. In light of this, isn’t propaganda from Mr. Trump and his followers, as well as the cynical right-wing media, also to blame for this misplaced anger and anti-democratic sentiment?We’re not the bad guys. Donald Trump and Rupert Murdoch are.Phillip L. RosenVenice Beach, Calif.To the Editor:David Brooks does an excellent job of setting up a straw man to bring down. Most liberals aren’t part of the “elite,” no matter how many right-wingers parrot that lie.Exit polls from 2020 found that Joe Biden outpaced Donald Trump significantly among voters making less than $100,000 a year, while Mr. Trump did better among those making $100,000 or more. Mr. Trump is no friend to the working class, and polls like these give me confidence that a majority of the working class recognizes this. And any member of the working class who supports him or today’s extreme-right Republican Party is going against their own best interests.It’s liberals and Democrats (usually but not always the same) who support policies to empower workers and reduce economic inequality, and the other side doesn’t give a damn. Liberals are not the elite and are not the enemy of the working class.Trudy RingBend, Ore. More

    More stories

    • 88 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Why ‘Succession’ Is a Work of Fantasy

      by

      It was interesting, after writing last week’s newsletter on the problems of conservative media, to watch Sunday’s episode of HBO’s “Succession,” in which the show’s lightly fictionalized version of Fox News, run by its somewhat more meaningfully fictionalized version of the Fox-owning Murdoch family, takes center stage for an imagined election night. (There will be some spoilers below, fair warning.) Between the Dominion Voting Systems settlement and the Tucker Carlson firing, we’ve had a lot of real-world Fox drama lately, and the contrast between reality and fiction tells us something interesting about how art depicts our politics — and how the nature of democratic politics can resist successful dramatization.In the real world, the last presidential election night saw Fox News call Arizona early (calling it correctly, though probably earlier than was justified by the extremely narrow margin), yielding fury from Donald Trump’s campaign and backlash from the Fox audience, whose drift toward other outlets helps explain why Fox allowed election conspiracy theories to run wild on some of its shows. It was a case study in the problem I described last week, where conservative media has ended up captive to the particular expectations of a large television audience — a demand for infotainment, reality-TV drama, good guys and bad guys, nothing that doesn’t make sense within the expected nightly narrative.In the world of “Succession,” the key election-night dilemma is somewhat similar — when to call a crucial state — but the dynamics are quite different. The show’s presidential election is disrupted by a fire (arson?) at a Milwaukee precinct that destroys thousands of ballots, leaving the right-wing candidate ahead pending litigation, and his campaign wants ATN (the show’s Fox News) to call Wisconsin for him immediately. The decision gets punted up to the Roy siblings, the would-be heirs to their recently deceased father’s corporate empire, and though there are references to what the ATN audience wants, the Roys end up making a very bad, republic-undermining decision for reasons internal to their family dynamics. The brothers, Kendall and Roman, want to keep the company rather than go through with a planned sale to a Scandinavian tech billionaire, the right-wing candidate has promised to block the deal for them if he’s elected, and their sister, Shiv, the liberal of the group, is playing her own double game that blows up in her face.A key question throughout the show’s seasons has been whether “Succession” is ultimately the drama of, well, succession promised by the title — a story in the style of “The Godfather,” where one of the main characters emerges as the (corrupted) heir to the father’s empire — or whether it’s headed for a version of the “Hamlet” ending, where everybody stabs or poisons everybody else and some outsider shows up to claim the throne. With two episodes left, the dice seem loaded for the second outcome: Failsons and a faildaughter lose their company and, oops, bring down the American republic along the way.But as a political drama, which “Succession” is at least secondarily, both of these narratives are essentially elite-driven and family-driven, suggesting a world where to understand what happens in American politics, you mostly need to understand the pressures and pathologies afflicting a narrow group of power brokers.Which is, certainly, part of the truth. I write a lot about elites, everybody writes a lot about elites, because as the word suggests they’re pretty important to figuring out what’s going on in society — and also because when you write about politics for a living, you’re often writing for an audience that thinks of itself as at least elite-adjacent, part of the professional class, the overclass, the meritocracy.Thus a lot of arguments about the Republican Party in the age of Trump necessarily revolve around what some segment of this overclass is getting wrong. Is it liberal elites whose failures and ideological fixations keep giving oxygen to populism? Or media elites who keep covering Trump the wrong way (with vast disagreements about what the right way would be)? Or conservative elites who just need to summon moral courage and stand up against demagogy? Or the entire elite that needs replacement by a better one, ideally forged by classically minded finishing schools and papal encyclicals? The answer varies but the narrative endures because “affecting some change in elite behavior” is the biggest lever that seems within a pundit’s reach.When I watch “Succession” with this mind-set, my main complaint about the show’s political vision is that it mostly leaves out a kind of Republican elite who would be connected to any Fox News-like enterprise. The show obviously has no trouble scripting the amoral cynics getting rich off a conservative base they secretly despise, and it does a decent job channeling the voice of the very-online right (the far-right presidential candidate has a weird patois that sounds like Robert Nisbet crossed with a Nietzschean edgelord). But it doesn’t have much representation for the more normal Republicans who definitely exist inside Fox World, the kind of people who believe in conventional conservative principles and end up compromising with populists they dislike because of liberals they fear more. The show can only imagine weird fanatics on the one hand, and on the other hand pure cynics who secretly know the liberals are right and they themselves are bad guys.But what’s really missing from the political drama on “Succession” isn’t just sincere, non-edgelord Republicans. It’s the crucial role of non-elites — mass opinion, “the people,” anything from a national majority to a primary-season electorate or just a particularly large television audience — as a force unto themselves, a gravity well that every elite stratagem has to work with or around.Sure, the people don’t rule in some naïve or simplistic sense; some kind of elite power is always fundamental. But from a dramatic point of view, the mass American public is as important a “character” in the story of right-wing populism as Rupert Murdoch or for that matter Trump himself. The people, in the form of the mass Fox News audience, drove what happened around and after the 2020 election more than any sibling rivalry inside the House of Murdoch. They’re why the alleged election fraud fiasco went down the way it went down. They’re why Carlson became a cable news ratings king. They’re why, since his firing, a lot fewer people have been watching Fox and Newsmax has been pulling in about as many viewers in its 8 p.m. time slot as CNN.The same point applies to democratic politics writ large. People in rooms talking drive a lot of political action, but if they drove all of it, Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio would have been the Republican nominee in 2016 (when Murdoch’s network was surprised and overwhelmed by Trumpism), Elizabeth Warren probably would have been the Democratic nominee in 2020 and Trump definitely wouldn’t be a leading candidate for the Republican nomination in 2024. Our elites can work to tame mass opinion, to master it or redirect it or find some means of resistance — but it’s always there, always doing something in the story.And if that’s a somewhat difficult thing for punditry to reckon with, at least we can write and talk about it in terms of opinion polling and television ratings and the like. Dramatizing the force of mass opinion artistically is much harder. It’s a big part of why there aren’t that many great novels or great movies about the workings of American democracy, relative to the monarchical systems of the past; one of the democratic age’s central characters, the mass public, is just really hard to realize on the page or on the screen.Likewise, a significant part of the contemporary appeal of both historical fiction and my own favored genre of fantasy is that they return politics to a period where the personal encompasses more of the political — where family rivalries and court intrigues loom larger, and mass politics means the occasional mob or the rampaging army but not the daily poll or the nightly ratings, the force of public opinion that lacks embodiment but constantly drives political action nonetheless.The elite world of “Succession,” where the patriarch Logan Roy was both a corporate king and a political kingmaker, is thus ultimately a kind of fantasy fiction, a George R.R. Martin-ish gloss on contemporary American politics: entertaining and smart and on point in some ways, hopefully headed for a more successful wrap than “Game of Thrones,” but finally inadequate to actual political reality, because it always leaves a protagonist offstage.Programming NotesFirst, a reminder that I’m part of a new Times podcast, “Matter of Opinion,” that comes out every Thursday; find the latest episodes here.Second, The Times has just introduced a new iOS app for audio journalism called New York Times Audio, featuring all our podcasts as well as narrated articles from across all our sections, from Opinion and Politics to Food and Sports. It includes the archive of “This American Life” and read-aloud stories from a range of national magazines. It’s available to Times news subscribers, and you can download it here.BreviaryNathan Pinkoski on the evolution of Francis Fukuyama.Scott Alexander compares Francis Galton and Paul Ehrlich.Alex de Waal on the war for Khartoum.Richard Rushfield and Matt Stoller on the Hollywood writers’ strike.Damon Linker tries to stabilize social liberalism. More

    • 125 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Fox Settles Dominion Suit, but Smartmatic Case and Others Loom

      by

      Another election technology company, Smartmatic, is suing news outlets, including Fox, over false claims of election fraud, and Dominion has other cases pending.On Tuesday, Fox News hastily agreed to pay $787.5 million to resolve a defamation suit filed by Dominion Voting Systems — among the largest settlements ever in a defamation case — just hours after the jury for the trial was selected. In addition to the whopping financial settlement, Fox conceded that “certain claims” it had made about Dominion were false.In settling with Dominion, the network avoided the possible embarrassment of a trial that could have exposed its inner workings. Rupert Murdoch, the 92-year-old Fox News founder, and the Fox host Tucker Carlson were potential witnesses.Dominion sued the cable news network two years ago, after it aired stories falsely claiming that Dominion’s voting machines were susceptible to hacking and had flipped votes to Joseph R. Biden Jr. that had been cast for Donald J. Trump, who was president.But the settlement with Dominion is not the only legal action that some news outlets are facing after making bogus claims about the 2020 elections.Dominion v. NewsmaxNewsmax apologized in 2021 for spreading false claims that a Dominion employee rigged voting machines.Callaghan O’Hare/ReutersIn 2021, the right-wing news outlet Newsmax formally apologized for spreading false allegations that an employee of Dominion had rigged voting machines. In a statement on its website, Newsmax said it had found “no evidence” that the Dominion employee, Eric Coomer, had manipulated voting machines in an effort to sabotage Mr. Trump’s re-election bid.“On behalf of Newsmax, we would like to apologize for any harm that our reporting of the allegations against Dr. Coomer may have caused to Dr. Coomer and his family,” the statement said.Dominion also sued Mike Lindell, the chief executive of MyPillow and an outspoken supporter of the former president, and two of Mr. Trump’s lawyers, Sidney Powell and Rudy W. Giuliani, for their baseless claims about election fraud. In 2021, a federal judge refused to throw out the suits against them. And in October, the Supreme Court declined to consider Mr. Lindell’s bid to fend off his suit. This month, he told The New York Times, “I will never back down, ever, ever, ever.” The lawsuits are ongoing.Smartmatic v. Fox NewsIn 2021, Fox News was also sued by Smartmatic, which provided voting technology in Los Angeles County for the 2020 election. In its complaint, Smartmatic wrote, “Fox joined the conspiracy to defame and disparage Smartmatic and its election technology and software,” adding, “The story led a mob to attack the U.S. Capitol.” The suit, filed in New York State Supreme Court, seeks at least $2.7 billion in damages.In February, a New York appeals court denied Fox’s request to dismiss the case, and a New York judge said last month that the case could proceed. A trial date has not been set.“We will be ready to defend this case surrounding extremely newsworthy events when it goes to trial, likely in 2025,” Fox News said in a statement on Wednesday.Smartmatic v. NewsmaxSmartmatic also brought defamation litigation against Newsmax, accusing it of spreading falsehoods about the company. Judge Eric M. Davis, who was also assigned to the Fox-Dominion trial, will preside. In February, Newsmax lost its bid to end the litigation, and Judge Davis let the case move forward.Smartmatic v. One America NewsThe headquarters of One America News in San Diego.The New York TimesIn 2021, Smartmatic also sued One America News Network, accusing the news organization of airing disinformation about the 2020 election even after the company warned it to stop. In June, a judge denied a request to dismiss the lawsuit.Lou DobbsThis month — days before jury selection began for the Dominion case — Fox News and Lou Dobbs, a former longtime Fox Business host and loyal Trump supporter, settled a defamation case with Majed Khalil, a Venezuelan businessman. Mr. Dobbs and Ms. Powell, a regular guest on Fox News, falsely claimed on the air and in related Twitter posts that Mr. Khalil had been part of a conspiracy to flip votes. One of the tweets said he was “the effective ‘COO’ of the election project.” Fox canceled Mr. Dobbs’s show in February 2021. More

    • 125 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Conservative Media Pay Little Attention to Revelations About Fox News

      by

      Even in today’s highly partisan media world, experts said, the lack of coverage about the private comments of Fox’s top executives and hosts stands out.Fox News and its sister network, Fox Business, have avoided the story. Newsmax and One America News, Fox’s rivals on the right, have steered clear, too. So have a constellation of right-wing websites and podcasts.Over the past two weeks, legal filings containing private messages and testimony from Fox hosts and executives revealed that many of them had serious doubts that Democrats stole the 2020 presidential election through widespread voter fraud, even as those claims were made repeatedly on Fox’s shows. The revelations, made public in a defamation lawsuit against Fox brought by Dominion Voting Systems, have generated headlines around the world.But in the conservative media world? Mostly crickets.On 26 of the most popular conservative television news networks, radio shows, podcasts and websites, only four — The National Review, Townhall, The Federalist and Breitbart News — have mentioned the private messages from Fox News hosts that disparaged election fraud claims since Feb. 16, when the first batch of court filings were released publicly, according to a review by The New York Times.The majority — 18 in all, including Fox News itself — did not cover the lawsuit at all with their own staff. (Some of those 18 published wire stories originally written by The Associated Press or other services.)Four outlets mentioned the lawsuit in some way, but did not mention the comments from Fox News hosts. One of those, The Gateway Pundit, published three articles that included additional unfounded allegations about Dominion, including a suggestion that security vulnerabilities at one election site using Dominion machines could have led to some fraud, despite no evidence that votes were mismanaged.“These results are shocking,” one article asserted.The Gateway Pundit did not respond to requests for comment.Even in a media world often divided along partisan lines, the paucity of coverage stands out, media experts said. And it means that many of the people who heard the conspiracy theories about election fraud on Fox’s networks may not be learning that Fox’s leaders and on-air stars privately dismissed those claims.The Spread of Misinformation and FalsehoodsCutting Back: Job cuts in the social media industry reflect a trend that threatens to undo many of the safeguards that platforms have put in place to ban or tamp down on disinformation.A Key Case: The outcome of a federal court battle could help decide whether the First Amendment is a barrier to virtually any government efforts to stifle disinformation.A Top Misinformation Spreader: A large study found that Steve Bannon’s “War Room” podcast had more falsehoods and unsubstantiated claims than other political talk shows.Artificial Intelligence: For the first time, A.I.-generated personas were detected in a state-aligned disinformation campaign, opening a new chapter in online manipulation.“Choosing not to do stories is a form of bias,” said Tom Rosenstiel, a veteran press critic and a journalism professor at the University of Maryland. “The things you ignore and the things you choose to highlight are an important part of how you show whether you are a serious news organization.”Mainstream news organizations often report on themselves when they are at the center of a scandal, Mr. Rosenstiel said, because they get “much more credit when they expose the lens on themselves as aggressively as they would anyone else.”Who Is Covering Dominion’s Lawsuit?A review of 26 conservative news and opinion sources showed little coverage of Dominion Voting Systems’ defamation lawsuit against Fox News. More

    • 163 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Fox Leaders Wanted to Break From Trump but Struggled to Make It Happen

      by

      Executives and top hosts found themselves in a bind after Donald Trump began pushing unfounded claims about election fraud, court filings show.Five days after a pro-Trump mob attacked the U.S. Capitol, a board member of the Fox Corporation, Anne Dias, reached out to Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch with an urgent plea.“Considering how important Fox News has been as a megaphone for Donald Trump,” she said, it was time “to take a stance.” Ms. Dias, who sounded shaken by the riot, said she thought Fox News and the nation faced “an existential moment.”As quickly as the two Murdochs began discussing how to respond, their bind became evident.“Just tell her we have been talking internally and intensely,” Rupert Murdoch, whose family controls the company, wrote in an email. Fox News, he told his son, “is pivoting as fast as possible.” But he sounded a note of caution: “We have to lead our viewers, which is not as easy as it might seem.”Ever since Donald J. Trump announced his presidential campaign in 2015, Rupert Murdoch and his Fox News Channel have struggled with how to handle the man and the movement they helped create.“Navigating” the delicate balance between truth and “crazy” was how Mr. Murdoch described his challenge in emails made public this week as part of Dominion Voting Systems’ $1.6 billion defamation lawsuit against Fox News, which is expected to go to trial in April.For the most part, Mr. Murdoch has been wildly successful at striking the balance. Fox converted Mr. Trump’s mass following into loyal viewers who deliver Mr. Murdoch and his shareholders huge profits.A 2018 headline about President Donald J. Trump that was displayed outside Fox News studios in New York.Mark Lennihan/Associated PressBut the emails among the Murdochs and the senior leadership of their companies, along with depositions of both men as part of the case, revealed just how Fox and its leaders strained to push back against Mr. Trump when he began spreading unfounded claims about widespread election fraud.The leadership of Fox and its star hosts are often viewed from the outside as power brokers in Republican politics — with much justification. But in the wake of the election, they appeared fearful of alienating Mr. Trump’s supporters, almost to the point of powerlessness, court filings containing internal communications and depositions show.Privately, the executives and hosts expressed despair and disgust at the Trump associates who were using Fox News’s platforms to spread bogus allegations of voter fraud. Yet the wishes of the audience — or how the network’s executives interpreted them — dictated which guests were booked, what kind of new programming was created, what correspondents could say on the air and even which people lost their jobs, according to the details in a 212-page brief that Dominion filed in a Delaware state court this week.Understand the Events on Jan. 6Timeline: On Jan. 6, 2021, 64 days after Election Day 2020, a mob of supporters of President Donald J. Trump raided the Capitol. Here is a close look at how the attack unfolded.A Day of Rage: Using thousands of videos and police radio communications, a Times investigation reconstructed in detail what happened — and why.Lost Lives: A bipartisan Senate report found that at least seven people died in connection with the attack.Jan. 6 Attendees: To many of those who attended the Trump rally but never breached the Capitol, that date wasn’t a dark day for the nation. It was a new start.Fox News has expressed confidence that Dominion’s claims will fall apart once their full context becomes apparent at the trial. “Dominion blatantly misconstrued the facts by cherry-picking sound bites, omitting key context and mischaracterizing the record,” a Fox News spokeswoman said.As it became evident that some of Fox’s audience was turning against it after it projected President Biden’s victory, and viewers started switching to hard-right alternatives like Newsmax, people inside the network scrambled to stanch the bleeding.Even as executives raised concerns about Mr. Trump to one another, they came down hard on those seen as too tough on him.Eleven days after the election, for instance, Lachlan Murdoch became irritated watching the Fox News correspondent Leland Vittert’s reporting on a pro-Trump rally in Washington, considering it too critical. Mr. Murdoch called Mr. Vittert’s coverage “smug and obnoxious” in a message to Suzanne Scott, chief executive of Fox News Media. Ms. Scott responded that she was “calling now,” to direct someone to relay the message to the correspondent and his producer.As word of Mr. Murdoch’s complaint made its way down the food chain, the executive in charge of Fox’s weekend programming, David Clark, also weighed in, telling a colleague in an email that he had texted Mr. Vittert “and told him to cut it out.”To Lachlan Murdoch, there seemed to be no detail too small to complain about if he believed it was hurting the bond that Fox News had forged with its audience over the years. He also complained to Ms. Scott at one point about what he saw as the negative tone toward Mr. Trump in the chyron — the block of text that appears at the bottom of the screen. It was too wordy, he said, and too negative about the president.Lachlan Murdoch complained that a Fox News reporter’s coverage of a pro-Trump rally was “smug and obnoxious.”Mike Cohen for The New York TimesRupert Murdoch offered Ms. Scott suggestions on booking guests who were known to Trump supporters as loyal defenders. One person he proposed in late November 2020 was the former national security adviser Michael T. Flynn, who had pleaded guilty in 2017 to lying to federal investigators about his contacts with a Russian ambassador. A week after Mr. Murdoch sent his note, Dominion’s filing says, Mr. Flynn appeared on Maria Bartiromo’s Fox Business program.The elder Mr. Murdoch also told Ms. Scott to get rid of a senior Fox News manager, Bill Sammon, telling her that it would go a long way with the former president’s core supporters. “Maybe best to let Bill go right away,” he told Ms. Scott on Nov. 20. Mr. Sammon ran the network’s Washington bureau and oversaw the unit that was responsible for Fox’s early — and correct — decision to project that Mr. Biden would win Arizona. That call had infuriated Mr. Trump and his supporters.Mr. Murdoch explained to Ms. Scott that the firing would “be a big message with Trump people.” According to the Dominion brief, Mr. Sammon was told that he was being let go that same day.As Fox executives stamped out skepticism of Mr. Trump in the network’s coverage, they also grew disillusioned with the increasing amount of “crazy” on their airwaves, as Rupert Murdoch described the Trump legal adviser Sidney Powell in an email to a friend, according to the legal filings. By early December 2020, as Mr. Trump’s claims of being cheated grew more far-fetched, Mr. Murdoch acknowledged how difficult it had become to continue delivering coverage that didn’t insult loyal, pro-Trump viewers without stating the obvious: The president was lying to them about his loss.In one message to Ms. Scott, Mr. Murdoch lamented Mr. Trump’s performance at a rally in Georgia where he called for Gov. Brian Kemp to help overturn the election, as well as other recent comments from the president. “All making it harder to straddle the issue! We should talk through this,” he wrote.After Jan. 6, 2021, as hopes among many conservatives skeptical of Mr. Trump swelled that the Republican Party might finally be done with him, some of his biggest stalwarts inside Fox News seemed to be backing away from him — even the host Sean Hannity, one of Mr. Trump’s most dedicated on-air supporters, according to Mr. Murdoch’s emails.“Wake-up call for Hannity,” Mr. Murdoch wrote in an email on Jan. 12, 2021, to Paul D. Ryan, the former Republican speaker of the House and a Fox Corporation board member. Mr. Murdoch explained that the host had been “privately disgusted by Trump for weeks, but was scared to lose viewers.”For a time, at least. It did not take long for Mr. Hannity and other prime-time hosts, including Tucker Carlson, to begin talking about the attack and its aftermath as Mr. Trump and his supporters preferred.In the opening monologue of one of his shows in June 2022, with a congressional investigation into the assault in full swing, Mr. Hannity told his audience, “January 6 is just another excuse to smear Donald Trump and anyone who supports them.” More

    • 100 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      What Fox News Says When You’re Not Listening

      by

      People who remember Fox News host Tucker Carlson as a bow-tied creature of establishment Washington often wonder what happened to him. Twenty years ago, he was a preppy Beltway habitué and impishly libertarian magazine writer; a wryly affectionate account of Al Sharpton in Liberia that he wrote for Esquire was nominated for a National Magazine Award. Now he’s the sneering, conspiracy-obsessed host of what The New York Times called possibly “the most racist show in the history of cable news.”As The Times wrote, there’s a long-running debate about “whether Mr. Carlson’s show is merely lucrative theater or an expression of his true values.” By most accounts, Carlson shares Donald Trump’s deep cultural resentments. But as an explosive new court filing in Dominion Voting Systems’ defamation lawsuit against Fox News demonstrates, in trying to explain why Carlson and many of his colleagues do what they do, we shouldn’t underestimate simple greed.The brief, a motion for summary judgment in a case stemming from Fox’s egregiously false claims of Dominion-abetted election fraud, offers a portrait of extravagant cynicism. It reveals how obsessed Carlson and other leading Fox News figures were with audience share, and their fear of being outflanked by even further-right outlets like Newsmax.“It’s remarkable how weak ratings make good journalists do bad things,” Bill Sammon, a Fox senior vice president until 2021, is quoted as saying. It’s a line that would fall flat on “Succession” because it’s too absurdly on the nose.As the Dominion filing lays out, there was panic at Fox News over viewer backlash to the network correctly calling Arizona for Joe Biden on election night. Despite its accuracy, the call was viewed, internally, as a catastrophe.“Do the executives understand how much credibility and trust we’ve lost with our audience?” Carlson texted his producer. He added, “An alternative like Newsmax could be devastating to us.” Sean Hannity, in an exchange with fellow hosts Carlson and Laura Ingraham, fretted about the “incalculable” damage the Arizona projection did to the Fox News brand and worried about a competitor emerging: “Serious $$ with serious distribution could be a real problem.”Hyping false claims about election fraud was a way for Fox to win its audience back. While the Arizona call was “damaging,” Fox News C.E.O. Suzanne Scott wrote in a text to Fox executive Lachlan Murdoch, Rupert Murdoch’s son, “We will highlight our stars and plant flags letting the viewers know we hear them and respect them.”When Fox News reporter Jacqui Heinrich fact-checked Trump’s wild claims about Dominion on Twitter, Carlson was enraged and tried to get her fired. “It needs to stop immediately, like tonight,” he texted Hannity. “It’s measurably hurting the company. The stock price is down. Not a joke.” (Heinrich kept her job but deleted the tweet.)The network knew, of course, that Trump’s lawyer Sidney Powell, a chief promoter of Dominion conspiracy theories, was a delusional fantasist. The legal brief reveals that some of her claims about Dominion were based on an email Powell had received from someone who claimed to be capable of “time travel in a semiconscious state.” On Nov. 18, 2020, Carlson told Ingraham: “Sidney Powell is lying by the way. Caught her. It’s insane.” Ingraham wrote back that Powell was a “complete nut.”But according to the Dominion brief, an analysis by Ron Mitchell, the senior vice president for prime-time programming and analytics, found that “Fox viewers were switching the channel specifically to watch Sidney Powell as a guest” on Newsmax. A few days after this analysis, Powell was a guest on Hannity’s show.At one point, Carlson did express skepticism of Powell on-air, noting on Nov. 19 that she had never produced evidence for her claims. “Maybe Sidney Powell will come forward soon with details on exactly how this happened, and precisely who did it,” he said, adding, “We are certainly hopeful that she will.”Even this gentle note of doubt produced viewer pushback, though most of a message about it from Fox executive Raj Shah is redacted. Afterward, Carlson seems to have given up trying to steer his audience away from total credulity about Trump’s stolen election claims, even though he privately called Trump a “demonic force.” On Jan. 26, Carlson hosted MyPillow founder Mike Lindell on his show and let him sound off about Dominion without resistance. In fairness, Carlson may have had a motive for indulging Lindell besides grubbing for ratings. As Media Matters for America pointed out, MyPillow at the time was Carlson’s single biggest advertiser.It’s certainly true that all cable news shows program with ratings in mind. MSNBC — where, full disclosure, I’m a contributor — pays much closer attention to various Trump scandals than to climate change or the war in Ukraine because it’s catering to its audience. But there is no analogue for the way Fox treats its viewers.In addition to MSNBC, in the past I’ve appeared a number of times on CNN. Sometimes hosts are a little saltier when the cameras aren’t rolling, but I don’t recall ever hearing any daylight between the views they express on-air and off. Fox News is unique in its bad faith.“Respecting this audience whether we agree or not is critical,” Hannity texted on Nov. 24. It’s a version of respect indistinguishable from contempt.The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More

    • 113 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Newsmax Renews Deal to Be Carried by Verizon’s Fios

      by

      Newsmax, a news network that amplified the falsehood that the 2020 presidential election had been rigged against Donald J. Trump, reached a deal to continue to be distributed by Verizon’s Fios network just days after the telecom company said it was dropping another right-wing broadcaster.A spokeswoman for Verizon confirmed the renewal, which Newsmax described as a “multiyear” deal in a statement posted to its website on Wednesday.The deal comes shortly after Verizon said it was no longer going to carry One America News after this week. Both networks are known for their loyalty to Mr. Trump, the former president, and for serving as platforms for his debunked claims of rampant voter fraud in the 2020 election.Along with the much larger Fox News, they face defamation lawsuits over some of those claims. Dominion Voting Systems, the election technology company that became a target of pro-Trump conspiracy theories after the 2020 election, is seeking $1.6 billion from each network.Last year, facing a lawsuit from a Dominion employee, Newsmax issued a formal apology for spreading allegations that the worker had rigged voting machines against Mr. Trump. In a statement at the time, Newsmax acknowledged that it had “no evidence” for the claims.But the network has also argued with the merits of Dominion’s case, saying it was reporting on allegations made by Trump supporters.“Dominion is claiming because we had Trump and his supporters on air that we defamed them,” Bill Daddi, a representative for the company, wrote in an email on Thursday.Verizon said its decision to drop OAN was the result of their inability to agree on the terms of a new distribution deal. Verizon’s Fios service will stop carrying OAN starting on Saturday. More

    • 113 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Rent Board Votes for 3.25% Increase on One-Year Leases

      by

      Two million New Yorkers who live in rent-stabilized apartments will be affected by increases approved at a raucous meeting of the Rent Guidelines Board.Good morning. It’s Wednesday. We’ll look at rent increases that are on the way for two million New Yorkers. We’ll also catch up on the final debate between the Republicans running for governor.Seth Wenig/Associated PressTo the list of items that cost more in 2022 than in 2021, add rent in New York City.As expected in a year when other consumer staples like food and gasoline have surged, the panel that regulates rents in the city approved increases for tenants — 3.25 percent on one-year leases and 5 percent on two-year leases.Housing advocates had pressed for a rent freeze or even a rollback, while landlords had argued that buildings would inevitably deteriorate unless rental income kept pace with expenses. The increases cover about one million rent-stabilized homes, which account for about 28 percent of the city’s housing stock and 44 percent of the rentals.The rent board session was raucous, with audience members blowing whistles and shouting slogans like “housing is a human right.” When the board chairman, David Reiss, outlined the reasons for the increases, dozens of people stood up, turned their backs to him and chanted, drowning him out.The 5-to-4 vote was a setback for tenants, as Mayor Eric Adams acknowledged in a statement after the vote. He said the increases would “unfortunately be a burden to tenants at this difficult time — and that is disappointing.” But he also expressed sympathy for small landlords who he said “are at risk of bankruptcy because of years of no increases at all.”The vote by the board was the first since Adams took office, and as my colleague Mihir Zaveri writes, the board took a different approach than it had under Adams’s predecessor, Bill de Blasio. The highest annual increases during his time in City Hall were 1.5 percent on one-year leases and 2.75 percent on two-year leases.But with the average rent on a newly leased Manhattan apartment reaching $4,975 in May — up 22 percent from 2021, according to the real estate firm Douglas Elliman — the rent-stabilization system has become a crucial source of affordable housing. The median monthly rent for rent-stabilized apartments is $1,400, according to a recent city survey, compared with $1,845 for unregulated homes. And the median income for people living in rent-stabilized homes is about $47,000, compared with $62,960 in unregulated homes.The last time there was a significant increase — 4 percent on one-year leases and 7.75 percent on two-year leases — was in 2013, the last year de Blasio’s predecessor, Michael Bloomberg, was in office.But the board has allowed far higher increases in the past. In July 1980, at a time of high inflation and a gas crisis, the board sanctioned 17 percent increases on three-year leases on apartments where the landlord provided heat. For apartments where tenants provided heat, the figure was 9 percent.On Tuesday Adán Soltren, whom Adams appointed as one of two tenant representatives, voted against the increases. He called the decision to support them “unjust” and told his colleagues, “Your decision will result in millions of people suffering while corporations and investors continue to profit.”Christina Smyth, one of two board members representing landlords, called the increases inadequate. “We are risking the decay of rent-stabilized housing,” she said.WeatherExpect a chance of showers with temperatures near 70. At night, showers and thunderstorms are likely with temps in the mid-60s.ALTERNATE-SIDE PARKINGIn effect until July 4 (Independence Day).The latest Metro newsCharles Fox/The Philadelphia Inquirer, via Associated PressWildfires: The Mullica River fire in Wharton State Forest in South Jersey has burned about 13,500 acres, threatening to become the state’s largest fire in 15 years.New Jersey hoopers: Although New Jersey was home to some of basketball’s greats, historically it has struggled to escape New York’s shadow. But a wave of rising stars in boys’ basketball could shift the trend.Arts & CultureCurtains up, masks off: Broadway theaters will be allowed to drop their mask mandates starting July 1. The Broadway League described the new policy as “mask optional” and said it would be re-evaluated monthly.Best in show: The Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show is underway — not at Madison Square Garden but, for a second year, on the sunny grounds of a Gothic Revival mansion in Tarrytown, N.Y.The Stonewall uprising: The Stonewall National Monument Visitor Center, which will open in 2024 as the first in the national park system devoted to the gay rights movement, will commemorate the 1969 Stonewall uprising and its legacy.DiscoOasis: Roller skating is enjoying another flash of popularity. DiscOasis in Central Park sets itself apart from New York’s other rinks with production values and theatricality.Republican candidates for governor spar againPool photo by Brittainy NewmanIn an hour that turned increasingly contentious, the four Republicans running for governor of New York appeared together one last time, making their case before the primary next week.They spent much of the hour, broadcast on the conservative news channel Newsmax, playing to the Republican base, describing their devotion to former President Donald J. Trump and their disdain for Gov. Kathy Hochul, the incumbent Democrat they hope to replace.“Kathy Hochul is going to get fired,” declared Representative Lee Zeldin, a four-term congressman from Long Island who was chosen as the party’s designee at a convention in March. “I’m looking forward to removing her from this office.”Zeldin was flanked on the stage of the Kodak Center in Rochester, N.Y., by the three other Republicans who also want to run against Hochul — Rob Astorino, a former Westchester County executive; Andrew Giuliani, the son of former Mayor Rudolph Giuliani of New York City; and Harry Wilson, a corporate turnaround specialist who, as an official on President Barack Obama’s automotive task force, helped take General Motors in and out of bankruptcy.After about 40 relatively restrained minutes, the sniping intensified, with Giuliani calling Zeldin “a flip-flopper” and Zeldin saying Giuliani’s “claim to fame” was that the actor Chris Farley had mocked him on “Saturday Night Live” 30 years ago “for being,” Zeldin said, “an obnoxious kid.”As the candidates talked over each other, the moderator, Eric Bolling of Newsmax, tried to reassert control. “Gentlemen, I love the heat, I love the heat,” he said.Giuliani — who has said that he sees his father and Trump as models for the kind of governor he aspires to be — was making his first in-person debate appearance. In the first two Republican debates, hosted by stations in New York City, Giuliani, 36, took part from a separate location because he was unvaccinated. But on Tuesday, he was on the same stage.Talking about his time in the Trump administration, he said, “When I think about the work I did with President Trump in the White House, that’s the kind of change that we need in Albany.”Zeldin, who was once considered a moderate, has also been a Trump stalwart, though in a debate on Monday night he stopped short of saying the 2020 election had been stolen. On Tuesday in Rochester, he seemed more attentive to Trump’s signature policies, saying he believed that the former president’s border wall should be completed.Asked what they would do to reduce crime, Giuliani and Zeldin said they would fire Alvin Bragg, the Manhattan district attorney. Wilson said it was “unacceptable for New Yorkers to live on unsafe streets” and said that “an extended family member” had been killed recently “by someone out on cashless bail” — his term for a change in state bail law that Democrats in Albany pushed through in 2019 and Republicans want rolled back.Giuliani said that on his first day as governor, he would tell the leaders of the Assembly and the State Senate, both Democrats, that without a “full repeal” of the bail law, “I’m not funding anything in our upcoming budget negotiations.”Bolling asked the candidates about inflation, abortion and Medicaid fraud. Wilson promised deep reductions in property taxes and income taxes, as did the other candidates. And despite the recent racist massacre in Buffalo, none of the four supported any new gun control measures, with Zeldin saying the state’s gun laws “go too far as is.”METROPOLITAN diaryOverheardDear Diary:I was on the M104, and a woman was talking loudly on her phone. She was explaining to whomever she was talking to about how she had flirted with a guy to make her ex jealous.At one point, her voice became a mumble, and the man sitting across from her interrupted.“Excuse me, can you please raise your voice?” he said. “It sort of dropped and we couldn’t hear what happened.”The other passengers applauded.— Ivy ManskyIllustrated by Agnes Lee. Send submissions here and read more Metropolitan Diary here.Glad we could get together here. See you tomorrow. — J.B.P.S. Here’s today’s Mini Crossword and Spelling Bee. You can find all our puzzles here.Melissa Guerrero More

    • 113 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Newsmax Debate Lends N.Y. Governor’s Race a Far-Right Glow

      by

      The four Republican candidates for governor of New York faced off in their third and final debate before the June 28 primary.The four Republican candidates for governor of New York made their closing pitch to voters on Tuesday night, voicing devotion to President Trump and his policies, disdain for gun control and abortion, and worries about crime and immigration. The debate, at Kodak Center in Rochester, N.Y., was hosted by Newsmax, a network known for amplifying the Republican Party’s rightward tilt, and represented the third and final clash between the quartet of conservatives vying to unseat Gov. Kathy Hochul, the incumbent Democrat who is expected to win her own primary on June 28.And as was fitting for its host, the candidates spent much of the debate playing to the party’s base, as well as taking shots at the Democratic incumbent.“Kathy Hochul is going to get fired,” said Representative Lee M. Zeldin, a four-term congressman from Long Island, who was chosen as his party’s designee at a party convention earlier this year. “I’m looking forward to removing her from this office.”Mr. Zeldin, the putative front-runner in a race with little definitive polling, was joined by Rob Astorino, the former Westchester County executive making his second run for governor; Andrew Giuliani, the son of the former New York City mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani; and Harry Wilson, a corporate turnaround specialist.In the first two Republican debates, hosted by networks in New York City, Mr. Giuliani was required to participate from a separate location, because he was unvaccinated, something he says comports with his general disdain for government mandates, a sentiment echoed by the other candidates, despite the lifting of many pertaining to Covid.But on Tuesday, he was welcomed into the fray, smiling in front of a live audience, which openly cheered and jeered the candidates.A Guide to New York’s 2022 Primary ElectionsAs prominent Democratic officials seek to defend their records, Republicans see opportunities to make inroads in general election races.Governor’s Race: Gov. Kathy Hochul, the incumbent, will face off against Jumaane Williams and Tom Suozzi in a Democratic primary on June 28.Adams’s Endorsement: The New York City mayor gave Ms. Hochul a valuable, if belated, endorsement that could help her shore up support among Black and Latino voters.15 Democrats, 1 Seat: A Trump prosecutor. An ex-congressman. Bill de Blasio. A newly redrawn House district in New York City may be one of the largest and most freewheeling primaries in the nation.Maloney vs. Nadler: The new congressional lines have put the two stalwart Manhattan Democrats on a collision course in the Aug. 23 primary.Offensive Remarks: Carl P. Paladino, a Republican running for a House seat in Western New York, recently drew backlash for praising Adolf Hitler in an interview dating back to 2021.“It’s nice to be with you in person,” he said.Mr. Giuliani, 36, has tried to position himself as the race’s most right-wing candidate, saying, for instance, on Tuesday that he would “bring morality back to this state” in reference to abortion. He has also professed belief in conspiracy theories that Mr. Trump had won the 2020 election, the outcome of which he called “one of the greatest crimes in American history.”Mr. Giuliani, who is making his first run for public office, worked for four years in the Trump administration and has actively sought the former president’s backing, saying that he uses Mr. Trump and his father as a model for what kind of governor he would be.Mr. Zeldin, once considered a moderate, has also been a staunch supporter of Mr. Trump, though on Monday night he stopped short of saying the election was stolen. On Tuesday, Mr. Zeldin seemed more zealous about Mr. Trump’s legacy, saying he believed that the former president’s border wall should be completed.The debate is the latest sponsored by Newsmax, which has found a niche in conservative circles in the wake of the 2020 election, often by broadcasting baseless theories about the race. The company has since been sued by several companies which make election technologies.The candidates answered questions from the debate moderator, Eric Bolling, a Newsmax host.NewsmaxIn early May, the network was the host of a Republican debate for a U.S. Senate seat in Pennsylvania, moderated by Greta Van Susteren, which included spirited discussion of the drug trade across the nation’s southern border, the perils of “wokeness,” and whether China should pay “reparations for Covid.” (The primary’s winner, the celebrity doctor Mehmet Oz, said yes, as did several others.)The moderator on Tuesday was Eric Bolling, a former Fox News host who has conducted a number of interviews with Mr. Trump, including one on Monday in which the former president said that “so many” of the rioters who ransacked the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, were “well-behaved.”In addition to hot-button social issues, Mr. Bolling also asked policy questions about inflation, Medicaid fraud and economic concerns, with Mr. Wilson promising property tax and income tax cuts, something embraced by the other candidates as well.Republicans haven’t won a statewide race in New York in two decades, but are hopeful in a year in which Democrats are facing serious political headwinds, with Ms. Hochul polling poorly on issues like crime and the economy, and waging a low-key campaign thus far.Despite the recent racist massacre at a Buffalo supermarket, about 70 miles to the west of the debate site, none of the candidates supported any new gun control, with Mr. Zeldin saying the state’s gun laws — some of the strongest in the nation — “go too far as is.”Mr. Astorino, who lost in 2014 to the incumbent, Andrew M. Cuomo, has stressed his experience as an executive in Westchester County, describing a state “in chaos” and arguing during the debate that a “leftist agenda” was “coddling criminals.”Mr. Wilson suggested something similar, saying, “the problem is criminals, the mentally ill, and the purveyors of hate,” rather than law-abiding New Yorkers.Likewise, Mr. Wilson has said that New York has been mismanaged, but has conspicuously stayed clear of most social issues; a top official in President Obama’s automotive task force, who says he did not vote for Mr. Trump, Mr. Wilson has sought to find a middle lane in the race, voicing support for abortion rights, for instance.A lawyer and active military reservist, Mr. Zeldin periodically tried to convey a sense of statesmanship in earlier debates, reeling off a series of policy proposals, including allowing fracking in the state and rolling back changes in bail laws that conservatives have successfully used against Democrats in previous elections.At the same time, however, Mr. Wilson and Mr. Zeldin have had a series of fiery exchanges. Monday night in Manhattan, each man called the other a “fraud.”The animus was evident again on Tuesday, with other candidates joining in on attacks, including Mr. Giuliani, who called Mr. Zeldin “a child” and a “flip-flopper” on his support for Mr. Trump.Mr. Zeldin fired back at Mr. Giuliani, too, saying that his claim to fame was famously mugging for the camera during his father’s first inauguration in 1994, and then being mocked on “Saturday Night Live.” He belittled Mr. Giuliani’s time with the Trump administration, describing his duties as “Chick-fil-A runner at the White House.”The debate descended into a fit of cross-talk and bickering after Mr. Bolling asked whether the candidates would commit to endorsing the primary winner, something Mr. Giuliani, Mr. Astorino and Mr. Wilson agreed to.Mr. Zeldin, though, was more circumspect, saying merely that he’d “be supporting the primary winner next Tuesday,” while implying it would be him.Despite the clashes, there were some lighter moments. Mr. Giuliani has been regularly joined by his father on the campaign trail, including on Tuesday in Rochester. He was asked whether he was merely running on his family name, an accusation that also dogged Mr. Cuomo, a Democrat whose father was also governor, and who resigned last August.“People would say, ‘Well, with a famous last name its easy to run in politics,’” Mr. Giuliani said. “I would tell you with a name like Andrew, it’s very difficult to be the leading candidate for governor.” More